CBS's Moonves Sees the TV News Future...And It Is Bleak
Lost in today's dust-up between Dan Rather and Les Moonves over Rather's explanation for CBS News's tanking ratings was a bleak--and accurate--portrayal of the future of TV's evening news shows.
In case you missed it, Rather said the CBS Evening News is in a tailspin because CBS tried "to bring the 'Today' show ethos to the 'Evening News,' and to dumb it down, tart it up in hopes of attracting a younger audience." It is understandable why Moonves dismissed these remarks as sexist, and it's also understandable why Rather wants to believe that things would have been different if he hadn't blown himself up in the Bush-National Guard forgery fracas. But the argument is a sideshow.
Moonves is right that unless CBS can find ways to skew the Evening News audience under 60 years old, the show is toast. He's wrong, however, when he implies that the choice of the right anchor, or style, will accomplish this.
The evening news shows are dying for the same reason the newspapers are dying: the next generation of viewers/readers are getting their news online (or from Jon Stewart). Because the online medium is simply a better medium for delivering news, nothing the TV networks do will change this trend.
"She's been on the air for nine months," Moonves said. "Let's give her a break."
True, but Couric has been in last place in her category and other shows of better quality have been canceled only after a few weeks on the air.
Posted by: sammy kaye | June 12, 2007 at 06:33 PM
You are right on the money. The transformation in the media landscape will be so profound that the traditional companies will no longer be calling the shots. Apple is leading the transformation in the music industry (not the traditional music labels, who rather prefer the status-quo!). Similarly, the big four TV networks will find themselves in a new business landscape where they will be participants, not rule makers. Changing news anchors is like trying to fix a deep wound with a band-aid and hoping that the wound is not serious.
Posted by: N. Venkatraman | June 18, 2007 at 12:25 PM
You are right on the money. The transformation in the media landscape will be so profound that the traditional companies will no longer be calling the shots. Apple is leading the transformation in the music industry (not the traditional music labels, who rather prefer the status-quo!). Similarly, the big four TV networks will find themselves in a new business landscape where they will be participants, not rule makers. Changing anchors is like trying to fix the wound with a bandaid and hoping that the wound is not serious.
Posted by: N. Venkatraman | June 18, 2007 at 12:26 PM
The question is where will the online news aggregators be if major news organizations such as television networks and major newspapers cannot adequately monetize their operations? It is the message, not the medium. Having a superior delivery system isn't going to mean much if there isn't quality content to receive. I'm not suggesting that the MSM should be the only source for news. But I do believe that the gold standard now and in the future will be journalism that is vetted, well sourced and verifiable. Yes, there will always be a place for "non-journalists" but I believe that is more the realm of commentary and opinion, not news. And I could not agree more about news anchors. The focus in the future will be the content coming from great reporters, not the person introducing the story. That trend has been at work here in the Bay Area for nearly two decades.
Posted by: News Watcher | June 24, 2007 at 02:55 PM
toshiba satellite 1115 battery
Posted by: batteries | October 10, 2008 at 09:27 PM