• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

The Daily Show to CBS?

And what makes Bari Weiss dangerous is that she, at the Free Press, did content that leans right without frothing at the mouth.

My take is that it's the froth that gets ratings. If she doesn't froth, and tries to be a literate conservative, it'll miss the target.

Plus she has to be entertaining, and I don't think she knows how to do that. The reason Comedy Central succeeds is it's funny.
 
My take is that it's the froth that gets ratings. If she doesn't froth, and tries to be a literate conservative, it'll miss the target.

Plus she has to be entertaining, and I don't think she knows how to do that. The reason Comedy Central succeeds is it's funny.

You do understand that Bari is not talent, right? That she's Editor In Chief of CBS News? She has to hire entertaining, frothy people.
 
I still think CBS dumps late night altogether. Affiliates go to an hour of news at 11, then syndicated Entertainment Tonight, game shows, Access Hollywood, etc. and infomercials.
Or they show repeats of Paramount+ exclusives in the umbrella of the old CBS Late Night. That's what they did in the summer of 2015 in between Letterman's departure and Colbert's arrival (Mentalist, etc.)

CBS national news at 11:35 every night won't make money for the network. That's why The CW doesn't schedule NewsNation's Cuomo or Banfield on their affiliates, even though they are owned by Nexstar.
 
I still think CBS dumps late night altogether. Affiliates go to an hour of news at 11, then syndicated Entertainment Tonight, game shows, Access Hollywood, etc. and infomercials.
Or they show repeats of Paramount+ exclusives in the umbrella of the old CBS Late Night. That's what they did in the summer of 2015 in between Letterman's departure and Colbert's arrival (Mentalist, etc.)
They’ve done that more recently with Tulsa King and the Star Trek series Strange New Worlds, but they were broadcast in prime time and not late night.
 
The writer's strike is how my antenna-only mother caught Yellowstone for the first time (Sunday night repeats on CBS). SHE LOVES that show now.
 
CBS national news at 11:35 every night won't make money for the network.

You're picturing "CBS national news" as that phrase would have implied until two weeks ago when Bari Weiss became Editor in Chief.

I don't know how much more clearly I can phrase this---and it's what I've said from the beginning in this thread and on another similar thread since she walked in the door:

A news product, produced cheaply and skewing younger (and again, that means 45-64, not 18-34) with heavy involvement and likely branding from The Free Press (which CBS now owns).

Much of that content is already being created and has been for years:


Repackaging some of that content for TV allows CBS to monetize it further (they paid Bari $150 million for it). Even if ratings are low, they'll sell advertising that's not being sold now for that product, would make The Free Press profitable more quickly, and they'll curry favor with the administration by replacing a show highly critical of the president with one that leans toward conservative thought and policies and alliances the administration supports.

And if it's successful---if it somehow becomes a mid-2020s version of ABC's Nightline in the 80s ---it helps more quickly redefine news and specifically what news on CBS looks and sounds like. Though, again, as I posted above with links, Bari's not waiting.
 
Last edited:
You do understand that Bari is not talent, right? That she's Editor In Chief of CBS News? She has to hire entertaining, frothy people.

Yes and I don't think she has the capacity to do that. ABC had news-based programming at 11:30. It's called Nightline. They realized even when they replaced the host and turned it into a version of "Dateline" that people don't want more news at 11:30. It's now on after Kimmel.
 
CBS has made so many poor decisions with its national news product and O&O local newscasts over the past couple decades that a massive house cleaning, if one were to occur, might not be such a bad thing.

The 60 Minutes franchise is highly successful, of course, but most everything else is a dumpster fire. The CBS News division seems allergic to success.
 
Yes and I don't think she has the capacity to do that. ABC had news-based programming at 11:30. It's called Nightline. They realized even when they replaced the host and turned it into a version of "Dateline" that people don't want more news at 11:30. It's now on after Kimmel.

I know what Nightline is. I watched the first night and for years afterward---until Ted Koppel retired from the show in 2005.

When ABC flipped Nightline and Kimmel's timeslots (in 2012), it had different priorities, and Jimmy had just finished 2011 as the only late-night show with audience growth.

Nightline was profitable at the time....and ABC waited until after the 2012 election to make the swap (announced in August) because they knew the political ad buys would be stronger for Nightline than for Kimmel and they could sell that time at 11:35 rates, not midnight rates (they cut Nightine to 25 minutes).

You have an owner (Ellison) who owns Paramount because Shari cancelled Colbert and he promised to radically alter CBS News. Otherwise, this deal could still be tied up in regulatory red tape.

As we've discussed before, CBS is a likely spinoff candidate anyway. That gives Ellison freedom to think a little more broadly than a typical CBS owner might ("What can we compete against Fallon and Kimmel for eyeballs with at 11:35 and make money?").
 
CBS has made so many poor decisions with its national news product and O&O local newscasts over the past couple decades that a massive house cleaning, if one were to occur, might not be such a bad thing.

The 60 Minutes franchise is highly successful, of course, but most everything else is a dumpster fire. The CBS News division seems allergic to success.

Yeah. What matters is how it's done.
 
The CBS News division seems allergic to success.

This is why I don't care about Bari Weiss. When people talk about the glory days of CBS News, they mention Cronkite. That was almost 50 years ago. My view is that if she can change that, good for her. But the fact of the matter is the audience for this kind of programming is disappearing. If she turns CBS into the broadcast version of Fox News, it may get a few more people than it's getting now. But so what?
That gives Ellison freedom to think a little more broadly than a typical CBS owner might ("What can we compete against Fallon and Kimmel for eyeballs with at 11:35 and make money?").

The competition is no longer just ABC and NBC.
 
This is why I don't care about Bari Weiss. When people talk about the glory days of CBS News, they mention Cronkite.

They also mention 60 Minutes. Which is profitable and gets good ratings.

Bari Weiss matters not because she's going to try something new, but because her track record proves that her approach to news violates a whole chunk of CBS News Standards and Practices. It weakens a significant source of quality journalism, not through carelessness, but design.

Ellison's a friend of the president. Bari Weiss doesn't have the resume for Editor in Chief of CBS News. Ellison chose her anyway, and she reports only to him.

If your response to this is "easy come, easy go", I can't help you.
 
Bari Weiss matters not because she's going to try something new, but because her track record proves that her approach to news violates a whole chunk of CBS News Standards and Practices. It weakens a significant source of quality journalism, not through carelessness, but design.

If you're in last place, how does that speak to the value of heritage standards & practices? I don't see what you're trying to preserve.

I think we're at a point where quality journalism doesn't work in the ad-supported world. That's why NPR is more successful than CBS News.

If people don't like what Bari Weiss does, they won't watch. Nobody is forced to watch broadcast TV.

The real crown jewel at CBS is CBS Sports, not CBS News. Or perhaps CSI.
 
If you're in last place, how does that speak to the value of heritage standards & practices?

Okay, now the Lord's middle initial starts with "F".

Four million people watch the CBS Evening News in a typical week. A bit under eight and a half million watch 60 Minutes every week.

One is the last-place evening newscast. The other is the top-rated news program on broadcast television.

ABC World News Tonight gets almost as many viewers as 60 Minutes. They've managed that without diluting journalistic standards.

The audience isn't allergic to quality journalism. It prefers David Muir on ABC to anyone CBS has put in the anchor chair.

I don't see what you're trying to preserve.

The credibility of CBS News, including 60 Minutes---not just 30 minutes every evening at 6:30 (5:30 Central).

I think we're at a point where quality journalism doesn't work in the ad-supported world. That's why NPR is more successful than CBS News.

And you say this as the administration kills the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. So what happens then?
 
Four million people watch the CBS Evening News in a typical week. A bit under eight and a half million watch 60 Minutes every week.

One is the last-place evening newscast. The other is the top-rated news program on broadcast television.

Do they watch 60 Minutes because it's on CBS, or because of what it is? If the show changes, what makes you think they'll stay?

The credibility of CBS News, including 60 Minutes---not just 30 minutes every evening at 6:30 (5:30 Central).

People believe what they want to believe. The way people use TV news has changed in the last 20 years.

And you say this as the administration kills the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. So what happens then?

How has that affected NPR? Let's stop and talk about that:

Perhaps the biggest success Bari Weiss had at Free Press was the Uri Berliner article. But who did it change? NPR? Did NPR listeners or stations rise up and demand NPR News change its product to respond to the Berliner article? Or did it just give ammunition to the haters who didn't listen who wanted to kill federal funding? I think it was the latter.

News has no power in and of itself. It's the audience that gives it that power. So in the face of opposition, motivated by Uri Berliner and Bari Weiss, NPR's audience continued to support their stations, and the stations continued to support NPR. There was no groundswell from the public to change NPR News. If the article really changed minds, the stations that sit on NPR's board of directors would have insisted the NPR News change it's focus, and start adding more coverage of Hunter Biden's laptop. They have that power. That didn't happen. Instead, the party in power used that power to defund something they didn't like anyway. But it didn't change what NPR does. And it didn't diminish their audience. That's an important distinction.
 
OK, so more of a Nightline-type show. Got it. CBS had the short-lived "America Tonight" during the Gulf War days. Could be interesting to see where this goes, especially if it leans slightly more conservative than the other networks.
 
Do they watch 60 Minutes because it's on CBS, or because of what it is? If the show changes, what makes you think they'll stay?



People believe what they want to believe. The way people use TV news has changed in the last 20 years.



How has that affected NPR? Let's stop and talk about that:

Perhaps the biggest success Bari Weiss had at Free Press was the Uri Berliner article. But who did it change? NPR? Did NPR listeners or stations rise up and demand NPR News change its product to respond to the Berliner article? Or did it just give ammunition to the haters who didn't listen who wanted to kill federal funding? I think it was the latter.

News has no power in and of itself. It's the audience that gives it that power. So in the face of opposition, motivated by Uri Berliner and Bari Weiss, NPR's audience continued to support their stations, and the stations continued to support NPR. There was no groundswell from the public to change NPR News. If the article really changed minds, the stations that sit on NPR's board of directors would have insisted the NPR News change it's focus, and start adding more coverage of Hunter Biden's laptop. They have that power. That didn't happen. Instead, the party in power used that power to defund something they didn't like anyway. But it didn't change what NPR does. And it didn't diminish their audience. That's an important distinction.

Are you seriously suggesting that we've already seen the full effect of the death of the CPB on public radio and it wasn't that big a deal?
 
Are you seriously suggesting that we've already seen the full effect of the death of the CPB on public radio and it wasn't that big a deal?

Did I say that? Have you been reading anything I've written on the subject?

If the audience is there, the stations will find a way to survive the loss of funding. It's all about motivating that audience. I believe the audience is there, and there will be new sources of funding that will replace CPB. There already are in some places.

Back to CBS: The audience for traditional linear broadcasting is declining. Just as the audience for AM radio is declining. If the future of broadcast TV is what we see on AM talk radio, then that's what it is. It will continue in the direction it's going. The people who want quality journalism know where to find it, and they will support it. I think what has to happen for it to have an impact is for all of the disconnected voices who make up quality journalism join together in one place the way they once did many years ago at CBS. Quality journalism needs to have an impact, and the way to do it is to get bigger than it is now. That's not going to happen on broadcast TV.
 


Back
Top Bottom