Howard Kurtz Deconstructs the Last Gasp of the Network TV Anchor

One of my favorite TV reporters calls them "news actors."

  You and I know them as anchors -- the folks who become the face and voice of newscasts, earning accolades, salaries and prestige far beyond most of the working stiffs who actually assemble the newscast. My friend calls them news actors, because too often they are reading lines fed to them by a producer, working hard to look the part of an intrepid reporter because they don't have the time or skill to actually do it. (click here for a 20-minute YouTube video showing CBS anchor Dan Rather trying to decide whether to wear an overcoat)

I was reminded of the term while thumbing through Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz's impressive new book, Reality Show: Inside the Last Great Television News War. I'm only 80 pages in, but Kurtz offers a tremendously detailed account of the last few turbulent years in the network news anchor game -- from the ascension of Brian Williams as heir to Tom Brokaw to the rise of Katie Couric as the new face of CBS News. Read an exerpt here.

As even Kurtz admits early on, obituaries for the form are hardly in short supply. Network news fits fewer viewers' lifestyles these days, and the total number of eyeballs watching these newscasts dips every year. Still, it's the largest platform in TV news and Kurtz spent more than a year documenting the most game-changing time in the industry for many, many years.

Some have concentrated on the scoops he delivers -- my favorite is the one which opens the book, that CBS president Les Moonves met with Brian Williams in a public library to offer him Dan Rather's job before Williams eventually took over for Tom Brokaw -- but I'm mostly enjoying the way Kurtz outlines this unique job, humanizing those who do it in unusual ways.

The gig does require a bit of acting, as well as black belt-level displays of corporate politics. Kurtz documents how ABC anchor Peter Jennings, sensitive about never finishing high school, transformed himself into a legendarily suave and erudite, if self-educated, anchor. He also notes how the increasing responsibility to serve as a brand-name face of their news divisions gives modern day anchors less time to do actual reporting -- bringing up that whole news acting thing -- which may have proven Rather's fatal flaw.

Other interesting stuff: legendary CBS anchor Walter Cronkite blames Rather for being mostly barred from appearing on the network after his retirement in 1981, while Rather believes his predecessor is mostly miffed at leaving the news game just before anchors began earning multi-million dollar salaries.

Brokaw brought the NBC Nightly News to Number One in the ratings by relentlessly covering the O.J. Simpson trial, which Jennings resisted. Rather tried to get CBS to air his flawed story about President Bush's National Guard service by threatening to give his scoop to the New York Times. And Rather found out Bob Schieffer would be replacing him as interim anchor on the CBS Evening News by reading it in USA Today.

Kurtz also makes me feel like a slug: penning this 464-page tome -- with no book leave -- while writing regular columns for the Post and hosting his weekly CNN media talk show, Reliable Sources. But I would expect no less from a guy who reported on the Jayson Blair controversy even while on his honeymoon. (Click here for an interesting story on how the newspaper feels about his scoops landing in the book instead of his columns).

It's a complex story about complicated media figures. I wonder how much the world beyond us media geeks will care about all this, given how the status of anchors has diminished in recent years. But Kurtz has managed an amazing feat -- detailing the transition of network news anchors from gods of the information age to celebrities with slightly more cachet than Britney or Paris.

Where this leaves our world and our democracy may be the open question.      

Comments

[Jon Freed]

FOR THOSE WHO JUST DON'T GET IT, OR DON'T WANT TO ... Have you ever seen a more blatant and biased attack on a political candidate by a network than that being performed by CNN in its efforts to make an issue and diversion of the pregnancy of Governor Palin's 17 years young daughter? Every American should recognize this abuse of the power of the press for what it really is, and vote their conscience, rather than fall prey to the political machinations of these would-be mind benders.

The CNN talking heads are really going for the jugular. They are beating up on that young lady 30 times a day, every day, while at the same time, in typical double-speak, saying, we really shouldn't be talking about this.

How much convention time, or any time, did CNN give to Obama's "lack of judgment" relationship with convicted felon Rezko?

I'm a lifelong Democrat, not a rabid Republican, just someone who believes in fair play and respect for the truth, rather than sound bites like Obama's selective distortion of the facts, such as his ridiculing of Palin's 12 million dollar Mayoral budget, but not mentioning her managing a 10 billion dollar budget as the current Governor of Alaska - the largest state in the nation.

Senator Obama has 11 years of public service experience compared to 16 years for Governor Palin.

Obama, while a proven community organizer and orator, has No Executive or Leadership Experience at any level of government, whereas Governor Palin has not only a wealth of "Executive and Leadership Experience" on several levels of government - a sound stepping stone to National Service - but "actual, positive and meaningful achievements that dwarf anything that Obama has achieved in his entire political career".

Experience is not only still on the table as an issue, but even more so, when we compare the lack of achievements in public office of Senator Obama, the Democrat candidate for President, with the litany of meaningful achievements of Governor Palin, the Republican Vice-Presidential candidate.

The facts speak for themselves, and for the candidates. The truth is that while Obama just talks about change, Governor Palin's entire political history is built on having effected, and continuing to effect change in terms of fiscal policy and responsibility, energy conservation and production, protection of the environment, and the courageous uprooting of corruption no matter what the source.

While there are aspects of her beliefs that I do not agree with, history has shown that when cast in rolls that call for compromise the most adamant of politicians adjust to the demands of the moment and of the majority. As to the big "what if" that has the pundits hyperventilating at the thought, should she be called upon to fill the roll the Presidential role now envisioned for Obama, she would do the same thing that he has done, merely bring in a Vice-President such as Biden or better. The difference is that "the McCain-Palin ticket is a mirror image of the Obama-Biden ticket", and that she's already starting from a better achievements and qualifications base than Barrack.

The truly frightening thing is that Obama is running for President, while Governor Palin is merely a candidate for Vice-President. What does Barrack do if Biden dies? Lastly, aside from being a posture child for family values, she can also catch fish, and shoot hoops and scoundrels.
Jonathan Freed
PS: Just for the record: the population of Alaska is 626,932 and that of Delaware 783,600. As a Senator Biden essentially represents one-half the latter figure. As a Governor Palin represents all of her citizens. Alaska is 1st in total size, land size, water, and coastline. Delaware is respectively 49th, 49th, 40th and 21st. Being the Governor of a State such as Alaska is a challenge and a responsibility far more important than we give Governor Palin credit for.

[TonyC]

TV anchors are just actors. They're certainly not journalists since all they do is read lines (that they didn't research nor write). (Even if they have some input/control on the story as Rather did, most aren't involved in the actual investigative legwork.) That makes them actors.

TV reporters could be considered journalists in some sense, but a format that can't spend more than 120 seconds on a story, really can't convey any sort of insightful and balanced information.

[Robin 'Roblimo' Miller]

I have a word for someone sitting at a desk reading news: "Radio."

Next-gen TV news will have more live or at least location visuals and less studio "talking head" yakking.

The cost of a single helicopter could equip an ARMY of video stringers with Canon HV20 vidcams + sound & upload equipment.

Reporters and editors who worry about losing their jobs to "citizen journalists" just need to make sure they're better storytellers than their amateur competition, and they'll be fine.

TV news anchors?

Their job is obsolete. There really isn't a need for them any more during the news broadcasts, and when it comes to on-demand (Internet) news clip delivery, they are *totally* superfluous.