Katie's Ratings Set Record Low

[BRNout]

Sure, I'd take $15 million. But don't forget: Katie
is managing editor of the CBS Evening News, so
the broadcast is going to, to some extent, reflect
her tastes and journalistic point of view.

Barbara Walters and Harry Reasoner were a textbook
definition of hostility; after awhile they didn't even
appear together on camera (Harry was especially
hostile, since the year before he'd gotten his chance
to anchor solo, not that it did ABC's ratings any good).
So what happened? ABC revamped the format as World
News Tonight (or World News, as it's called now) and we
all know how that turned out.

Your question about Diane Sawyer is impossible to answer,
but I believe she projects more authority than Katie. I'm
not sure she could be number one but I think (just on gut
feeling) she would improve CBS's numbers.

I think a better choice for a female anchor would be one
of three: Jane Pauley, Lesley Stahl, or Christiane Amanpour
(sp?).

I don't know that Christiane Amanpour would be a good choice as anchor - simply because she does not have the smooth delivery (i.e. her accent and rough speaking style) and level of sophistication that this job requires. Has nothing to do with her gender - she is a no-nonsense reporter; but that does not make you anchor material.

Frankly, I do not think that any of the women that you listed would see success as a main anchor. Jane Pauley could have done okay, at one time, but that time has passed. Lesley doesn't have the personality for it.

One problem that I see is that, too often, the networks (and consultants) push flash and looks over substance. While its nice to see some eye candy on camera, the public's taste for the main anchor position is not one that allows for eye candy unless there is the background and experience to back it up. Generally, there isn't. In other words, the quest for good looks has adversely impacted the female talent pool. Many women who have the intellect to eventually ascend to the position of anchor are being passed over in favor of others who "test well".

Those who may "test well" also end up getting piegon-holed into doing style features and lighter fare. This is also a problem; just look at Diane Sawyer and your reasons for not liking her as main anchor. And, how many older women find out that their contracts haven't been renewed - and that they are being replaced by younger (and cheaper) talent? It's tougher on them as they age than it is for men. Both phoenomena have cut waaaay back on the pool of potential female anchors.

At the moment, I cannot think of one woman who has the skills, strength, and credibility to knock off Brian or Charlie. Most of those in the wings are far too Katie-like (i.e. Ann Curry, Campbell Brown, Hannah Storm [a hottie], Robin Roberts, etc.) and lack the skills that someone like Charlie Gibson has. All do too much feature stuff.

By the way, someone mentioned Connie Chung. She WAS great anchor material - before self destructing. Sorry to say, but she ruined her own career by hitching her wagon to Maury - then giving that bizarre song performance. She's done - and it has nothing to do with her being a woman.

BTW - Men are also suffering from this malady, but not quite as badly. Nonetheless, look who is doing the best of the big three: the venerable Charlie Gibson. Who is fairly old school. The more modern, blow dried, anchors still cannot pull them in the way that he can.

 

[Al Timiter]

Carol Costello (CNN)=Yummy. Just thought I'd throw that out there. I know this is a discussion about Journalistic credentials but she's HOT.

 

[Al Johnson]

It had to happen that somebody from the politically correct world would play the sexism card. If someone from an entitlement group doesn't cut it, it's never their fault.

Maybe it's not entirely their fault.
For 30 years, networks and stations have been hiring news people based on looks. Somebody says "she's hot" and they put her in front of a camera and a teleprompter. They hire cheerleaders and home-coming queens. The girls you wanted to [edit], not the ones you'd ask for help with a term paper. And then act surprised when nobody takes them seriously in a serious role.

Maybe broadcasters should go back to a system that actually worked. Forget pretty people who lack the talent and discipline to be actors. Look for some newspaper and wire service reporters who have covered news and done well at it, are personable and well-spoken, and teach them how to read to a camera. Give them some time on a small O&O or cable to become seasoned and comfortable with the medium and then turn them loose.

 

[formeraa]

ABC revamped the format as World
News Tonight (or World News, as it's called now) and we
all know how that turned out.

Yeah, all three of the anchors are now DEAD! But, seriously, it was a great career booster for an uneducated Peter Jennings (but he had the trademark Canadian/British-sounding accent that we all love).

It really says something about women newscasters, if you can't think of anyone with the skills to rival Charles or Brian.

 

[bpatrick]

WNT picked up a sizable viewership from
day one, if only because it looked
different from CBS and NBC's newscasts.
But despite the three-anchor format, the
"stinger" music, and all the rest, it was a
highly professional newscast. The event
that gave ABC the credibility it had long
sought was, of course, the Iranian hostage
crisis, which also led to the creation of
"Nightline" and the rise of "Good Morning
America" to number one at 7 AM for a time.

I'm afraid the point is well taken that the
women I mentioned will never see an anchor
chair. They are the best I can think of, but
I can see the liabilities (Jane Pauley might have
had her best shot when she left the "Today" show).

But here's the bottom line: Anchors have to make
the viewer believe they know what they are talking
about. Last election night, Bob Schieffer had to come
in and prop up Katie, who didn't seem to know beans about the
various contests. Look at the anchors of the past:
Walter Cronkite was a reporter for the United Press
(later UPI) during World War II; David Brinkley covered
Washington for NBC during the John Cameron Swayze
era; Howard K. Smith was one of the Murrow boys;
Dan Rather never turned down a chance to go
anywhere, and both he and Tom Brokaw made their
names covering Watergate; Peter Jennings we all know
about; and Brian Williams has won awards for his reporting
of Hurricane Katrina. How much actual hard-news reporting
did Katie do in the wake of 9/11 (I wasn't watching her)?

In fairness to Katie, no one questioned Mike Wallace's
credentials when he became a bona-fide correspondent
at CBS. Prior to that he'd been known mainly as a game-show
host and commercial spokesperson.

But Wallace projects authority; Katie does not.
The plain and simple fact is that viewers
have different expectations from network news than from local
news; a beauty queen may go down OK at 6, but people want
authority at 6:30. They're not getting it from Katie. And if
that's sexism, too bad. That's how I see the situation at CBS.

 

[Al Johnson]

ABC revamped the format as World
News Tonight (or World News, as it's called now) and we
all know how that turned out.

Yeah, all three of the anchors are now DEAD! But, seriously, it was a great career booster for an uneducated Peter Jennings (but he had the trademark Canadian/British-sounding accent that we all love).

It really says something about women newscasters, if you can't think of anyone with the skills to rival Charles or Brian.

The career boost for Jennings was the Munich Olympics.

Jennings had already been anchor of ABC's evening news, hired because he was young and good looking. Instead of whining about how people weren't ready to accept a Canadian on the news, he educated himself and got real news gathering experience. Uneducated? He was a university drop-out, like Walter Cronkite and many other leading journalists.

Bawa Wawa is a good interviewer. She was terrible as an anchor on extended coverage of breaking stories and as a news reader. She seems to have recovered but some can't resist trying to blame Harry Reasoner for her failure in the anchor role. For the record, Harry didn't do that well, either. Harry was a good news reader (and did well as Walter's fill-in). He was an excellent writer, feature reporter and documentarian. 60 Minutes was built around his abilities (Mike Wallace was added when Don Hewitt realized Harry couldn't carry the whole load and a contrasting edgier style would be good for the show).

In fairness to Katie, no one questioned Mike Wallace's
credentials when he became a bona-fide correspondent
at CBS. Prior to that he'd been known mainly as a game-show
host and commercial spokesperson.

The head of CBS News at the time questioned his qualifications. All three networks originally turned him down. Mike Wallace had done a live prime-time news interview program on ABC. His first assignment on CBS was the CBS Morning News, originally a half hour at 10:00 am (which many affiliates did not carry) and heavy on interviews. He was given routine assignments before 60 Minutes (and originally nobody anticipated that 60 Minutes would be a big deal; everybody knew documentary programs never got ratings and never made money). He did not walk in the door, get a huge paycheck and immediately take over the anchor position, like Katie. He spent several years redeeming himself before 60 Minutes. If Katie had been willing to give up her Today Show paycheck, and spend some time doing real reporting and being groomed for something more, while Bob continued on the Evening News, we would not be having this conversation.

Dan Rather never turned down a chance to go
anywhere, and both he and Tom Brokaw made their
names covering Watergate

They made their names during Watergate. Woodward and Bernstein covered Watergate. TV covered their coverage.

 

[Mark Giardina]

Maybe broadcasters should go back to a system that actually worked. Forget pretty people who lack the talent and discipline to be actors. Look for some newspaper and wire service reporters who have covered news and done well at it, are personable and well-spoken, and teach them how to read to a camera. Give them some time on a small O&O or cable to become seasoned and comfortable with the medium and then turn them loose.

Great suggestion Al, but it won't work because thanks to the dumbing down of journalism TV consultants are looking for Barbie and Ken dolls thinking that pretty faces will draw viewers.

In other words the hell with creditability; Looks are what counts, even if it means having someone who can't read or write news, just as long as they have nice teeth, hair and(for women) cleavage.

Someone mentioned Carol Costello as a possible replacement for Couric. Costello looks good, but I've seen her on-air work and there are people in small market stations that could do a better job of interviewing people. I'm referring to Costello's coverage at Virginia Tech.

As for Couric's ratings tanking, did anyone on here really think she was going to be a success?

 

[SaltyDog]

As for Couric's ratings tanking, did anyone on here really think she was going to be a success?

Yes, Holland Cooke thought she would be a success. Last August he wrote: "Katie Couric's September 5 debut on The CBS Evening News will NOT be the biggest NEWS event in TV's New Fall Season. This will be the biggest event in ALL of television's New Fall Season."

Read his entire post here: http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,45125.msg307548.html#msg307548

 

[JbeJay]

... thanks to the dumbing down of journalism TV consultants are looking for Barbie and Ken dolls thinking that pretty faces will draw viewers.

But you may want to consider the possibility that [1] pretty faces do draw viewers, and [2] what we elitists may think of as "the dumbing down of journalism" may also be seen as taking it to the largest possible audience.

If more people are interested in Paris Hilton than Vladimir Putin, what should the lead story be?

As for Couric's ratings tanking, did anyone on here really think she was going to be a success?

Yes, Holland Cooke thought she would be a success. Last August he wrote: "Katie Couric's September 5 debut on The CBS Evening News will NOT be the biggest NEWS event in TV's New Fall Season. This will be the biggest event in ALL of television's New Fall Season."

In fairness to Holland Cooke, her debut was a pretty big event. Remember the tune-in on the first night?

Unfortunately, neither the program nor the host could deliver what was needed to sustain.

Jay

 

[SaltyDog]

In fairness to Holland Cooke, her debut was a pretty big event. Remember the tune-in on the first night?

I remember. But not all of us bought into the hype of what it meant in the future. Holland not only did, he went way over the top.

 

[formeraa]

Jennings had already been anchor of ABC's evening news, hired because he was young and good looking. Instead of whining about how people weren't ready to accept a Canadian on the news, he educated himself and got real news gathering experience. Uneducated? He was a university drop-out, like Walter Cronkite and many other leading journalists.

Sorry, I never cared much for Peter Jennings and, as you stated above, he did not have a college degree. That's "uneducated" in my book.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Sorry, I never cared much for Peter Jennings and, as you stated above, he did not have a college degree. That's "uneducated" in my book.

An "uneducated" Peter Jennings knew more about world events than a lot of "educated" people because he studied hard and did his homework. I've seen anchors and reporters, national and local, who mispronounce words, butcher the English language, and are totally unprepared for live shots. Jennings might not have earned a college degree, but he was a graduate from the school of hard knocks, which I give him a lot of credit for.

 

[radionative]

I don't agree with you here. Sexism is not the issue at all. It's not that she's a woman, it is that she is the wrong woman.

The problem that Katie has is two-fold:

1) Katie lacks gravitas. A generation ago, Barbara Walters made the transition from the Today Show to the evening news. But, Barbara Wa-wa was always considered to be a 'serious journalist' and not just a feature reporter. She really did pretty well - and continues her venerable career (in semi-retirement) to this day. Unquestionably, Katie is stuck in our collective psyche as a feature reporter. You know, the one who interviews the models and the dog trainer. And, her performance and style during the first months of her CBS stint did nothing to make people feel otherwise. She is not considered as a serious journalist, and probably never will be. This is the kiss of death for an evening newscast.


The real fans of these shows are somewhat old-school about it. They want a NEWS presentation that encapsulates the day's news into 30 minutes.

BRNout:You hit the nail right on the head. Katie's unpopularity has nothing to do with the fact she's female. In fact, I'll give you an example. We have a MALE anchor on the CBS affiliate here in Orlando who is not anchor material, IMHO. Many of the reasons are the same. The station let their main anchor of more than a decade go (he had a real presence on the air, but couldn't get past the booming ratings from the ABC affiliate across town). But they brought this other guy in to replace him and my first impression was that he was a reporter who was filling in for the "real" anchor who was coming soon.

Well, to my dismay, I discovered he WAS the new anchor. I couldn't believe it. He just doesn't have the presence you need to be an anchor. He seems like he would be a pretty good reporter, but he's dull to watch, he has no personality, he's too young, and simply has no credibility as a result.

I think Katie's problems are similar. She doesn't have that authortative aura that you need to be a main evening news anchor. It's really too bad, in my view, because I think she's worked as hard as anyone to get where she is.

 

[Al Johnson]

Sorry, I never cared much for Peter Jennings and, as you stated above, he did not have a college degree. That's "uneducated" in my book.

That is one of the nastiest, pettiest, most arrogant comments I've seen on this board. And one of the dumbest.

How about Cronkite? Is he "uneducated?"
Brinkley? Was he also "uneducated?"
Thomas Jefferson? He didn't finish college, although he founded one.
Bill Gates? He dropped out of Harvard and later gave them a ton of money. But he did get into Harvard. Did you?

Or is "uneducated" only reserved for those people without a baccalaureate degree for whom you don't "care much?"

Who is better educated? A frat rat who spends four years partying and doing just enough to pass some tests? Or a self-taught individual with curiosity and discipline who goes to the public library and really reads, and really thinks about what he reads? I doubt that even those who make their living teaching at the undergraduate level would accept your narrow view of education.

 

[formeraa]

Fine, Al, you have your opinion and I have mine. However, I don't feel the need to resort to personal name calling.

And, yes, I did get into Harvard AND Yale. However, I also got into Brown and decided that it had the superior educational experience. For the record, I graduated *** laude with honors. If you have a problem with that, so be it but it's YOUR problem.
:

 

[mjlarochelle]

Fine, Al, you have your opinion and I have mine. However, I don't feel the need to resort to personal name calling.

Referring to Peter Jennings, formeraa said, "That's "uneducated" in my book."

Al Johnson said, "That is one of the nastiest, pettiest, most arrogant comments I've seen on this board. And one of the dumbest."

Who's doing the personal name calling here? I think the Brown grad should be able to figure that one out.

 

[dhett]

However, I also got into Brown and decided that it had the superior educational experience. For the record, I graduated *** laude with honors.

Shouldn't your superior educational experience have told you that "*** laude with honors" is repetitiously redundant? "*** laude" means "with honors".

 

[FACTman]

Sorry, I never cared much for Peter Jennings and, as you stated above, he did not have a college degree. That's "uneducated" in my book.

Wow! It seems that high-priced education you allegedly received did teach you everything. You've still got alot to learn. Tons. :

 

[FACTman]

And, yes, I did get into Harvard AND Yale. However, I also got into Brown and decided that it had the superior educational experience. For the record, I graduated *** laude with honors. If you have a problem with that, so be it but it's YOUR problem.
:

And you getting into those colleges does not make you -- or anyone else -- more educated than the person who didn't. Just means you spent tons of more money than others!

The same goes for graduating "with honors." I have seen quite a few people who graduated with honors, but didn't have the common sense to get them out of an open-air phone booth. They needed to open a book to do it. ;D It doesn't make one more educated than the person who didn't graduate "with honors." You can go to Yale or a state university. It's what one makes of their educational opportunities available to them.

 

[SaltyDog]

I'm of the opinion that college degrees represent no more than having one's ticket punched in order to get the first job rather than imparting any knowledge needed to do a job well. I'll allow that some specialized fields such as medicine, law and engineering are exceptions.

Poor LeBron James. He went directly from high school to the NBA and now has no degree. The $90 million Nike deal is nice but is no substitute for an education. However, when he needed some investment advice, he rang up his buddy Warren Buffett and had a little chat. I'd value that meeting more than I would a lecture from a Harvard professor.

There are lots of people with degrees who never pick up a book after graduation. And then there are people who never graduated college and never stop learning. Barry Diller is one of the latter. He founded Fox Broadcasting, is currently the Chairman of Expedia and the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of IAC/InterActiveCorp. He dropped out of UCLA after one semester.