But the emphasis is on finding and highlighting the most interesting and popular stories, not necessarily the most important, and infusing them with Sawyer’s dramatic approach and delivery and “hot” writing. Developments are “seismic” and “incredible.” There’s medical news that “could put us all at greater risk.” The “Made in America team” is “back in action.” The White House correspondent “took the allegations straight to the White House.” There’s new technology that might mean “20 seconds could save your life.” Tonight, “we have an outrage and an action.” Meanwhile, Sawyer reserves time for more news-lite—the staff calls the segments “Diane pages”—that she and her audience can enjoy: a new ketchup package (“for any of us who have ever squirted ourselves and everyone else around us with these little packages of ketchup, hooray—a small victory!”); the plane that landed with a baby boy born in flight; viewers’ nominations for “the saddest movie ever.”
In the age of social media, she encourages viewers to communicate, and she uses precious airtime to broadcast what they say. When Sawyer travels to cover royal weddings, floods, tornadoes, or political events, they become settings for her. See her touch children; see her stride along Main Street in search of political opinions; see her on the prow of a boat, braving snake-infested rivers; see her comfort the afflicted. Few correspondents’ reports run without being followed by a personal observation from Sawyer. (On the number of people in mortgage trouble: “11 million. What a number!” Or a new vaccine recommendation: “Such a wake-up call.”) It is all a far cry from the days when anchors prided themselves on staying out of the story, and it is delivered with a repertoire of dramatic aids: the breathless voice, the urgent tone, the tilt of the head, the narrowing of the eyes, calculated to make an emotional connection with viewers.
The approach at CBS could not be more different. They’re betting they can win viewers by emphasizing the old-fashioned virtues of reporting and analysis of important news. The Evening News newsroom setting, the minimalist graphics, and the content of the broadcast—all evoke Cronkite. Pelley and his producers focus on the reporters, find spare seconds to jam in more news items, and describe even the most elementary observations as “insights” you don’t get elsewhere.
In Pelley, CBS has probably the most well-qualified and proven television journalist ever to ascend to the anchor job; he has filed breaking news pieces from around the nation and the world, covered the White House, and compiled an impressive body of work for 60 Minutes. His no-nonsense (some would say stiff) style is well matched to the style of the program. The closest he comes to hyperbole is when he refers to CBS News resources “around the world” (the reality is that CBS, like the other networks, has drastically cut back its foreign coverage resources, dropping most of its correspondents, producers, crews, and bureaus overseas) and touts added information provided by “our research department” (which amounts to three full-time employees). He is less likely to comment on a correspondent’s report than to be found on camera as the report ends, gazing thoughtfully at the monitor, his eyeglasses and his chin in his hand.
Pelley and his producers spend more time on foreign news, Washington news, and politics—the traditional fare of the network evening news broadcast. They air pieces aimed at providing background and perspective. Warm and fuzzy stories are hard to find. So are any signs of feeling—even a smile—from the anchor. While ABC’s broadcast seems finely tuned to audience research and the techniques that have built ratings on local newscasts around the nation (go hard on weather stories; never pass up a story featuring animals), CBS seems to seek merit badges for lofty intentions. Jeff Fager, the chairman of CBS News, is supremely confident: “I don’t look at the research. I don’t believe in it. You do what you do well. You cover what you think is important or interesting. It’s news. It’s journalism.”
Very thorough, thought-out dissecction of Evening News as patient, by an author well-versed in his subject, to say the least. What isn't said is that much of the differentiations the programs are trying so hard to accomplish do not serve the viewer well and reflect largely the egos of anchors and their bosses. They should relax, then tense up again and go out and cover the news they know is most relevant and meaningful, and slug-it-out for viewers, without all the window-dressing (set-up, feel-good, staged pieces such as Made in America), by just telling and showing the news. Features are fine. Putting viewers/focus groups in charge while pandering to patriotism, is copping out and wrong and amateurish. Did I mention egotistical on the part of those who'd rather put their own stamp on the show rather than do the best show possible?
#1 Posted by Al Dale, CJR on Wed 11 Jul 2012 at 08:29 AM
For my money, this is the best piece I've seen anywhere about the network newscasts. It mirrors what I've (what we've all!) been
observing and thinking for years.
I say, as a 23-year ABC News correspondent, that all of us old-timers have known for a long time now that the good ol' days
are gone. Friedman explains the reasons why, and that some were unavoidable. He also articulates--- with the simple force of numbers--- the reasons why those evening newscasts still have important impact on the American landscape.
My own sadness at the evolution of network news comes from three things. First, plain and simply, the diminished size of the news-gathering staffs. The fewer people you have scattered throughout the world, the less they can possibly know. Second, the fact that even at the network level, and it doesn't happen often, but sometimes it seems more important to be first than to be right (the best recent examples, thankfully, came only at the "cable" level after the Scotus
healthcare decision). And third, few viewers sit down at dinnertime any more with the expectation that they'll be brought to the edge of their
seats by what they see and hear. Although CBS these days probably comes closest, that kind of approach is history.
I remember a memo an executive producer for World News Tonight named Av Westin once sent to all the correspondents and producers at ABC, saying that when the audience turns on the news, it wants to know, Is my family safe, is my community safe, is my nation safe, is my world safe?.....and in that order. These days, we often can walk away from the half-hour offering and still not know.
#2 Posted by Greg Dobbs, CJR on Wed 11 Jul 2012 at 10:41 AM
Paul,
I would vote for shutting down the nightly news programs of ABC, CBS and NBC News. There's no serious value-added material that people can't get from other sources. Credibility is at an all-time low: http://politi.co/N4Dm4M
My students don't watch them and never will. As Edward R. Murrow said, "[They are] merely wires and lights in a box."
Time to pack up the wires and turn off the lights!
#3 Posted by Chris Harper, CJR on Wed 11 Jul 2012 at 04:49 PM
How are the evening newscasts being effected by time-shifted viewing? I rarely, if ever, veiw live TV (other than sports) anymore. Are people who consume streaming and time-shifted TV predominately, less likely to DVR the evening newscasts? How will the networks compete when smart TVs have video apps/shows from other news brands, such as the WSJ on Apple TV or the NYTimes on Google TV?
#4 Posted by Josh Rushing, CJR on Wed 11 Jul 2012 at 05:25 PM
Finally a superb analysis of the contemporary network evening news broadcasts. Paul Friedman has always been at the head of his class of broadcast journalists and this piece, with its intelligence, insight and perspective, demonstrates why. (Also one is reminded that he is a terrific writer.)
Of course the obvious evil in this picture is the egregious Diane Sawyer and her ABC News partner Ben Sherwood. With just a few examples of their miserable, disgusting tabloid journalism Mr. Friedman shows why. (Although in this article he does give them a freebie: Their repulsive "Made In America" editorial pieces, with trick video, should alone be grounds for taking these people off the air.) Also, Ms. Sawyer has a clone in her substitute and sidekick, David Muir, who has her dramatic tone down to perfection.
Shame on these embarrassing people at ABC News. They should be boycotted for journalism malpractice. As one who watches all three each night, barely getting a meal down over Ms. Sawyer, I am personally grateful to Mr. Friedman for his cogent review of all three broadcasts. Thanks to Columbia Journalism Review for getting this excellent analysis on the record.
#5 Posted by Barry Jagoda, CJR on Wed 11 Jul 2012 at 07:00 PM
Well said, Paul. It confirms the old, once controversial, statement: "Evening news is a dinosaur."
#6 Posted by Jim Slade, CJR on Fri 13 Jul 2012 at 09:23 AM
Sawyer treats her audience as if we are sitting around the dining room table eagerly empathizing with her matriarchal commentary. That might work if you wish to consider yourself part of the Sawyer family. She delivers news with empathy to soften the blow, but it's an obvious ruse to become intimate with her audience. I see through it, and prefer the tell-it-to-me-straight style of the others - give me their versions of nightly broadcast news or none at all.
#7 Posted by Jon, CJR on Fri 13 Jul 2012 at 05:02 PM
My comments are not worthy of the space occupied by current posters but as a cameraman who has been in the trenches for so many years, I would be remiss if I didn't pull the lever with my two cents.
First, in the spirit of full disclosure I must say that I have been an ABC/NBC freelancer since the film days and have had the pleasure and honor to have served Paul, and have in return been honored by his acknowledgement of my work.
That said, his assessment of network news, ABC in particular, is spot on.
What we forget is that network news, like local news, was an FCC mandate of public service and in fact in the early days of Douglas Edwards, news generally fell under the public service banner.
At some point AD sales got involved and it was determined there was money to be made if only to pay the production freight of producing the daily 15 minute week day news broadcast.
It was further determined that viewers watching the news show would form an allegiance with the broadcaster and more than likely continue watching the rest of the evenings fare on that station or network.
Thus the network news wars began.
Network news executive bemoan the lack of viewership for their evening news shows but as Paul points out, that audience is a traditional one and is dying out. The days of Father Knows Best coming home to his slippers, newspaper and the evening news has long passed. The new viewers as Paul notes, already knows what's going on from their computers and phones. Unless it's an ongoing tragedy or a weather event, it's old news to them.
And those potential new viewers? Most of them are stuck in traffic held captive to local AM radio news, which on a good day probably does about 9 seconds of actual news with the rest being filled with traffic, weather and of course a gazzillion commercials.
Those news deprived commuters generally tune to NPR. While liberally biased, they do a good job of presenting the worlds news with a bit of perspective.
So how long will it take for the networks to dump their evening news shows?
It's not "if" but "when".
And even before they abandon their 22 minutes news show, how long before they stop putting correspondents on the air elucidating the obvious.
For my money, show me the event, don't tell me about it.
My moment of zen came last year when Tusgaloosa, AL was devastated by tornadoes. Every network on the planet called me to work but I just didn't want to. I knew I was aftermath. I knew I would be doing a morning live shot of some poor bastard whose life and belongings have been shattered.
I declined the invitation but TiVoed the network news shows to see how they handled it.
Of course there was the usual aftermath picture and story but this time it was peppered with some dramatic iPhone footage...some of it quite good and It occurred to me...that's I want. I want to see the actual tornado, not hear about it. I've got a radio for that. Show me the action. I don't need anybody with a mic standing on a pile or rubble telling me what I already know.
A good producer can gather and write the material. Spare me the "concerned" correspondents presence and mother of god, please spare me the contrived concern of the anchors and lets just "phone it in".
#8 Posted by Allen Facemire, CJR on Sat 14 Jul 2012 at 11:10 PM
A teacher would be fired if her lectures were as unpredictable as the events the news media must investigate. But no one in the news media is interested in improving their communication skills by organizing their information like a teacher would. However, the news media is the only institution that has the freedom to improve our political system. Politicians must give the public what the public wants or they will be replaced by more popular politicians. One man, one vote is a wonderful principle and a lousy incentive to become a really educated voter. Therefore our government is always going to be captured by the most powerful special interest groups. The news media could overcome this by supply an annual one week remedial education. These annual reports could both reinforce the public's learning curve and function as a report card on our government. The report cards, like a teacher's report card, could make voters pay attention to the flaws in political system. Newspapers could even republish their remedial education as a paperback book so the public wouldn't need to take notes. They could just buy their newspaper's annual photographic memory. There is only one way that these remedial education courses could be made profitable. But no one in the news media is interested in doing a better job. Communicating like a teacher is not part of their professional standards. Reporters investigate disasters. They don't prevent them. That would be boring. Again, the news media is the only institution that has the freedom to change our political system but reporters and editors care more about themselves than their country.,
#9 Posted by Stanley Krauter, CJR on Mon 16 Jul 2012 at 08:50 PM
Who knew that a suit could write so good?? Well, some of us did...
Congratulations, Paul: a first-rate piece.
#10 Posted by Martin Clancy, CJR on Tue 17 Jul 2012 at 12:37 PM
Indeed, it is a good article; however, I'm shocked by the lack of interactivity here. No twitter hashtag or email address for the author and no engagement with the posters by the author or editorial staff of CJR. For an author and organization pontificating about the future of journalism, both seem stuck in the age of dinosaurs. Stories are no longer lectures, but jumping off points for discussion. Perhaps Mr. Friedman has his own reasons not to be a part of the new media, but CJR can, and should, do much better.
#11 Posted by Josh Rushing, CJR on Tue 17 Jul 2012 at 02:28 PM