CAN THE NETWORK NEWS BE SAVED?

With Dan Rather's slow motion sacking reaching its not-so-thrilling climax last evening (I intended to watch, but got the TV schedule mixed up, and wasn't all that disappointed to realize I'd missed it) everybody seems to be talking about either Memogate or the decline of the establishment news organizations (or in blogosphere parlance, the MSM).

It got me thinking again about a Jack Shafer column from earlier this week proposing a vastly different approach to the nightly news than anyone has ever attempted:

• First, CBS should target serious news consumers, the sort of devotees who follow breaking news all day through news radio, cable, and the Web. Dedicate the program to breakingest of breaking news and ditch the news-you-can-use and heart-warming features unless they're stupendous.


• Next, reduce the number of commercials. Right now, about eight of the 30 minutes of an evening news slot are ads, which makes the program too short and too frequently interrupted to be compelling. ... [O]ne reason the network's morning "news" programs have gained viewers steadily since 1998 is that viewers have realized that they often program big blocks -- up to 20 minutes -- free of commercial interruption. Advertise the CBS Evening News as the program that gives hardcore news consumers two minutes more news per half hour. Cutting ads will reduce revenue, of course, but it will build audience, which is the longterm problem the program faces.


• Swing a deal with CNN to rebroadcast a refreshed version of the CBS Evening News in the 10 p.m. slot. One reason behind the evening news fade is that it's still scheduled for an era when moms stayed at home and cooked for dad, who didn't have a long commute. ... A 10 p.m. cable slot for the CBS Evening News would similarly appeal to busy people.


• Next, CBS News should partner with a premier daily newspaper ... to give viewers a taste of tomorrow's news tonight. The networks already use the morning New York Times as a cheat sheet for the evening program. Why not use it as a preview of tomorrow's news?


• Next, hire a brainy and thoughtful commentator. Eric Severeid (good), Bill Moyers (bad), and Bill Bradley (uneven) once delivered interesting commentaries on CBS Evening News. In our increasingly opinionated world, CBS would seem futuristic by going retro and including a video columnist.


• TiVo and other technologies have destroyed the concept of "appointment viewing." CBS should respond by putting the goddamn broadcast on the Web. Computers and television aren't converging—they've converged—and I want to watch the news 1) when I want to watch it and 2) on whatever monitor I'm looking at.

That's a TV show I would watch. Timely, realistic, flexible, affix any number of adjectives you want, it sounds like it could be a gripping broadcast. The myriad innovations alone could inspire the kind of fierce brand loyalty today exhibited only among Fox News viewers.

Unlike many young professionals in this suburb-highway-city-highway-suburb (repeat!) information economy, I am in front of a television set in the early evening. And unless I'm working (in which case I'm listening to music) I often (too often) watch cable news. So mark me down as one of thosee "serious news consumers" Shafer mentions. Sometimes I wonder if there are really that many of us out there; blog readership is still miniscule compared to the TV viewing population, and "American Idol" has ratings Dan Rather would have given up moderating a Saddam-Bush live debate for.

Potentially, this model could do (at least) two things: 1) introduce the average viewing public to a sharper (more serious, more exciting) news broadcast, thereby creating/enabling more serious news consumers than ever before and 2) get the MSM-suspicious (and CBS-loathing) right-wing bloggers to watch the CBS News. Either one would be a major achievement.

It may be just crazy enough to work. After all, what's on the broadcast news right now doesn't.

---

posted by WWB at 12:41 PM |