As we've noted here before (and as is regularly noted at The Common Ills), the master of the evening network news is Brian Williams. Because we so often note that, we're wrongly accused of being Brian Williams fans. We're not. We personally don't like him. But he knows how to run his newscast. Every story is geared to you the viewer. It may be (as some suggest) a false front on Williams' part but the audience is provided with news and it is catered to (many of) them. That and Tom Brokaw is why Nightly News with Brian Williams remains number one. Tom Brokaw? Williams is the only current anchor who inherited a successful newscast. That's not to take away from his own accomplishments, he's built on what he was given, but he was in a better position than others.
At CBS, anchor Dan Rather imploded. We have no sympathy for him. When you report a story, you stand by it or not. You don't, as non-journalists are brought in for a 'review,' keep your mouth shut and then, after it implodes, decide to speak up. Dan did that. The story 60 Minutes II aired about Bully Boy Bush and his military 'service' was strong by journalistic standards. When Dan sat on the sidelines during the review (reportedly having been told he was 'fine' and didn't have to worry about his job), he lost the momentum to argue for the story. The 'review' came out slamming the story and those who worked on it (Dan Rather was the on air talent on that segment of 60 Minutes II) and Dan's career at CBS ended.
By that time CBS was already firmly in place as the least watched of the big three evening newscasts. Face The Nation's Bob Schieffer was brought in as anchor while CBS attempted to find a new anchor and though he was a calming presense at a time of scandal, the show remained dead last. Ratings were never really a concern though among critics. Dan Rather's entire tenure as an anchor was about low ratings, but rarely was that ever a 'hook' for coverage. Schieffer wasn't expected to take the show to the top.
Then Katie Couric was hired. And before she ever did her first newscast, months before (see "TV: Katie Was a Cheerleader"), it was a public stoning as sexist men and queen bee women joined forces to trash Katie's performance as an anchor. Let's repeat, these evaluations of her performance took place months before she ever anchored a newscast. And continued daily. You had people like the rotund 'critic' Danny Schechter -- a notorious sexist who built Media Channel with female labor and treated those women very badly -- mocking her constantly -- again before she'd ever anchored -- and referring to her as "Katey." Danny thought he was cute. He obviously lives in a home without mirrors.
In September of 2006, Couric premiered as anchor. CBS wanted to try making some changes. Couric's been slammed for most of them (she was the face and had the power to say "no," so she has to take criticism). One change, was a commentary, a viewpoint that was intended to be a segment allowing different points of view to be heard from different speakers. It wasn't meant as a one-time thing, it was intended to be a regular feature. Thanks to Media Matters and other holler monkeys that segment was killed. They were offended, for example, that Rush Limbaugh was offered the chance to speak.
Of course Limbaugh would be offered that chance. He is a point of view. He is also highly critical of Dan Rather and CBS News. By getting him in early on, he would be a neutered voice. How so? As a wide spectrum was featured throughout the year and Rush Limbaugh went into on air theatrics trashing the network for it, CBS News could always respond, "We don't know what the problem is. We said this was a segment for differing views and, after all, Rush himself was happy to participate. Maybe he just doesn't like any view that's not his own?"
Now you can argue that the commentary provided wasn't needed, that America didn't need more commentary, it needed more journalism. That's a solid criticism. But what Media Matters did was ensure that left voices were not getting on air. They killed a segment that they should have applauded.
That change goes down as a failure, whatever its intent, because it did fail.
But Katie's impact is felt still. She opened with a lengthy segment -- sometimes two reports tied together -- and her tie-ins in speaking to reporters who had filed the stories usually emphasized the human costs. Her touch on that segment can be seen today . . . on all three networks.
CBS News wanted to tinker with the news format and they wanted to debut an anchor and that was probably too much to do -- especially when, over five months before she debuted, the anchor was being trashed constantly. The trashing never stopped. While Danny Schechter was constantly ridiculing Katie, excuse us, "Katey," the fact of the matter was she was anchoring a solid newscast. In June 2007, we noted that as Dan Rather was stroking his inner pig boy (and Danny Schechter was applauding it) by saying CBS had "tarted up" the Evening News, "it was left to our Manny Named Brian to note the obvious: 'But the fact is the broadcast has gotten a lot better under new Executive Producer Rick Kaplan – newsier, harder, and less features oriented. Last week, according to Andrew Tyndall, the Evening News spent 11 minutes on Iraq, while ratings champ World News With Charles Gibson spent just two'."
It never mattered what she did or how strong it was, they were determined to hate her, these sexist males and queen bee women. It's a testament to Katie Couric that she withstood it and did so professionally. No woman will ever have it as hard as Katie did. Diane Sawyer's incompent anchoring demonstrates that. Katie blazed the trail, took all the attacks and was still standing. When she left, it was on her terms.
Scott Pelley replaced her two weeks ago. The CBS Evening News with Scott Pelley debuted June 6th. That morning, the US military announced 5 US soldiers died in Iraq in a single attack Saturday, DoD announced the death toll had risen to 6. At five, it was the deadliest attack in two years on US soldiers in Iraq. On that night, Pelley covered the story when Diane Sawyer 'forgot' it on ABC World News and PBS' NewsHour was under the mistaken notion that you bury 5 US deaths in a war in a brief headline while chasing down 'scandals' and gossip. Only NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams also managed to cover -- not read a 3 sentence headline the way The NewsHour did -- the 5 deaths.
Thursday, David Bauder (AP) quoted PEW's Mark Jurkowitz stating, "The message of last week could be reclaiming CBS as a more serious-minded news organization." And Bauder noted, "CBS was encouraged that viewership for Pelley's first week was up 6 percent over the same week in 2010, according to the Nielsen Co." Scott Pelley may end up the one who can challenge Brian Williams. That would require not only an emphasis on the news (already, Pelley has a greater emphasis on real news as opposed to junk news), but also a way to relate each of the segments to the audience. That's what TV is. CBS is at its best when it's willing to 'tell me a story.'
Pelley will also benefit from the fact that sexist men and the queen bee women will want him to succeed to prove they were right about Katie Couric. They weren't right but Pelley will benefit from that attitude.
Diane Sawyer benefitted from Katie Couric. We've never seen such an appalling job done by an achor day after day. But having noticed the backlash to the attacks on Katie Couric, many sexist men and queen bee women decided to give Diane a pass so it didn't appear that they hated all women. All that did was reveal them to be hypocrites. Among their biggest attacks on Katie was that she came from daytime TV (NBC's Today). Diane came from ABC's daytime TV (Good Morning America). The attacks on Katie, before she'd ever anchored, came from the left. Diane Sawyer was Richard Nixon's golden girl when he was president. Somehow 'leftists' weren't bothered by that.
Diane got a complete pass and, as a result, World News Tonight is the worst evening news broadcast there is. It wasn't all the great before Diane took over. In fact, we were hoping she'd lift the broadcast to a higher plane. ABC's problems began when Peter Jennings died. In fact, the problems were publicly aired in a (bad) tribute to the longterm network news anchor. As we noted in August of 2005:
The special demonstrated the continued conflict between the news departments and the bosses who see it all as another form of entertainment. And in this round, news lost. (Though people in the news department fought very hard.) We heard grumbles about some of the news "stars" included in the special but the message came down that the network wanted their own highlighted. Some stress to us that it's a miracle that two hours of prime time television was turned over to news. We'd agree with that if we'd actually seen any news. We didn't. Where Jennings hit hard, the special went soft focus. Who was Fox speaking of? What happened to Chris and Jeremy? Why was big tobacco present to attest to Jennings' ability to see all sides? The answer to those questions go to why this wasn't a news special. We assume that two hours (commerical free or not) of a news program would have excited and thrilled Peter Jennings. We doubt he'd look fondly at the results of this special. As the testimonials (the good ones) noted, Jennings was able to tell a story in understandable terms. The special didn't do that. It existed in a world where a report from Iran was an important as announcing it's midnight in Moscow, a world where a story was turned into a tease without an ending. It wasn't journalism. When they release it on DVD (yes, it's coming) we'd suggest that they change the title to A Peter Jennings Tribute. That's what it was (Kate Aurthur called it correctly). It wasn't Peter Jennings Reporter. And we'd suggest that people interested in news think long and hard on that special. Even with some strong people fighting to present a news special, they weren't able to win the battle against The Walt Disney Company. Jennings had power (which, as one testimonial acknowledged, he knew how to use). We're not sure anyone else in front of the camera at ABC does.
Following Jennings' death, Elizabeth Vargas and Bob Woodruff were named co-anchors of World News. Then Woodruff was seriously injured reporting in Iraq and Vargas was pregnant and ABC decided to ditch both. Ditching Woodruff was shocking and ruthless. Ditching Vargas was against the law. Charlie Gibson was moved from Good Morning America to World News as anchor.
And all those screaming about Katie Couric not being 'anchor material' because she was from a morning show? They never said a peep about Gibson. The same Gibson who was most famous for falling asleep on air during Good Morning America broadcasts. The same Gibson who was most infamous for cutting Gore Vidal off on live TV and insisting they had lost the feed when no feed was lost, Gibson just didn't like what Gore was saying.
But no one criticized him, no one called him out. And then Diane was made anchor. Many years after ABC News could boast of any quality (the Jennings years). She started at the end of December 2009. It'll be two years at the end of 2011. It's past time her 'trial' period ended.
Tuesday, as we noted at the top, she was gushing about two "superstars" who would be on the program. Yes, she had time for Bono and The Edge of U2 fame. But know what she didn't have time for? The news that 2 US soldiers had died in Iraq. That was known Tuesday morning. But just as she didn't have time the week before to note the five deaths in Iraq (or the one that happened two days later), she didn't have time Tuesday to note 2 US soldiers killed in a war. That wasn't news. What was news?
She opened with a story on sunscreen, one that she summarized at the end with, "So a golf ball size every two hours, that is a shock to me, Lisa!" Diane probably exclaims more than any other anchor. She had time to note, "President Obama spent the day in Puerto Rico -- the first president to make an official visit since John Kennedy." But he wasn't the first. President Gerald Ford went to Puerto Rico in 1976 for the Group of Seven Economic Summit. That was an official visit. You can lie -- and many did -- to whore for the White House and downgrade Ford's visit but the Group of Seven is not a personal vacation. He was invited to that summit solely because he was the sitting president of the United States.
Common sense escapes her (at best -- at worst, she's still a White House flunky) but, again, she does love exclaiming. So we had Diane declaring that Puerto Rico can't vote in the US elections but "there are even more Puerto Ricans living here than there, right here in the US! And they can vote so anyone running this year has to pay attention." Running this year? Is there an election this year that we missed? What exactly is Barack running for this year?
Diane didn't think 2 US soldiers dying in a war was news. But, in her best Mary Hart fashion, she did gush over the fact that Aaron Spelling's home sold and "$150 million was the asking price" but no one knows what was actually paid for it.
Please, please, Diane, find out for us!!! Please, the fate of the world depends upon that answer!!! It is such an important story and so much more important than the deaths of two US soldiers in the Iraq War.
Diane Sawyer is a stupid, stupid woman and a lousy anchor. To jazz up stories she repeatedly goes Mary Hart-ish. (Mary Hart, who recently ended her lengthy tenure anchoring Entertainment Tonight, did a solid job but she anchored an entertainment show and knew it. Diane's supposed to be anchoring a news broadcast, she should be aiming a lot higher.) So she chirps that "more than 50 years after Sam Cooke sang that song 'don't know much about history' and today's students are struggling as well!
Okay, Sam Cooke's song also says "don't know much about biology," etc. And we wonder if Diane knows that, we really wonder. But despite her alarmist tone, what the hell does it matter if fourth graders don't know about the Korean War or don't know that China is an ally of North Korea? They're not even teenagers. They're children. 4th, 8th and 12th graders took a standardized test and did poorly. That could have led to a report about standardized testing, that could have led to a report about what's being taught (we'd argue students are taught to take tests). But that would have been a report and what ABC offered was a face standing before the cameras providing a summary of a report issued by someone else. A summary, it should be noted, that Diane introduced as being about high school seniors when it was about three grades -- does she review the segments before they air or is she just winging it?
Regardless, this was junk news and, sadly, World News Tonight is always overflowing with junk news.
The broadcast's final segment was introduced by Diane as "two superstars who learned it's never to late to fail here is Cynthia with the writers of Spiderman . . . Bono and The Edge." Bono and The Edge are not the writers. They wrote the score -- a bad score, some argue. The writers of the play, the "book writers," are Julie Taymor, Glen Berger and Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa.
Oh, so that's Diane's lie . . .
No. We'll get to that in a moment. This was an error and a surprising one since Mike Nichols has directed films and plays and knows the difference. And since Mike Nichols is Diane's husband -- a marriage that has nearly managed to silence the rumors that have always circled Diane. But we're not really sure, "writers" or not, why the opening of a Broadway play later that evening trumps the deaths of 2 US soldiers in the Iraq War? Or, for that matter, why an announcement ("play will open") is passed off as news.
We'd ask Diane to explain it to us, but we're afraid she'd either misunderstand or lie.
She lied on ABC World News. Jake Tapper's report was introduced by Diane with a shot of Anthony Weiner's chest and comments about "that Congressional gym in the scandal headlines" -- again, if it's trashy, you're watching ABC World News.
So Congress has two gyms, Jake Tapper reported, built with tax payer money -- one for the House and one for the Senate. They pay $20 a month for the allegedly deluxe gyms. Tapper attempted to see inside them but was denied access on camera. Tapper wants to know what the price tag on this was for tax payers and attempts to find out "how much it costs to run this plush Members' Wellness Center" and that they asked the Senate Rules Committee, the Treasury Department, the House Sgt. at Arms but with no success. The only response, Tapper notes, that was given to the American tax payer was, "We do not provide information on the House gym for security purposes." Tapper was misleading if you were blind. If you were depending upon audio, that's all you got. Diane should have known both what was said and what was displayed on screen. But as she came back on screen, she stated -- with editorial disbelief, "National security to know how much tax payers are paying? Coming up . . ."
That's lying.
That's flat out lying.
ABC News was not told that the cost was an issue of "national security." That "We do not provide information on the House gym for security purposes" statement? It wasn't credited in audio. But on the screen, it was credited as "Statement from the Architect of the Capitol."
The Architect of the Capitol is many things but it is not responsible for providing financial information to the public. In some ways, it is a bit like the department in your local city that has plans for various structures. Go to your local planning office (or, more likely, the archives) and request to see a copy of a floor plan or site plan for a school or airport. You'll be told that you need written permission from a school official to see school plans. You'll not be allowed to see airport plans without some major paperwork. Those are measures put in place after 9-11. We have no idea what information Jake Tapper asked for (and it might have been, "What can you tell me about the House gym?"), but the Architect of the Capitol was not being silly, they were following policy and it is an issue of security according to policy.
The report was misleading unless you knew about the Architect of the Capitol's duties or the policy changes that took place after 9-11. Many do not know about it. But even more misleading was Diane Sawyer insisting, "National security to know how much tax payers are paying?"
That's flat out lying. The truth is they got no information on the costs. They got a statement in reply to something but, check out the responsibilities of the Architect of the Capitol, the statement they received does not apply to the cost.
And if you're thinking, on air, live television mistake, we think you're awfully generous to someone who is paid millions to provide you with the news but we'll note Diane returned to the topic the following day with scripted comments.
Diane Sawyer: And with so many painful cutbacks coming across this country, we heard from a lot of us last night after Congress claimed "national security" -- that's a quote -- "national security" to refuse to tell us how much tax payers are forking over to pay for two exclusive gyms for Congress -- one of the House, one for the Senate, including basketball, a swimming pool. And all we wanted to know was how many tax dollars are being spent to subsidize it? Well we made some more calls today and word is just in, we are being promised answers tomorrow, so stay tuned.
Congress did not tell her it was a matter of "national security." And, in fact, that's not even a quote of what they were told. ABC News was told, by a federal agency, "We do not provide information on the House gym for security purposes." Diane's the one who added "national security."
Possibly when she says "'national security' -- that's a quote," she means to say she's quoting herself?
She wasn't done clowning and fooling -- as those who "stay tuned" and caught Thursday's broadcast witnessed.
Introducing Tapper's Thursday segment, Diane declared, "And, to remind everyone, Jake was told that 'national security' reasons prevented tax payers from knowing how much was spent on the Congressional perks of two gyms with a swimming pool. So what happened?"
But that's not what was said. And there's no answer from Congress -- Congress -- on the issue, Tapper reported Thursday. It would be great if the people knew that. Jake Tapper was given no financial information other than to clarify that House members paid $20 a month for the gym while Senate members paid $40 a month. (Elsewhere, in an Anthony Weiner 'report,' we'd learn it was a lifetime membership.) It would be great if the gym were closed -- as it should be, these are cutback times, Diane Sawyer is right there. But that's not going to happen when everyone can point out that Congress never said "national security." That Congress stonewalled ABC was more than news enough. But it wasn't good enough for Diane Sawyer.
Anchors need to stop giving the news beauty makeovers and stick to what actually takes place.
