Neither of these alternatives has been palatable up to now, in large part because no corporate boss looks forward to losing prestige and risking a public-relations beating. But a corporate business decision to gut the evening newscast becomes even less likely if the three broadcasts continue to differentiate themselves, maintain or expand their audiences, and draw closer to each other in the ratings race—so that none of them is an easy target.
That’s good news. Does it justify some measure of optimism, over the long term?
After years of sharp audience declines, the total audience for the three broadcasts went up by more than 600,000 viewers last year. Still, that increase is being eroded (and could even be wiped out) this year. And while the demographic group that has always been most likely to watch the network newscasts—those over 55—is growing faster than any other age group, it’s also possible to make the conventional argument that the older audience doesn’t matter, and that the evening newscasts are ultimately doomed because younger generations are not watching—that they are comfortable getting the news they want from the Web and various mobile technologies.
But young people never watched the evening news in large numbers, even when the total evening news audience was much bigger. The hope always was, and is, that as they age into the fast-growing pool of older viewers, some of them will appreciate the credibility and convenience of the evening news—just like some of their parents and grandparents. That will help maintain the size and commercial viability of the evening news audience, which is much underappreciated by those who predict the demise of the evening broadcasts.
The truth is, no one knows. for now, the three newscasts are more tightly bunched in the competition for an audience that is still substantial. But the evening broadcasts are no longer a protected species, and they are doing what they need to do to survive. And at a time when all established news organizations face unprecedented challenges, and anyone with access to the Web can claim to be delivering news, the survival of institutions with traditions of excellence is a good thing.
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