Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Network News' started by Eyewitness News-man, Dec 27, 2013.
They could be grooming them to replace Amy since isn’t she moving to 20/20 in the fall?
I've seen it in a few places that Amy is likely going to replace Elizabeth Vargas on 20/20 after she leaves in May. Whether or not Amy continues on GMA is unknown, but it would give her a greater assignment than whatever you'd call her official role, now.
EDIT: Yeah, what Drew said.
Cecilia seems like too valuable a player to be doing a diminished GMA news anchor role. She should stay in Washington and build her cred as a leading political correspondent, and then a few years down the road move on to anchoring full time. I think it's time GMA drop the news anchor role like Today did. Also, I'm sure Amy will still fill-in for Robin when she goes to 20/20. Elizabeth has all these years.
Lara Spencer is cutting back on her GMA role to focus on her lifestyle brand.
Here it comes?
I wished Michael was apart of the “changes”
With a reduced role for Lara, they could stand to shift Michael's focus to the second hour, hell, even 7:30. I know most here are not fans of Strahan, but I generally like these moves. For being a co-anchor, Lara wasn't treated like one, and Amy is finally getting a more established role, so good for both of them.
Sounds like it remains unclear if Amy will continue as news anchor on GMA while hosting 20/20, or if she'll be replaced, or if the news anchor role will be eliminated altogether.
If it's the latter, in combination with the elimination of Lara's full time role, it certainly
amounts to a cost savings for the show.
She doesn't read the news anymore, as it is. All signs point to her staying on as a contributor, and probably a fill-in anchor, so they'll merely be formally redefining her current role.
That wouldn't shock me if it pans out. Like Tom Llamas, he held a high-profile role before joining ABC News.
I like this decision. He’s a quality journalist and it balances the male to female ratio on the show. Now if they could only find a way to deemphasize Michael.
From a journalistic quality perspective, it'd be nice to see Whit take over most of Michael's role in the first hour, with Michael then owning more of the second hour. Don't know that that will happen, though. Certainly not immediately.
For me, GMA always feels like there's too many cooks in the kitchen. There's been so many adding and adjusting to the talent lineup, I'm no longer a regular viewer (moved to CBS This Morning) but it just feels like they tinker with the cast every several months trying to find the right chemistry. How I wish simpler times when there were just two main anchors, a news reader and weatherperson, those were the days. Life was so much better without Pop News, the daily home shopping segment and audience clapping.
To be fair, they really don't play with the core, credited team too much. There's fluctuation in prominence and airtime, but it's been Robin, George, Michael, Lara, Amy and ginger for the better part of 3 years.
Good Morning America expands to 3 hours, taking up an afternoon timeslot:
The Chew is being sacrificed to bring the 3rd hour of GMA to life.
This only makes sense if it's straight 7-10AM or the third hour is at 10AM after Kelly/Ryan. They could DOMINATE AM programming in most markets if they did that.
This feels like a Good Afternoon America revival. While there likely is a need to toss The Chew thanks to Mario Batali being a creep, this isn't the way to replace that hour of programming.
That also confirms that GMA will go into the fall season as a 4-person show.
The issue is that if they expand GMA to 9am then that hurts corporate cousin "Live w/Kelly and Ryan".
i feel it is a bad idea