A New Argument Against Katie: It's the Demos, Stupid

I know I'm like a dog with a bone on this one. But I can't stop thinking about how bad an idea it is for Katie Couric to take over as anchor of the CBS Evening News.

Perhaps it's because big outlets such as USA Today can't stop talking about it, either. At least one big name journalist on the receiving end of her charms thinks she'd be good for the gig (as someone who has been on the receiving end of that high-wattage smile once, I can say it is warming and blinding). And regardless of her decision when her contract ends May 31, it's gotta be fun keeping the media world on pins and needles for so long.

Still, the arguments against her move are lengthy and logical and they have no clear successor at Today (Campbell Brown is too cold, Natalie Morales is too inexperienced and Meredith Viera has been off the TV news scene too long -- it's notable that few are really mentioning current Today newsreader Ann Curry as a possible successor, probably because she's too inept).

But I think there's another reason Katie wouldn't work moving to CBS: niche audience journalism.

As I noted in my earlier post, digital technology is turning media into a niche business, with all sorts of implications for entertainment and news. And CBS has cornered the market on the niche for traditional TV viewers.

I haven't dissected the ratings demographics, but I wouldn't be surprised if Bob Schieffer's boost in viewership has come from traditional newscast viewers reassured by his experience, traditional journalism values and grandfatherly style. This is exactly the type of audience which will reject Couric for her roots in infotainment, her lack of journalistic achievement and her celebrity status.

Imagine listening to a country and western station for 18 months, only to find it has suddenly switched to classical music. Will you hang around to see what the new format is like, or will you head to a place more accomodating to your tastes?

CBS seems to be thinking Couric's celebrity will draw a big enough crowd to replace those who have spent months growing to like Schieffer's avuncular style, but that's broadcast thinking. I believe network news itself is now a broad niche, and that niche prefers gravitas and authority to celebrity and glamour.

If network TV were ruled by reason instead of ego, Schieffer would stay for at least two years while CBS grooms someone to take the job, and Charlie Gibson would do the same at ABC, while the network prepares Elizabeth Vargas with lots of reporting gigs covering the best stories (besides seeing her co-anchor wounded in Iraq and learning a new pregnancy would sideline her by summer, Vargas had the unfortunate luck to be promoted into an anchor job for which she hadn't been well groomed to assume in the first place).

Of course, the only predictable thing about the TV news biz is that money, power and ego trump all. So expect Couric to make headlines as the first solo female network TV anchor at CBS, simultaneously ruining NBC's morning franchise and CBS' evening newscast.

As an old boss of mine used to say: It may be bad for the industry, but it's great for the columns.

Comments

[Anonymous]

like you eric, i have posted about this subject before. and like you, i think cbs would make an unmitigated disaster hiring couric to anchor the evening news on several levels.generally, i wouldn't think cbs would want a polarizing figure on its evening news, but couric sure is.

[formerly mr anonymous]

yr metaphor of switching from c&w to classical w couric wd have been more apropos if youd compared couric to pop. surely, shes no beethoven. britney spears, maybe.anyway, i wonder who watches these shows? im never home at 6:30pm which is too early anyway to have a tv on. and i certainly dont watch am tv, much less the babbling idiocy of the today show, which i dont think ive seen since hugh downs left. or was it dave garroway and his chimp?i have seen schieffer, vargas and whatsisname on nbc, brian somebody, occasionaly at the gym when im working out. i guess theyre a cut above bob and gail, but maybe its just the better lighting.i just dont get the hullaballoo about network anchors.

[Anonymous]

which i dont think ive seen since hugh downs left. or was it dave garroway and his chimp?wow. you go WAY back man.i guess theyre a cut above bob and gail.geez. a quarter of the on-air talent is equal to or better than marlboro gayle and bob hite. i mean, for local news, these people are nothing more than readers for crissakes. professional readers.hell, at wfla, they glaum off of the tribune's reporters and the anchors act like they are the ones doing the legwork. then, marlboro gayle will say, "i spoke with reporter steven isbitts about this issue... " puh-leeze!(bay sludge 9 for example couldn't exist without thieving stories from all the area papers).i too don't understand the hype of anchors. i think it was andy rooney who recently said cbs should hire anyone moderately competent (which, in my view, means said hire needs only to be literate) for a modest salary and the money left over from what cbs was paying dan rather, hire a dozen new reporters.to me, this issue is like sports broadcasters. people watch for the game, not the broadcaster. the only time the broadcaster makes a difference is if he/she is so brutal and the game has little significance, the broadcaster will actually chase people away.same with news. so long as the anchor is competent (meaning no thick geographic accent, no stupid schtick and doesn't have a face like a two-week old prune), so what?

[FedUpBoomerBabe]

You're right...flash over substance...it's a shame, too, because, by and large, the women who have had shots at the bigtime anchor jobs have been lightweights...take Chung, for example...there are so many solid newswomen...who could pull off gravitas....well, they've got to learn the hard way...I think the bigger story here is how out of touch media management folks are from the consumer of their product...they're clueless...she won't last a year...

[Khan of the Wastelands]

Count me in the camp that doesn't care who reads the damn news.More important is the decline of print media. Most of the big stories in my lifetime were broke by print journalism, not TV.

[Eric Deggans]

I would say a few things about network TV anchors.First, most of them also act as managing editors for their newscasts. Which means they write all or most of the stories they voice and they are heavily involved in which stories get covered and how they are featured on the newscast. So picking a new anchor means more than hiring a face to read hadlines, which is often the case at the local level.Secondly, the measure of a network anchor is really how they handle unscripted events: disasters, elections, special live reports and the like. Hard as they may work on the daily brodcast, these moments are when an anchor steps up as the face of a network news division and helps viewers through tough times. We saw it during 9/11, during Katrina and during the 2000 election crisis. Is anyone convinced Katie Couric can really guide the nation through another 9/11 solo?Third, anchors are important because most of the network newscasts report the same news in slightly different ways. Unfortunately, their biggest point of departure comes over who is reading the headlines. And viewers undoubtedly pick a newscast to watch regularly based on who they would rather get their news from.i have often advocated separating the anchor job from the TV news reporting jobs, so a news organization's best reporters don't wind up forced to tie themselves to the anchor chair to make the big bucks. At the BBC, newsreaders are just that and journalists chase down the actual storiesAnd that's the biggest travesty. As the people who get all the credit or blame for the performance of the broadcast, anchors are often paid five to ten times more than the reporters, editors and producers who actually fill the broadcast each day with news.

[Anonymous]

Who cares

[Khan of the Wastelands]

lol,Second that.Is anyone convinced Katie Couric can really guide the nation through another 9/11 solo?I personally don't need a TV anchor to explain to me why a certain event is signifigant.Half the shit they're reporting doesn't matter to anyone anyways.Natalee Halloway is a national event?Or the dude that killed his pretty young pregnant wife? (Peterson?)The next 9/11 or Katrina? Like I said I don't need someone on the idiot box to explain to me if something is signifigant or not.

[Eric Deggans]

A combined 30 million people watch all three network newscasts, compared to about 2-million who watch cable's highest-rated news program, Bill O'Reilly's show.These programs are the biggest concentration of news consumers anywhere -- no newspaper web site or TV news program draws more eyeballs.That's who cares...

[Anonymous]

khan: totally agree with you but i can explain peterson (and to a lesser degree holloway).like you, i could care less about the laci peterson case. but i talked to a tv producer a couple of months ago and he told me the research networks did, for women, the interest in the peterson case was absolutely off the charts.i do remember when the peterson verdict came down. the guys in the office were largely disinterested and going about work. the women, however, were riveted to the tv, hanging on seemingly every word. much as we would like to pretend otherwise, tv networks exist to make money. producers and executives see the numbers from research and see dollar signs first.

[Anonymous]

eric: just curious. how many hits does cnn.com average a day, or yahoo news?

[formerly mr anonymous]

anchors are often paid five to ten times more than the reporters, editors and producers who actually fill the broadcast each day with news......and that's different from any news org, print or broadcast, how?last i checked, mr tash and mr brown, it's safe to say, were pulling in, what, 40x or 50x as much as they are paying, say, you to fill up the st pete times, no?

[Anonymous]

WHAT A JOKE!!! The SPT is nothing but a democratic cheerleader. This is simply not a serious newspaper. You actually had a seperate story detailing how Harris' claims were suspect? Are you kidding me? Where is the explenation when you run stories about budget cuts? Where's the side story that tells you there is actually more money being spent next year, but the projected increases were trimmed? Then you "report" on a speech by Rumsfeld, and use it to create a completely misleading headline. The SPT is a rag, bought and paid for by the DNC. Garbage, by liberals and for liberals.

[Anonymous]

WHAT A JOKE!!! The SPT is nothing but a democratic cheerleader. This is simply not a serious newspaper. You actually had a seperate story detailing how Harris' claims were suspect? Are you kidding me? Where is the explenation when you run stories about budget cuts? Where's the side story that tells you there is actually more money being spent next year, but the projected increases were trimmed? Then you "report" on a speech by Rumsfeld, and use it to create a completely misleading headline. The SPT is a rag, bought and paid for by the DNC. Garbage, by liberals and for liberals. uh, what does this have to do with tv anchors?

[Khan of the Wastelands]

last i checked, mr tash and mr brown, it's safe to say, were pulling in, what, 40x or 50x as much as they are paying, say, you to fill up the st pete times, no?Ouch, kick a man where hurts why don't you?uh, what does this have to do with tv anchors?There all commie lib traitors too!Except for O'Reilly. He's a real American.Personally I don't know why we can't just have all the major networks combine their news cast into one simulcast hour.The "News" could be read by Karl Rove.This weeks top story "The war between Oceania and Eurasia continues"

[Eric Deggans]

Tash and Neil Brown are the top managers at the newspaper. They are more analogous to the general manager of a TV station. Our managing editor, Stephen Buckley, is more analogous to the role that anchors play, and I assure you, he doesn't make ten or even five times what I make. You expect senior members of the news team to make more money. But popular anchors are often paid more than anybody else at their network or station by many times. It is compensation that is out of whack, and forces the news outlet to forego news gathering resources....For the poster who asked about figures for CNN and yahoo, according the project for excellence in journalism, in 2005 yahoo scored 27 million unique visitors a month, while cnn.com scored 21 million unique visitors a month. Network newscasts attract that many viewers every day....

[Anonymous]

The "News" could be read by Karl Rove.LOL!