Eye on the Evening: Katie Couric and the Future of Broadcast News

When CBS placed Katie Couric in their evening news chair, they envisioned a revolution. The network of Murrow and Cronkite claimed to have been on the road down new perspectives and ideas for the 6:30 timeslot, seeing the modern anchor as one of the family, one more chair at the dinner table, and a way to relax and unwind after the busy work day. Now, five years after beginning her stint at CBS, the first sole woman network evening news host is on her way out, seeking a daytime talk show. This is leading many to wonder about her impact, or lack thereof, on the world of dinnertime television.Like her entrance, Couric’s exit from the anchor desk comes during a time in which evening news programming is struggling, facing viewership competition from cable news and the Internet. Accordingly, many of the major networks are working to stand out, once again, in the public eye, tearing down barriers of the black and white days when burning cigarettes, ties, and sharp masculine cuts reigned supreme. With Couric, CBS felt like they could close the gaps and rush the nightly viewer into the modern world, even if it did involve a little kicking and screaming.So then what went wrong?

Despite efforts to dig into new demographics, the CBS Evening News still remained in third place for most of Couric’s tenure.

"I feel like it was a missed opportunity--we didn't capitalize on the very high ratings out of the gate,” said Kirk Black, general manager of WGCL, Atlanta’s CBS affiliate. “For whatever reason, we weren't able to turn the sample into enough regular viewers to move the needle."


As a replacement for the departing Couric, CBS has decided to remain in-house, assigning seasoned 60 Minutes reporter Scott Pelley the role of successor. Still, media critics argue that the main problem lies within the strictly scheduled formats of broadcast television programming.

“Long gone are the days when most people can even name the three network news anchors,” said Christopher J. Stevens, adjunct English professor at Northeastern University. “It remains to be seen where Couric will take the venerable newscast, but the only certainty is that the days of network news national decision makers are long gone.”

Similarly, many are concerned about the future of daytime television, particularly as Couric decides to embark on her own talk show in hopes of rejuvenating her “likability” factor. Like evening news shows, industry insiders believe that broadcast networks and stations must reconfigure daytime programming habits, even with Couric’s involvement.

"She's facing the same problem in daytime as she faced five years ago in the evening news in that she's trying to make a new entry into a declining medium," said Andrew Tyndall of The Tyndall Report, an online network news newsletter. "She's not going to be the next Oprah or the next Phil Donahue, and that's nothing to do with her, it's just that that platform doesn't exist anymore."

The key points that Tyndall and Stevens bring up, at their hearts, relate to the same idea—network news programs, and networks in general, are in trouble. With cable TV and the Internet becoming the most popular methods of getting the news, the simpler times of decades past, from Murrow to Rather and Brinkley to Brokaw, are over, and old notions must be cast aside. Broadcast television’s tight, conservative programming schedules must loosen up and differentiate themselves among the growing competition. While Couric's initial hiring had a good idea behind it, news organizations must keep in mind the need to keep dedicated and serious focus on hard news during the 6:30 half-hour. This will allow the modern news viewer the chance to connect with journalism in a stronger, more defined way while also keeping the ethical core of the craft in mind.

Royal Pains: The U.S. Media's Buckingham Madness

While Britain prepares for its most famous and politically significant wedding in nearly two decades, the American media appears to be leaving its marks all over London. According to a new Nielsen study focusing on television and Internet news practices, outlets in the United States have spent twice as much time covering Prince William and Kate Middleton’s ceremony as those in the United Kingdom.

From the couple’s engagement in November to this week’s wedding countdown, American news organizations ranging from The Huffington Post to MSNBC have grabbed onto feelings of royal anticipation. The major three television networks, ABC, CBS, and NBC have already flocked over to Buckingham Palace in preparation for the event, anchoring their morning and evening broadcasts from London as part of a week-long extravaganza.

And while hovering reporter’s notebooks over the upcoming wedding bells is a geographically and financially easier act for the British media to perform, the American idea of celebrity has crushed all preconceived conventions. Three employees of NBC News, choosing to remain anonymous for their security, told The New York Times that their company plans to have over 200 people on site covering William and Kate’s nuptials by Friday. According to them, these resources are being shoved into the region in an effort to encourage “the thinking that it’s a happy, fairy-tale story—and America needs happy stories right now.”

Much of this so-called happiness on this side of the pond, historians state, is associated with a desire for political distance and escapism. In paying attention to the personnel and character shifts in Buckingham Palace, Americans feel like they are learning more about the British perceptions of celebrities and figureheads.

“[American media] is fascinated with things royal partly because they’re different from what we have,” insists Fred Leventhal, emeritus professor of British history at Boston University. “The glamour that attaches itself to some presidents, like Kennedy and to a lesser extent Obama, is politicized, and many people don’t go along with it. The royal family are exotic, and they’re free from all those conflicted political questions.”

However, because of the geographical distance between the two countries and governments, many U.S. news outlets are failing to recognize the political relevance of the wedding. Instead they are using it as an excuse to distract the American public from domestic issues. The media’s role, now more than ever, must be one of confrontation, recognition, and understanding of the nation’s most crucial issues, such as those hitting our military, our economy, and our political offices. Television and Internet news providers alike cannot waste time in losing sight of their medium. Instead, they need to redirect their efforts and provide citizens with the means to become and remain effective, day-to-day decision-makers. And while I don’t doubt that Friday’s wedding will be a beautiful and spectacular event to watch, let’s leave the oversimplification to the folks at Disney.

All Aboard The Bandwidthwagon: 2012 And The Trials And Tribulations of Technology

Most of us recall the first time we used the Internet, how excited we were to run to our bulky-at-the-time computers and test out all it had to offer. We could follow news headlines from around the world, find message boards to talk about anything from quantum physics to quarter pounders with cheese, and even order ourselves a nice personal pan pizza to fuel our adventures. That is, of course, after we waited and went insane hearing that ear-piercing dial-up tone over and over again. I can’t begin to describe the days and nights I would stare at the walls, hearing it, practically begging myself to order a supersize cup of cyanide to go along with the pepperoni.

Seeing and using the Internet in the 90s and now even more so today is to recognize a complete shift in the way we run our lives. From Tweeting the 140 characters that describe our lives best to sharing photos from last year’s ComicCon, our existence thrives on how we present ourselves to other people. As such, it is only appropriate that political seeds sprout from within these crevices.

Earlier this month, President Barack Obama took charge of his re-election campaign, beginning it not with a giant stage or great big balloons, but with a video camera and an email address, sending 13 million supporters words of assurance regarding his attempt at a second term. On Wednesday, Obama will be visiting Facebook headquaters in California and live chatting with site founder Mark Zuckerberg, answering people's questions posted on the social network.

Republican challengers are also grabbing onto the bandwidth wagon, choosing to create online videos to supporters and undecided voters alike in an effort to modernize following John McCain’s 2008 statement that he does not use email. Republican candidates Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty ridded themselves of the mystery, instead giving clear pictures to the public about their goals to run for the White House.

"Pre-Obama, the political world viewed digital as a box that had to be checked," said Bryan Merica, a Republican media consultant, to the Los Angeles Times. "What Obama did was show this is a tool we can use to not only fundraise but win elections."

Obama’s 2008 campaign, considered the gold standard for online politics for its use of sites such as YouTube, MySpace, and Facebook, was not only significant because of how it attracted the youthful, tech-savvy voters, but also because of its drastic progression from prior campaigns. In 2000, Republican presidential candidate John McCain received $500,000 in 24 hours via online donation. In 2004, Democratic candidate Howard Dean used MeetUp.com to attract the web surfer demographic.

While the most successful campaigns were, and still are, the ones that effectively mix technology with political and social relevance, as seen by Franklin D. Roosevelt's use of radio and John F. Kennedy's use of television, today's world of online media is at a crossroads never seen before in the world of Washington. Given the ways in which the Internet has changed, providing virtually anyone with the ability to develop platforms and opinions in such tangible, easy-to-learn ways, mystery still remains about how much more room there is for candidates to develop their own edges without having the competition quickly attack back. But this demand for political and technological innovation, mixed with challenges regarding stepping up above the rest is what will, in the end, best define this journey.

For the 2012 Presidential Election, presumably one of the last to feature voters born before the Internet's initial rise, Americans are sure to be conscious, one way or the other, of all aspects of the political battles. From finding clarity on the issues to skimming over the confusion, the growth of online networking will inevitably grab onto the minds of voters, leading them to new ways of connection never seen before in the world of politics. With the journey in progress, citizens can only sit back in their office chairs, maybe grab a slice of pizza or two, and enjoy the ride.

Going Mobile: Cable Television Technologies Heat Up

Last week, Time Warner Cable launched an iPad app that allows customers to stream its content live on the tablet device in an effort to widen the scope of television onto the growing digital scale. But for the company whose newest commercial features a woman taking a bath while watching the $500 toy, this restructuring could end up doing more harm than good.

Miranda Witmer, the cable provider's Chief Programming Officer, calls the move not only seminal in efforts to modernize cable television to the growing at-your-fingertips crowd, but also crucial in corporate attempts to ensure the victory over "secure networks" over the "open Internet" (To see TWC's press release regarding the new app, click here).

Of course, in theory, Time Warner's app, which claims to give its 15 million viewers access to over 30 live-streaming networks free of charge, seems like an ingenious idea, sealing the deal on years and years of hard work to allow

access to, quite literally, worlds of broadcasting (click here for PC Magazine's YouTube demo of the app). Especially since over a half-century ago, in the days of what we can now only refer to as broadcast technology's caveman times, most homes solely consisted of one television set. Typically, it was just a giant box of wood with speakers to its side and a tiny, colorless screen in its middle. No remotes, just sons and daughters being assigned "Button-Pressing Duty."And cable access? Keeping track of all the channels back then was often not unlike counting the fingers on your hands.

With all of this in mind, being able to say that we live in a world of immediate access, where everything is a drag and a click of the fingertips, should be quite a simple thing to do. And most people do exactly that, but without a knowledge of the fine print.

The app is only functional when used within the confines of a customer’s home, thereby rendering the idea of a portable cable-streaming device useless. Having the silver screen almost always within feet should be enough for most people. Unless, of course, you decide to listen to Time Warner by hopping into the bathtub and spending the night watching TV with your rubber ducky and your iPad at hand.

Secondly, cable programs viewed through the app are not counted in the Nielsen ratings. As a result, the decisions of the consumers to expose themselves to this aspect of the media are being undermined for solely technical reasons. The essence of this long-established and comprehensive system is to take every viewer’s actions and preferences into account. Without this ability, the main idea behind television as a means by which to embody the masses becomes useless.

But perhaps the most controversial aspect of fusion of media dynamics is the fact that the networks themselves are not being compensated for their streams on the new app, also for merely technical reasons.

Following legal threats from News Corporation, Discovery Communications, and Viacom, three of the largest cable network operators in the country, Time Warner Cable has agreed to yank their live programming from the new popular app.

"We believe we have every right to carry the Fox Cable Networks, Viacom, and Discovery programming on the iPad app," the cable service provider wrote in a statement. "But, for the time being, we have decided to focus our iPad efforts on those enlightened programmers who understand the benefit and importance of allowing our subscribers--and their viewers--to watch their programming on any screen in their homes."

What is at stake here is not the fear of media overload, as it is specifically the consumer's responsibility to gain an appreciation for variety and diversity of exposure or risk irrelevance, but rather the role of corporations in establishing honesty and consistency with the general public. In supporting a mobile application that does little to honor the judgments of content producers and viewers alike, this media-centric society is failing to recognize one of the core principles of communication--choice. Getting such a point across is not easy these days, as many often tend to get lost in the gloss and buzz of technology's growing potential. And while knowledge of what computers and machines can do is of great importance to our future as a society, reminding ourselves of the media's essence is always something to squeak the old rubber ducky about.

TWCableTV App Website: http://iwantmytwcabletvapp.com/

The Oh So Proverbial Media Earthquake

As we first learned about the 9.0-magnitude earthquake that rattled through Japan on March 11, we all watched, our heads glued to the computers and television screens, hovering over them like hawks. Just on their own, the words "earthquake" and "tsunami" automatically triggered widespread memories of the disaster zones in Indonesia and Haiti. And the word “nuclear!” In itself, the idea of graphic explosions and apocalypses has always just been something for a day at the movies. But to actually watch it all unfold? Pure news gold. And here’s the best part—you don’t even need to put on any pants to watch the glory and adventure jump at you! Let me emphasize—NO PANTS!

Don’t get me wrong. This literally world-changing earthquake, one responsible for shifting Earth’s axis by four inches, is responsible for killing thousands of people, injuring thousands more, and leaving even more homeless, poverty-stricken, and with little place to turn. Many crucial services, such as those for providing electricity and mass transportation to millions, have been left decentralized and useless. Help is needed, and it will continue to be needed for quite some time in order to ensure that the people of Japan can get their lives back on track. (How to Help: Japanese Red Cross, American Red Cross)

But to watch today’s news broadcasts, and those of the past two weeks, is to recognize the ongoing role of speculation in the media.

"If you are only following the way Western media is reporting on the current situation in Japan regarding the earthquake, one might get the impression that the entire Japan is collapsing, or melting down, or falling,” Eiko Doden, senior commentator for Japanese broadcast network NHK, told Channel News Asia. "But that is not the reality."

Whether the reason for such sheer journalistic irresponsibility is out of pure stupidity or out of desperation to grab the attention of average viewers, many of whom are content on switching to that "According To Jim" rerun if they don’t see Fox News or CNN reporting live from Armageddon, is unclear. And at this stage in our media game, it doesn’t matter. Regardless, news outlets are turning the act of speculation into news, skipping out on fact-checking for the purpose of glorifying the pedestals on which they stand.

The issue has become so prominent that Japanese residents and keen American news viewers have created a "Journalist Wall of Shame" webpage within their online forum, JPQuake, to point out acts of careless reporting in regards to the disaster. Such journalistic violations, as discussed in the forum, include a report from Mike Hedge of the Australian Associated Press that calls Japanese citizens "oblivious" to the ongoing dangers of their situation (click here to see report). Also, in related news, The Daily Mail ran a story entitled "UN Predicts Nuclear Plume Could Hit U.S. by Friday" (click here to see report). Clearly, you can be the judge of that.

"Undoubtedly, it's not in anyone's interest to see exaggerated reporting during a situation of this severity, where the cost of public panic is so high,” said Leo Lewis, a correspondent for The Times of London who has spent considerable time covering Japan both before and after the earthquake. “But that same severity should also not forgive a lack of vigilance," he said.

While it’s true what they say about variety being the spice of life, next to the salt and pepper shakers, there needs to be some sort of consensus made between the media and the viewer. Past flaws related to coverage of this crisis, among other similar stories, must be acknowledged, and citizens must come together to finally formulate and support a way of rebuilding honest, well-angled reporting. Perhaps the "Journalist Wall of Shame" is a step in the right direction, but everyday followers of the media, especially those who are able to prioritize their news coverage, need to be consistent and fight for quality and representation, even if no one else will.

New Kids on the Blog

The Rise of News Media Rockstars

Many of us know the feeling. Whether they were the Biff Tannens of the world or simply the cafeteria bullies fighting to grab quarters, dollar bills, and dignity from the George McFlys, the shy kids and the Trekkies, we’ve all seen it before. And in this televised, jumbled jungle of news, infotainment, and flat-out media flatulence, things are far from different.

Thankfully enough, Al Jazeera didn’t need Doc Brown to help them find their moment in the sun.

Just a few years ago, in the aftermath of 9/11 and amidst wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Qatar-based news network, founded in 1996, and its reporters faced consistent dosages of bomb threats, missile attacks, imprisonment, and suspicions that their reports of street-level citizen protests were spreading anti-American sentiment. Accordingly, U.S. forces held Sami al-Hajj, an Al Jazeera cameraman, hostage for six years under accusations of terrorism and associations with propaganda. Past Western attacks against the network include an artillery fire that destroyed their Kabul bureau and an attack against their offices in Baghdad that killed a correspondent..

In addition,White House transcripts from an April 2004 meeting show then-President Bush plotting to bomb the network's headquarters. However, then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair successfully talked him out of it.

The fact that the news network's English-language channel, Al Jazeera English, has seldom been broadcast over the airwaves of American cable and satellite networks only led to less Western exposure and more assumptions.

Prior to this year’s revolutions throughout the Middle East, the output of news from these regions was primarily controlled by state government interests, which were typically infused with propaganda that often denounced protests and their participants.

But what exactly has changed?

With the growth of citizen journalism and the ever-increasing capabilities of smartphones, blogging, and Twitter, word of protest has become more directly accessible to the public from its citizens, even in spite of attempted shutdowns. And as such, ideological unity has become more of a reality.

Hoping to ride the wave of social media, Al Jazeera has developed a Twitter dashboard that tracks Tweets mentioning or relating to Middle Eastern nations such as Egypt, Libya, Yemen, and Bahrain. In addition, the network has created a mobile phone app that provides users with a 24-hour stream of their newscasts.

As Al Jazeera continues to bridge the gaps between fights for independence, people around the world, from media analysts to everyday news followers, have begun recognizing the news outlet's power in setting the foundations for citizen involvement, a capability that many Americans often take for granted.

Since the rise of the protests in Egypt, online viewership of Al Jazeera English increased by a staggering 2500 percent, with half of new viewers coming from the United States. As such, there have been more efforts to include the channel in cable television lineups, alongside networks such as MSNBC, Fox News, and CNN, who similarly rose to prominence as a result of the Persian Gulf War.

"Now I feel like I work for the cool kids!," wrote Jane Dutton, a correspondent for Al Jazeera English who admits to having been accused of being a representative for terrorists, on the network website. "A group of Americans I get chatting to in a phone shop recognize me from my reporting in Cairo during the Egypt uprising. When they left, they thanked me for the impact our work has had on the world."

It's the ultimate story of grabbing the news, holding it up, and showing the bullies who's boss. Dare we forget the great words of Doc: "Go forth time travelers, and remember the future is what you make it!"

Al Jazeera English Website: http://english.aljazeera.net/

Twitter Page: http://twitter.com/ajenglish

Jane Dutton's Blog: http://blogs.aljazeera.net/profile/jane-dutton

WINNING!: The American Revolu-Sheen

It's a battle for the ages. Each major network, with their flags and flags of logos and their camo suits strapping bombs to their chests. Middlemen who haven't already been dragged in as hostages are scrambling desperately for cover. In this ring of fire, where faces are melting and children are weeping all over their parents' bodies, we have yet to see an escape plan.

During the past few weeks, viewers from across the globe have kept their eyes keenly on shows like Good Morning America, Today, 20/20, and Piers Morgan Tonight, where Sheen has slowly created a religion of, for, and by himself, filled endlessly with a 21st-century Bible worth of prophecies. Such phrases, broadcast and repeated by each sect in dear worship of the deity, include:

• "I was bangin' seven-gram rocks and finishing them because that's how I roll, because I have one speed, one gear. ... I have a different constitution, I have a different brain, I have a different heart. I got tiger blood, man." - (20/20)
• "My brain….fires in a way that is — I don’t know, maybe not from this particular terrestrial realm." - (Good Morning America)
• "I’m tired of pretending I’m not a total bitchin’ rock star from Mars." - (Dateline NBC)

The saga began earlier last month, when ratings-hungry Philadelphia radio station Wired 96.5 flew a plane featuring the message, "Call us 4 yr next role," over his home.

"You guys are radicals! You hatched this brainstorm like the Vatican assassins that you are, and so figured that if we fly it over his house, he has to call us," he told the station.

Since then, Sheen's radio and television appearances have exploded into the mainstream outlets, themselves becoming tools for promotion. After weeks of insulting his bosses and embarking on worldwide rants regarding issues such as his past drug use and his current porn star menage a trois, each network and program is trying to claim authority over the other.

In the primary news media, this is nothing new. However, the ways in which the networks are turning Sheen's personal crisis into a simultaneous parade and war has led the way for corporate culture and entities to control the service medium of news.

"Major news outlets, led by ABC and NBC, have been relentless in recent days in aiding and abetting the epic meltdown of a celebrity who happens to be the biggest star on the biggest comedy hit at rival CBS." said Los Angeles Times columnist James Rainey.

In this vein, the correspondents have become the soldiers, each fighting on their own fields and bombing the airwaves with their own interpretations of the world's most famous new psalms. Instead of searching for clues and investigating the heart of this personal psychological meltdown, each bit of news (if one can even call it news) is being dropped and smothered onto the public. As it slowly becomes a novelty act and a corporate war, the people of this information generation have nowhere safe to turn.

It's almost enough to get up off of your living room couch, grab your knapsack, and move to Mars.