Put down the NY Times…

This article was very interesting. I agree and disagree with it on many points. First of all, I definetly agree that instead of hiring some big flashy anchorman that catches all the eyes, CBS should hire a real, thorough and SMART journalist. Yes, Brian Williams is a good speaker and gives the news straight, but..lets face it. He is nice to look at too. Cronkite? Well, I personally never saw the man perform, but from what I hear, his “and that’s the way it was,” was his big thing. And I’m not so sure a catch line is what newscasters should be worrying about this day in age.

But this article also states that the station shouldn’t spend money on new sets and commercials. Well, the thing is, people DO like that stuff and ARE attracted to it. It’s undeniable that people like fresh looks, and no matter how much they want the news, no one wants to watch it from an “ugly” guy in a plain black room.

Though it seems an original idea to not include in the news what was in the Times, I disagree with that only to point out the obvious that not everyone likes to/has time to read the newspaper daily, but they may have an hour or two at night to catch whats on the telly.

But the fact that the author says not to hire some blonde bimbo is DEFINITELY something I agree with. Not because I’m biased against blondes, but because there are so many fake people out there getting jobs because of what they look like! Look at ESPN. Are those blond sportscaster women REALLY as good as **insert historic sportscaster name here**. (sorry, lack of sports knowledge.)

Anyway, the response was long, but as an aspiring journalist myself, this really appealed to me and I’m looking forward to seeing what CBS does. Considering I will NEVER watch Bill O’Reilly.

Peggy Noonan makes so much sense that it’s unreal. CBS is only setting itself up for viewer dissatisfaction by searching for a “big name.” Viewers are bored by the cookie-cutter journalism provided by mass media today, hence the rise of blogs and the DrudgeReport. CBS automatically loses an audience when they follow The Times’ story coverage. The Times is a self-proclaimed liberal newspaper, and CBS proclaims at the top of their lungs that they are un-biased. It just doesn’t work. I can’t wait to see what they will create with such an amazing opportunity.

I agree with the article as well. I laughed out loud at the part about not hiring “Kimmy, Kubby and Koopy”.
When I read the list of suggested topics, so many of those sounded interesting to me: what is a “letter from home” these days, what do soldiers think about what we think about the war, etc.
I agree that the news has become too streamlined and cookie-cutter, if I may use those words. I think the networks are scared to take a risk by re-allocating their money, but they should look into it. I agree with the statement “People in America like to find stars on their own.” We certainly like to discover our own musicians, I think the same theory holds true for TV personalities.
Thanks for link to such a good article. I enjoy Ms. Noonan’s slight touch of sarcasm, and will look forward to reading more from her in the future.

I agree with the above and Peggy Noonan. I think that if CBS would embrace some of her ideas then it would create a great turn-out. Sure it might take them a little longer than usual to attract the large audience that they are targeting, but I think in time they would come. I think hiring a good reporter based on experience rather than looks would be good for the network. I feel like every time I turn on the news I am staring at another pretty face rather than an experienced well-established journalist/reporter.
I agree with Courtney Elizabeth about it being hard to call yourself un-biased if you take your ideas from a bias source. It seems a little far fetched to me. I know that the many people who work for the network are very hard-workers and are very busy, but it seems almost lazy just to take the ideas to broadcast about from another source like The Times. I know The Times is a very well-known, well-respected source, but I know there are also very intelligent people who work for CBS who could come up with other ideas to broadcast about.
All and all I agree with what I read. I only hope that maybe the network will embrace such untraditional ideas and take a risk that might lead to success in the future for them.

I think spending so much money on a broadcaster only can spell trouble, especially when you wind up with someone who proves to be as much of a liability as Dan Rather. I saw Donald Trump blasting Rather this morning on several news shows, and it makes me wonder how much CBS must regret keeping him on for so long. Trump pointed out several instances of complete mediocrity, musing why CBS kept the anchor on.
Wouldn’t be nice if journalistic skill rather than audacity or fantastic looks could make a news station?
Those will be the days…