February
3No News to Bad News
Tom Pryor, the long-time former editor of Daily Variety, once gave this explanation as to why his newspaper’s circulation always held steady, even in tough times. “Folks need to pick up Variety to see if they’ve been fired,” he told me.
He had a point. In today’s collapsing economy, folks in general have an even greater need for news for that very reason, but news is in radically short supply. Newspapers are folding all around us – Seattle and Baltimore are this weekend’s examples. The Los Angeles Times has just announced yet another 300 firings plus the consolidation of several already slimmed-down sections. Its staff is now half of what it was in its prime.
According to the Tyndall Report, the major networks last year devoted one fourth as much coverage to Iraq as the year before. CBS cut correspondents in places like Moscow, Tokyo and Tel Aviv.
Bastions of hard news are having a rough time. The New York Times Co. posted a stunning 48% decline in fourth quarter net income and ad revenues seem to be dropping by about 18% per quarter.
Given this dark picture, it’s all the more satisfying to identify some island of encouragement. Yes, Rachel Maddow of MSNBC is getting cool ratings. So is the new Meet the Press with David Gregory. Ratings of the nightly news shows are showing signs of life.
Most amazing of all, the United States finally has a President who reads the newspapers. The New York Times story on Wall Street’s exorbitant bonuses prompted President Obama to become sufficiently enraged that he denounced the giveaway at a news conference. Imagine that: A President who actually responds to a newspaper article!
In this environment, special plaudits should also go to 60 Minutes, which is averaging 15.4 million viewers this year, more than most network primetime shows. Its last eight episodes finished in the top ten.
It’s been five years since Jeffrey Fager took over from the crusty Don Hewitt, and contrary to some forecasts, the 40-year-old show has become even more successful. Fager has let newcomer Lara Logan and vets such as Leslie Stahl and Scott Pelley report tough stories from Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan.
Fager’s style differs markedly from Hewitt’s, say his producers. Fager gives them more autonomy up to the time he sees their cut. He also lets his producers veer from the Hewitt formula of building every story around a single dynamic personality – the Fager shows may be issue-centric, not personality-centric.
The show is cooking, and its success serves as an important reminder that there’s a significant audience out there for “serious” news.
Hence the ugly paradox: Now that we have the audience, the need and even a responsive president, we may not have the newspapers.
He had a point. In today’s collapsing economy, folks in general have an even greater need for news for that very reason, but news is in radically short supply. Newspapers are folding all around us – Seattle and Baltimore are this weekend’s examples. The Los Angeles Times has just announced yet another 300 firings plus the consolidation of several already slimmed-down sections. Its staff is now half of what it was in its prime.
According to the Tyndall Report, the major networks last year devoted one fourth as much coverage to Iraq as the year before. CBS cut correspondents in places like Moscow, Tokyo and Tel Aviv.
Bastions of hard news are having a rough time. The New York Times Co. posted a stunning 48% decline in fourth quarter net income and ad revenues seem to be dropping by about 18% per quarter.
Given this dark picture, it’s all the more satisfying to identify some island of encouragement. Yes, Rachel Maddow of MSNBC is getting cool ratings. So is the new Meet the Press with David Gregory. Ratings of the nightly news shows are showing signs of life.
Most amazing of all, the United States finally has a President who reads the newspapers. The New York Times story on Wall Street’s exorbitant bonuses prompted President Obama to become sufficiently enraged that he denounced the giveaway at a news conference. Imagine that: A President who actually responds to a newspaper article!
In this environment, special plaudits should also go to 60 Minutes, which is averaging 15.4 million viewers this year, more than most network primetime shows. Its last eight episodes finished in the top ten.
It’s been five years since Jeffrey Fager took over from the crusty Don Hewitt, and contrary to some forecasts, the 40-year-old show has become even more successful. Fager has let newcomer Lara Logan and vets such as Leslie Stahl and Scott Pelley report tough stories from Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan.Fager’s style differs markedly from Hewitt’s, say his producers. Fager gives them more autonomy up to the time he sees their cut. He also lets his producers veer from the Hewitt formula of building every story around a single dynamic personality – the Fager shows may be issue-centric, not personality-centric.
The show is cooking, and its success serves as an important reminder that there’s a significant audience out there for “serious” news.
Hence the ugly paradox: Now that we have the audience, the need and even a responsive president, we may not have the newspapers.
Subscribe to Peter Bart's Blog Feed
Post a comment