What future for network news?
What is network news going to look like five years from now? Twenty years ago, or even ten years ago, a pretty confident answer would have been "Pretty much the same as it looks now." Now, with the networks under ever greater pressure from cable, satellite and Internet, and the old troika of Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings gone, the answer is much less certain. In fact, no-one has a clue what network news will be like five years from now -- or even six months from now.In a piece in the New York Times Business section, Bill Carter asks five key questions that need to be resolved in the near future:
- "Who will anchor the ABC evening news after the death of Peter Jennings?
- "Who will eventually take over the CBS evening newscast, if CBS will even have a traditional anchor format on the program?
- "Who will lead NBC News, which is still without a permanent president?
- "Will the long-running ABC News program 'Nightline' be able to survive with an ensemble anchor team replacing the program's highly regarded anchor/patriarch, Ted Koppel?
- "Will the evening newscasts at each network be regarded as lesser programs in comparison with the far more profitable morning news programs like 'Today' and 'Good Morning.'"
These questions all cut to the core of what we think "network news" should be all about. Are we still talking about the dominant construct, which has remained that of an the all-powerful nightly network news, headed by the all-powerful network news anchor defining America's universe for all its people. This construct, which crystalized in the 1960s, has been steadily undermined in recent years as total network news audiences have slipped, and those audiences that remain skew older (advertisers don't like older audiences). But the core idea of an early evening, 30-minute national network news broadcast has remained scarosanct - up till now. Will that remain the case? Recalling the era of Edward R. Murrow, Huntley and Brinkley and Walter Cronkite, we might regret that today's network news divisions are mere shadows of their former selves, but we can still recognize today's entities as direct line descendants of these paragons of the (so-called) "golden age of television". With the passing of the "old guard", will we be able to say this in five years? What kind of people will take the place of Brokaw, Rather, Jennings, Koppel et al.?
Certainly the network news shows are still pulling in national audiences - between 22 and 25 million per night, according to Carter - that dwarf those of the cable networks. But is that enough? And these numbers diminish with each passing year. The morning news shows still remain profitable and healthy, but these are increasingly turning to entertainment news. What's to be done? Everything is up in the air for the network planners. Maybe it should be. Maybe the old network news construct, built in an era when 95% of Americans watched the same three TV stations, is simply no longer tenable. If that's the case, what's going to replace it?
posted by hdougie at 11/02/2005 08:16:00 AM
10 Comments:
I personally prefer my newsfeeds raw. Who cares who's the anchor. Cronkite's first TV gig was a puppet show although he had a little experience writing for Stars and Stripes. Jennings was a high school dropout. I really don't care who delivers the news as long as it's fair and balanced.
I personally get my news from newspapers online because I am able to choose what I learn about. I can click any subtitle “national” “new york region” etc. and read the corresponding news. Whereas with television, I am fed a mixture of news without any choice as to what I receive. However, I choose the news when I want to get more visuals about a topic. For instance, with Hurricane Katrina, I solely watched the news because it was more powerful and touching to see pictures and video clips than to read text. In general though, I think that the internet and television will merge, as they already have been (you can get news footage online) and eventually, the internet will overcome television. I also agree with the previous comment. I don’t really pay that much attention to the person presenting the news on TV, but rather to the station and the station’s stereotypical bias. Therefore, I am not that concerned with who the new anchors for the main networks will be, but this could be solely due to the fact that I rely more on the internet newspapers to get my news.
- Tara Thomas
I also have no idea what the news is going to look like in the future, but at the same time I don't really have a lot of time to watch the news as it is. I am usually still in class or eating dinner when the nightly newcasts are on, so I don't see them. I am more likely to get my news from a newspaper than anywhere else. If it's in print then I can take my time and read it whenever my schedule allows me time. I also don't particularly care to get my news online because I feel like that is too much work to go and hunt down stories I want to read. I like the format of the paper where I know where to look for each kind of news story that would interest me. However, I do think that it's important to broadcast the national and local news, because it is more convient for others. It is sad that many of the great anchors have passed away, but I am confident that they can somehow replace them.
~Allison Lane
I can honestly say that when I was younger (and still living at home) I would spend evenings looking forward to the "World News Tonight with Peter Jennings" with my dad after the local news aired. Jennings anchored with such brilliance and I never even considered another news channel since.
However, times do change. Now that I am a college student (and will be for quite some time), I just don't have the freetime between 5-7 PM like I used to. Currently, the New York Times Online and other electronic news providers quench my thirst for the daily events. Being on-the-go so much, I haven't thought about the void left by "the old troika", and I will probably continue that trend until I leave school.
When I am old enough to have a set schedule, a real dinner hour again, and actualt time to watch television - that is most likely the same time that I will also be on the hunt for the next Jennings. I'll tryout the new anchors on the various channels and then become exclusive with one of them. As long as they deliver the news without bias and report on the stories that are the most newsworthy with some class - I think they will do just fine.
-Ryan DiMillo
Let us at least hope we can look forward to a few Geneseo graduates taking prominence in this area.
DJ
I personally think that the evening news is eventually going to fade away. It might still remain, but it is not at all going to be as prominent as it once was, or even is now. The younger generations don't seem to have time for it, especially at the early evening hours that it is shown at. We can find news anytime we want, depending on our schedule, either by going online or simply turning on CNN or one of those channels. Even my parents don't seem to have the time anymore for the evening news. Thus, the older crowds seem to have more things to do than in the past. Our society has become even faster-paced, not leaving time for the 1/2 hour news show at one of the busiest times for Americans. And with the popular news anchors most likely ending their reign soon, it just adds a greater likelihood of people disconnecting themselves from the evening news.
- Ashley Pericak
I doubt that it will be very difficult to find replacements for the current news anchors once they all pass away. I know the ESPN network has seamlessly replaced the loss of its anchors over the years (like Chris Myers and Keith Olbermann) with fresh, young talent. Late Night talk shows have done the same. I'm excited to see some fresh blood in the future.
-Mike Tatelbaum
I'm sad to say that I am never free at a time where I can watch the evening news, and it isn't something I do often. I know major events that I pick up on my NYtimes homepage, but other than that I know shockingly little about news. I agree with what Ryan wrote above- that when I have a set schedule that will allow me to watch the news, I will. Right now, I couldn't care less who a news anchor is. But when I actually want to watch the news, I want someone who is intelligent, pleasant, and interesting.
~Anna Crowley
Of course if people have more options as far news sources go, the number of those watching network news will go down. I think it's great that there are so many sources of news now, including the internet and cable news shows that offer a new spin on the same news stories. This makes for a more informed and savvy public. Although the number of those getting their news from nbc, cbs and abc might be on the decline, I dont think this is a sign of the end of an era. There is no doubt in my mind that just as great anchors like Cronkite were replaced, today's anchors will be replaced also and the people will continue to watch their news. Network news is very reliable, even if it's not always convenient, and that's why I think it will continue to be watched for decades.
-Julia Perriello
Although most of us can admit that on a day-to-day basis we obtain most of our news from the internet, perhaps out of convenience, and perhaps for the ability to "shape" our own newscast, many of us can probably also say that when tragedy happens to strike, we often turn to the television and to the familiar nightly news anchor who is guiding us through the problem. I personally will never forget watching Peter Jennings during the September 11th attacks crying on air when speaking about his family. The kind of familiarity and trust that the network news anchors provide can't be obtained through an internet article. We turn to these icons in times of need to feel safe and in times when we need to get the news from someone we trust. I think it will be a long time before an iconic figure like Jennings will reign the nightly news, but I believe that anchors like Brian Williams for NBC, and Anderson Cooper for CNN are on the right track.
-Emily Benedict
Post a Comment
<< Home