Outside Voices: End Of An Era For The "Evening News," Says Gandelman
Each week we invite someone from outside PE to weigh in with their thoughts about CBS News and the media at large. This week's guest, Joe Gandelman, writes The Moderate Voice, a blog he started after spending many years as a freelance writer overseas and full-time reporter on the staffs of two newspapers. Gandelman is also a professional ventriloquist. Here, he writes about how the new iteration of the "Evening News" should adjust in the 21st century.
As always, the opinions expressed and factual assertions made in "Outside Voices" are those of the author, not ours, and we seek a wide variety of voices. Now, here's Joe:
The fuss over what comes next at the CBS "Evening News" continues. So who's going to fill in the anchor slot? And shouldn't it be someone who represents seamless continuity with the way the news has been done in the past?
Maybe not:
The biggest issue facing CBS is whether -- and how -- it can adjust a venerable news institution to the reality that we're living in the 21st century and it may be time to explore changes in form as well as personnel. The same style, format and pacing that worked for the World War II and baby boomer generations may not be best for the MTV and iPod generations.
This is not to criticize Bob Schieffer, who has been a superb transitional choice. When you watch him, you regret he hadn't had a much larger role in CBS earlier in his career. Schieffer is a welcome journalistic link to the days of Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite. Wouldn't hiring someone who isn't in the same mode as Schieffer, Murrow or Cronkite be a huge shift?
In fact, NO ... if you look at history.
News, like many aspects of society, has changed dramatically over the years. Just consider this lightning review of various changes over the past century or so (this list is not all inclusive):
SHOW BUSINESS: Live vaudeville variety stage shows in huge chain theaters in American cities. Silent movies undercut vaudeville. Talking movies hurt it more. Some theaters close. Radio puts final nail in vaudeville coffin. Rise of burlesque and nightclubs. TV kills "the golden age of radio" and clobbers burlesque and night clubs. Cable television dilutes network broadcasting audiences and begins the "narrow casting" era. DVDs shoved onto market shortly after movies are released hurt Hollywood box office profits.
POP MUSIC: Al Jolson (vaudeville and early recordings.) Bing Crosby (radio era.) Frank Sinatra (radio/swing band era.) Elvis Presley and rock start to erode previous pop music. Beatles overshadow Presley. Rock groups. Sinatra-style pop music fades. Hip-hop/rap era.
NEWS AND VIEWERSHIP: Dominance of daily and evening newspapers and "yellow journalism." Radio news in infancy covering topics such as Hindenberg blimp disaster brings immediacy to news coverage. World War II legitimizes fact-based reporting and broadcast news. Creation of network evening newscasts. Death of many evening afternoon newspapers as Americans turn to TV news. Use of video tape and improved technologies. CNN's 24 hour news operation competes with networks. Fox News competes with CNN. News blogs become feisty supplements to and watchdogs of traditional news media. Fact-based reporting under fire.
MISC: Radio shifts from entertainment to music to info/talk. MTV popularizes quick-cut videos. Fairness doctrine ends in 1987. Rise of Rush Limbaugh and conservative talk dominating radio airwaves. Cerebral talk shows displaced by more sensationalistic shows such as Jerry Springer's and Geraldo Rivera's. News organizations start to fiercely compete with popular tabloids . Liberal "Air America" network and liberal talker Ed Schultz. Satellite radio offers shows free of FCC control.
The point is: all eras end and for years the network newscasts have stayed largely the same. And what is today's new context? A NEW era with new technologies seducing potential viewers. Shorter attention spans. Polarized political attitudes. News must be packaged in smarter and more compelling ways. That does NOT mean sensationalism or ignoring foreign news or substantive issues. It means offering a more varied package that's more accessible to younger viewers.
And what about The Great Katie Couric Controversy of 2006? It seems only yesterday when some folks were writing about The End Of News As We Now Know It because a woman from the "Today Show" was going into news on another network. Her name was Barbara Walters and, except for a frigid reception by Harry Reasoner, she performed quite well.
The biggest issue isn't who fills the slot. The issue is the nature of the slot that CBS seeks to fill. Is it going to be the same kind of slot or are we now at the beginning of a new era? Has the context in which newscasts are delivered now changed? Have the audiences changed? Have the other choices viewers now have to get their information changed? And does all of this mean the news delivery system needs to change?
The bottom line is that network newscasts in general now seem resistant to the fact that, like the eras listed above, they today exist as part of an era -- and change is inevitable for survival. MUST 2006 newscasts be in a 1960s form? An emphasis on diverse content can be maintained while changing the form so newscasts are both appealing and informative to 21st century audiences.
Yes, tradition is important.
But so is evolution. Or, at least, intelligent (management) design.