CBS must ask two very different questions. The obvious: who should replace her? The more difficult: should we even bother?
Michael Calderon's blog at the Politico highlights the increasingly loud death knell for Katie Couric's anchorship at CBS. As a former ABC News intern and a former media researcher, I have a particular interest in the choices made by television news outlets as to whom to put behind a desk, whom to put on the satellite feed, and whom to put out to pasture.
For example, the recent move by MSNBC to replace Tucker Carlson with David Gregory was a smart one: Carlson's show was a redundancy of Hardball, the show between whose airings it sat, a fast and loose, gossipy show about politics, only done much more poorly. Gregory's show is rigidly structured - serious without being too stuffy. As much as one might (or might not) enjoy an hour of Chris Matthews' bloviations, following him up with a more straight-laced program where the host does not do 80% of the talking - and is genuinely interested in the guests' responses - is an excellent contrast, one which Carlson was utterly incapable of providing.
I bring this up to point out that the television news palate is so blurry these days with choices, a network must have a fine sense of taste to mix the right flavors. Sometimes, though, all the bases are covered, and there's no reason for some programs to exist.
Such could be argued for the CBS Evening News. The truth of the matter is that NBC Nightly News and ABC World News are both, in fact, quite strong news programs, both having found their footing in the last few years and managing to drive national news conversations despite declines in overall evening news viewership. As CBS stumbles about, attempting to carve out a niche, it seems to me that there is very little wood left in which to carve. Now that the drama of Dan Rather-gate, the Bob Schieffer transition, and the introduction of the first female evening news anchor are long since past, CBS Evening News offers little that can't be found on the other two, and the other two are simply doing it better.
(As a side note, NBC is wise enough to offer its evening news broadcast in full in podcast/online form every night - ABC opts for a web-specific version for its news show, which feels like news-light, with features like "Google search of the day." If I wanted to know that, I could just Google it.)
But in what way? This is where I have to shift the focus what I consider my "area of expertise." Though an aficionado of news, I am not an expert on the subject. What I do know, though, is performance and delivery. CBS's actual journalistic work does not seem to me to be astoundingly better or worse than the other two networks (and if you include 60 Minutes, you could say it was far better). If it was a lot worse, however, I probably wouldn't know it. My anecdotal experience tells me, though, that negative coverage from NBC or ABC causes a lot more consternation than it would from CBS, but that is an unscientific observation.
As an actor and performer, I notice delivery and presentation (hence the contrast I make between the smartass delivery of Tucker Carlson versus the gravitas of David Gregory). It is no exaggeration to say that the person behind the anchor desk is the basis upon which most people will choose which broadcast to watch (again, unscientific postulation). Given that, I can say quite confidently that on delivery and presentation, Brian Williams at NBC is easily the best anchor in the business. Here's why.
(Before I explain, I should say that ABC's Charlie Gibson is almost as good, and most of the things I will point out about Williams can be applied almost equally to Gibson.)
Williams wins on presentation of the news because he is serious without being grave. He is clear and emotive without being informal. More than anything, there is an easy confidence about him, but his energy never drops, and he never skips a beat - I can't remember the last time he stumbled over a pronunciation or was at a loss for words. His vocal tone borders on sing-songy, in the best sense - there is an air of meter in his recitations, like a rehearsed yet fully-felt theatrical monologue (perhaps that explains my bias). He somehow manages to be able to pepper weighty discourse with humor, even absurdity, without breaking a flow. Only sometimes, sometimes, does he give the impression he might be inwardly strutting. But then he goes and introduces a package on poor people, and he's Mr. Sensitive again. Gibson shares many of these traits, save the inner strut, and dials them down a notch or two.
Do I have a man-crush on Brian Williams, you might now be asking yourself? Well, not so passionate as my man-crush on Steve Jobs, but yeah. You might be on to something there.
This is Katie Couric's problem. She's a really good anchor up against two really great anchors. Couric, in stark contrast to her competitors, feels strained, perhaps trying too hard to seem "official," maybe carrying the baggage of morning news fluffery on her back. She is most certainly not relaxed behind the anchor desk, and seems to hold back on her vocal delivery, as though she's afraid of waking up someone's baby. Whatever her psychological state, her months captaining CBS News' flagship do not seem to have eased her into the role. Given all this, there is no compelling reason for people who have settled down with Williams or Gibson to change habits. The novelties of the aforementioned CBS News drama having lost their luster, people seem to have picked favorites, and most have chosen not to sit with Ms. Couric. Maybe this is why there is so much talk of her dismissal.
So then CBS must ask two very different questions. The obvious: who should replace her? The more difficult: should we even bother? The latter question is being raised in a way, it seems, as CBS is reportedly discussing outsourcing a great deal of its news coverage to CNN. Since niche-space has become so scarce, it's worth debating whether they need an evening newscast at all.
But truly, it's hard to imagine one of the Big Three not having an evening news show, and one question can turn to the level of investment they put into it. Assuming they will continue to air CBS Evening News, talk turns naturally to the former question: who will do battle with Brian and Charlie? Calderone's blog sums up the talked-up choices:
The Washington Post looks [at] CBS's weak bench, with Harry Smith, Scott Pelley and Russ Mitchell as the only likely internal favorites. If CBS again poaches from another network, there's CNN's Anderson Cooper, and NBC's David Gregory, Ann Curry, and Lester Holt.
And after being snubbed the first time around, would CNN's John Roberts come back?
I agree that CBS's home slate of talent is not as strong as some other possibilities, though I think Harry Smith would bring something interesting to the table - not the charisma machine that Williams is, Smith is a little more dogged, visibly enthusiastic, sometimes testy. He would not be as slick, but might give the broadcast more personality.
My guess is that Anderson Cooper is who CBS thinks it wants. A serious newsguy with a bit of edge, he already pulls double duty on CNN and on CBS's own 60 Minutes. My sense, though, is that Cooper is more reporter than anchor. To me he seems restless behind a desk, uneasy with (if capable of) the between-piece jibber-jabber. He is already a prince at CNN, so it does not seem logical to me that he would make this move.
John Roberts is good at his job at CNN, but he represents more of the same. Very good in many of the ways Williams and Gibson are, so why bother?
The two that make the most sense to me are Ann Curry and Lester Holt. Putting aside that either would break some racial ground, both are experienced and capable. Curry seems the more passionate about the work, which I think would go a long way to bringing some eyes back to CBS, but for me she is too much associated with the endless "catch-a-predator" schlock pieces on MSNBC and the fluff of Today. Holt, on the other hand, is very comfortable behind the desk, someone NBC seems to have, at times, been grooming for bigger things. But he suffers from the same problem as John Roberts: good at the job, but so what?
Maybe CBS needs to rethink the entire project. Perhaps the legitimization of fake/comic news, say, put Jon Stewart or Bill Maher behind the desk to deliver the actual news, only to mercilessly mock it. Maybe they could outdo PBS at its own game, find a way to popularize the hour-long hard news only format.
Or maybe they will just run CSI - The News Show, and search for fingerprints and DNA samples at congressional hearings. Lord only knows what this guy leaves behind.
* * *
Come check out more at Near Earth Object.
* * *
Click here to Digg!