And that’s the way it is…
The announcement by ABC News last week that they are going to cut 300-400 jobs, a full 20% of their news staff is only confirmation of what we predicted along time ago: That TV network news would go the way of newspapers.
The irony is that TV News has it within its power to save itself.
But it won’t.
The technology exists to completely re-invent how television news is done – make it faster and better. The changes necessary, however, will prove too frightening for network news executives. They would rather go down with the ship than produce a quality news product, unfortunately for the rest of us.
Andrew Heyward, former President of CBS News and now a consultant to NBC makes just this point in an article in the NY Times today.
The core of the problem is that the people who run the network news organizations have little passion for or interest in journalism. What they really like is making TV shows, which is a different business entirely.
The Lara Logan mess from 60 Minutes is a classic example. Their focus, at no little cost, is on their very attractive ‘corespondent’ and her portrayal of the beefcake Green Berets in raybans lifting weights and working out in the sun. When one of them accidentally shoots two teen aged civilian Afghanis (while performing for the CBS cameras), it’s a matter of ‘oops’ and appended at the end of the piece.
David Halberstam is rolling over in his grave.
Now ABC News has announced that they are going to start moving toward the VJ model.. maybe, and no doubt with great trepidation.
Too little, too late.
Katie Couric, newsreader for CBS News is paid $14 million a year to work 22 minutes a night reading what someone else has written for her.
Were we to take Ms. Couric’s salary (and there is lots more in the pot at CBS, but let’s stick to this one for our example) and hire 100 really smart, aggressive journalists, equip them with digital cameras and laptops, and send them out around the world to really report – CBS News could have a global team of 100 VJs feeding not only the Evening News (how many pieces can they run) but their website and morning shows as well. Ms. Couric’s salary alone could provide 100 VJs with salaries of $140,000 a year. You can get some pretty hefty talent for that number.
CBS News could put itself on the very cutting edge of a digital revolution in quality newsgathering – not just for the Evening News but for the web as well.
Think about it.
So simple.
Will they do it?
Unlikely.
Why?
Because they can’t see the world in that way. They can only see TV Shows. And TV Shows require stars. And Stars require big salaries, makeup people, private planes and a whole lot of other stuff that has nothing to do with journalism.
Too bad CBS News.
Too bad ABC News
Too bad, General Motors (oops, but you get the idea).
The problem here is not in the technology, and not in the journalism and not even in the realities of the television advertising marketplace or online revenues. The problem is in the people who run the network news operations.
They grew up in an era of TV Stars and big salaries and sending Dan and the crews off to Afghanistan. They just can’t see the world in any other way.
After they are gone, and the 22 year olds who are working as news clerks at ABC News and tweeting and vlogging and uploading their own videos to Youtube are running the place, things will change.
But, alas, by then, CBS News will be long gone.
6 Comments
Pingback: teleocon | Blog » Trau! Schau! Wem?
Кубланов March 16, 2010
Пожалуй, ÑоглашуÑÑŒ. Ð¥Ð¾Ñ‚Ñ Ñвои нюанÑÑ‹ здеÑÑŒ еÑÑ‚ÑŒ. ÐŸÐ¾Ð»ÐµÐ·Ð½Ð°Ñ Ð¸Ð½Ñ„Ð¾Ñ€Ð¼Ð°Ñ†Ð¸Ñ. ВоÑпользуюÑÑŒ.
Michael Rosenblum February 28, 2010
I think this is the crux of the issue – News is entertainment. Did you ever read Neil Postman’s book – Amusing Ourselves to Death?
christina February 28, 2010
Then again, we are living in a time when NEWS SHOWS are being treated like entertainment. But then, NEWS is being treated like entertainment… and thus we see the full impact of “if it bleeds, it leads mentality”…
christina February 28, 2010
There’s another side to it. I think they’re afraid that VJs are untrained or minimally trained and unable to generate a product people watch — again they aren’t watching the trends nor seeing some of the work being generated by these VJs. Training and talent are still needed — as is that hunger to generate good journalism. Contrary to popular belief “just anyone” with a camera is not a photographer, they can take a picture sure. But it doesn’t mean the photo’s any good. The same thinking goes with video cameras, etc. Quality still has to be found, talent trained. It’s just still less than the salaries being batted around presently.
Further, I don’t know if it’s the name “VJ” — and some stigma picked up when djs turned into vjs (video jockeys) and music became more about appearance than ever before, or if it’s actually in the term “video journalist” — as if the journalism has to be qualified, as in “not a real journalist, a video journalist”… But there’s something apologetic in the connotation — something that has either been pulled forward from the past, or created by the burgeoning masses of camera and video armed individuals uploading images to the internet.
Training is still critical — tho it’s not as elite as it once was. And some things still can’t be taught — some talent is still inherent, and TALENT is still necessary. But in the end, quality will always win in the long run. But QUALITY does not mean “star power.”
Seth Long February 28, 2010
What they really like is making TV shows, which is a different business entirely.
The same thing is true in newspapers. Execs and romantic editorial types who are in love with (and in some cases, fetishize) the means of production instead of the actual product will be the death of many forms of journalism.