 |
|
When the U.S. networks see their news shows sinking, David Kronke asks, do they care who's the anchor?
Sep. 3, 2006. 01:00 AM
When Katie Couric assumes her role as anchor of The CBS Evening News on Tuesday, it will be a historic moment — she'll become the first lone female anchor of a nightly newscast.
But will it turn around the flagging fortunes of a venerable journalistic tradition, or, after curiosity inspires an initial ratings bump, will the moribund trend of skulking network newscasts continue?
On any given evening, about 27 million Americans — mostly older viewers — tune in to ABC, CBS and NBC for a recap of the day's events.
That's roughly one-tenth of the nation, down precipitously from 1969, when a full half of the country would pause to watch the evening news.
Naturally, those responsible for network newscasts remain bullish on their prospects.
"I think they're still pretty impactful," says CBS chairman and CEO Les Moonves, who is paying Couric $13 million a year to anchor The CBS Evening News. "It's not what it was, but you still get 28 million viewers a night watching the three network evening newscasts. That's a pretty powerful statement. Clearly, we wouldn't have spent the time and money that we have this year if we didn't believe in the long-term force of the evening news."
NBC Nightly News Likewise, when Charles Gibson recently took the reins at ABC, he gave his newscast a ratings bump.anchor Brian Williams agrees. "Some have written the obituary, going back a couple of decades, of the time slot that I now occupy. It is and remains the largest single source of news in America every day. Here we are, in a world of 600 channels and all these websites and all these podcasts, and yet Americans in very large numbers for our day and age sit down and make it appointment viewing — maybe because there is so much other stuff, and this is where they go for a reasoned, sober analysis of the day."
Williams believes the attention being paid to Couric will strengthen all three networks. "That there is all this talk about the time slot and this competition can only be good. It makes us better. It keeps us on our game."
CBS has long been mired in third place in the network newscast ratings race, behind first-place NBC and second-place ABC. When Bob Schieffer replaced Dan Rather at CBS, he drew more viewers.
Couric will be closely scrutinized in the upcoming days. The former co-anchor of NBC's Today show is expected to jettison many aspects of the persona that won her a loyal viewership on the morning program — yes, we're talking about that famous perkiness — when she enters the world of straight news.
"This is a very different venue," Couric concedes. "But hopefully there are cases where I can interact with people and I can occasionally have fun doing a story. It's been challenging for me because the morning format is so multidimensional, and because it has such a variety of pieces and you are asked to do such a variety of things, that sometimes people forget that I have done a lot of very serious things. It's almost as if, if you do the fun stuff well, then you can't be serious.
"Just because you embraced all the different things on that show, that should not in any way diminish your intelligence or your ability to do serious news.''
But while the evening newscasts may remain viable for the foreseeable future, can they remain meaningful and relevant? Or will a culture of megacorporate ownership and the spectre of partisan bullying from all sides of the political spectrum dilute their content and force them to skirt controversial issues?
Ted Koppel, former anchor of ABC's Nightline "The thing that worries me more than anything else is about the disappearance of the political middle, the center of the country,'' says ABC's Gibson. "So we've got a wide-open election, and we've got an anchor over at ABC who is worried about where we find the political center and (where) we find political common ground as a nation. I wish there was a way the television news could really get at this issue, because I think it's a vitally important one.'', says of the network newscasts: "They're trying to appeal to the kinds of things that their audiences want to see. In entertainment programming, there is absolutely nothing wrong with networks catering to not just the needs, but the desires of their audiences, but when it comes to news coverage, I think we have an additional responsibility, and that is to tell people what they need to know and what they ought to know, and it is our business to make that as easily understandable and interesting as possible, but not to avoid subjects simply because they drive away young viewers.''
Sometimes, that can be difficult, Koppel concedes.
"There are pressures that come from the corporations that own our respective networks and news divisions to get larger audiences, even if that means ignoring some of the more important subjects ... I hope they will recognize over the next few years and as audiences continue to diminish somewhat that the future really does lie in continuing to provide substantive and responsible coverage.''
Dan Rather, who departed CBS earlier this year, agrees. "To be relevant, you have to constantly put out the signal, `I'm trying to do work of good quality; I may fail sometimes, but that's what I'm trying to do.' That's my version of trying to stay relevant.
"Clearly, there's another argument. The trend line now is toward the other argument, which is, `Dumb it down, sleaze it up, tart it up, go for what's interesting over what's important.' Don't misunderstand me; there are a lot of good people trying not to have that happen. But if you look at it, that trend line is clearly heading off in that direction.''
Still, Rather struggles to maintain a sliver of optimism for the institution. He says, "Somebody is going to remain in the evening newscast, and that will be the person who says, `We're going to stake out the position of doing news that's really news, rather than sound-bite-regurgitating press releases. That kind of broadcast can survive for a very long time, and it's important that it can survive.
"We'll see.''
Couric insists she's received the message. She spent a week in July touring the nation and hearing from viewers their concerns about television newscasts.
"Some people felt that the media in general had abdicated its role of really talking about facts and information rather than just points of view," she says.
"I also think that we heard from many people that the news is just too depressing. Now, obviously, we can't sugarcoat what's going on in the world, but there are cases where I believe we can be a little more solution-oriented ... All those things will inform the way we approach the news.''
All of the anchors agree that the country's current contentious political climate makes covering world events all the more tricky.
"The thing that worries me more than anything else is about the disappearance of the political middle, the center of the country,'' says ABC's Gibson. "So we've got a wide-open election, and we've got an anchor over at ABC who is worried about where we find the political center and (where) we find political common ground as a nation. I wish there was a way the television news could really get at this issue, because I think it's a vitally important one.''
Williams, for one, says he refuses to be cowed by political partisans who prefer their news spun to reflect their ideologies — the upstart Fox News Channel is often cited as an example. Williams uses his blog to explain the reporting process behind stories.
"I think journalism has changed a bit — some of it has come the other way around, from the readers and viewers," he says. "This is where my blog has been — I wouldn't say cathartic, but very, very helpful, where I can explain, `Here is how tonight's story aired. A bunch of you have written in to accuse us of `X.' This is why `Y' is, in fact, the case. And you should know this about our mechanics.' ''
Network newscasts must not be afraid of upsetting some viewers, Williams believes. "This is not (a case of) let the viewer decide what they want to see," he says, "because I fear we know what would happen then.''
Los Angeles Daily News
