Jump to content
Outage Alert! Software Upgrades this Weekend ×

Welcome, Guest!

Sign In or Create my Account to gain full access to our forums. By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.
Action Newsroom

Good Morning America

Recommended Posts

 

when do you think they will "de-holiday" the set and go back to normal?

 

Anytime they want, really. They de-holidayed it for the overnight Mandela funeral, but redecorated by the time GMA kicked off at 7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lovely Robin Roberts came out the closet today. Also Amy and David will be filling in this week. Guessing the entire team save for Ginger is off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What. WHAT? Robin Roberts is LESBIAN? Call me a dumb@ss but I honestly had no idea nor would I have ever guessed. No matter. It just surprised the hell out of me is all.

 

However, am I a sinister person to believe that ABC/GMA will try to manipulate her coming out to attract even more people to them? Because the moment I read the headline I thought, Great. Now people will love GMA even more just because Robin Roberts came out.

 

Edit: I just realized...not only did Robin Roberts come out, but for a good period of time, GMA had simultaneously, a gay meteorologist and a lesbian host. Maybe that's been the secret to their success all along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rumor has it according to the NYP that Stephanapolous could take over "MTP" on NBC. They say his contract expires in January but most media outlets have said that his contract runs through 2014. I guess time will tell what happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What. WHAT? Robin Roberts is LESBIAN? Call me a dumb@ss but I honestly had no idea nor would I have ever guessed. No matter. It just surprised the hell out of me is all.

 

I was very surprised at this too, as I'd never thought someone like Robin (who I thought could be straight as an arrow and married for all I know). I read about it at the NY Daily News website and couldn't believe it.

 

However, am I a sinister person to believe that ABC/GMA will try to manipulate her coming out to attract even more people to them? Because the moment I read the headline I thought, Great. Now people will love GMA even more just because Robin Roberts came out.

 

I didn't think of this scenario as quickly as I did with the bone marrow transplant and recovery thing, but this pretty much makes sense, as GMA is #1 and is pretty much game for nearly anything to stay #1. I hope this doesn't happen. Too sad and sickening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

George contract runs through 2015, guess that article is similar to the one last week suggesting that Lara and Josh aren't speaking to Robin because they aren't happy with her new contract. Anything that's sells.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure why it bugs me so much but it just does but I don't understand why the same posters on this forum suggest that GMA exploits the anchors personal lives to fuel ratings. I'm surprised because I've never heard those claims against Today and the documentation of Katie's husbands death or Al's weight loss etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robin's been very open with her health issues. Plain and simple. Have they been cramming Amy's cancer fight down our throats? No.

 

And, in regards to Robin's sexual orientation, which really is irrelevant in the long run, I can't believe that anyone could really be SHOCKED at this. I've seen and heard the rumors for several years now, and while I've never really cared either way, I've always thought it as "hmm, maybe". Surprised? Really? Now, I'm not at all homophobic or anything, but (right or wrong) she kinda does fit the stereotype society has developed for gay women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's just say that it was pretty well known among gays and lesbians why the Obama team picked her to be the interviewer when he said that he had changed his mind on same-sex marriage, even if it was always talked about with a wink and a nudge because the etiquette is that you don't "out" people who haven't come out themselves. However, I kind of assumed that if she didn't come out during the cancer treatment, when she was talking a lot about her personal life, she wasn't going to talk about it at all.

 

When I saw that it was published on Sunday evening, I kind of assumed it was going to get a few minutes on Monday's show for those who hadn't heard and to let her explain the decision to make it public now, but there wouldn't be a whole lot said about it other than that (pretty much the same as Sam Champion got when he came out by announcing his engagement.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"He can come across as very condescending."

 

Well, there's the pot calling the kettle black. Has Ms. Sawyer ever watched one of her own broadcasts?

 

If 'World News' ever intends on becoming anything close to a respectable broadcast, it would have to be with George (of the likely candidates). I like Muir, I really do, and I would feel bad seeing him take over after Di, but the article says it all. She has taken him under her wing, and is probably grooming him to do the exact same broadcast she's doing now.

 

Charlie allegedly preferred George over Diane to succeed him, so why should her opinions be treated any differently from Mr. Gibson's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If 'World News' ever intends on becoming anything close to a respectable broadcast, it would have to be with George (of the likely candidates).

 

Based on the ratings, its a rather respectable broadcast now. And I understand that people on this site dislike WN because it is lighter than the others but that doesn't make WN or Diane Sawyer "bad." They get to the news and then offer helpful and interesting stories. Its not like they are interviewing the Kardashians on WN.

 

 

but the article says it all. She has taken him under her wing, and is probably grooming him to do the exact same broadcast she's doing now.

 

And that is good because then there would not be a huge change and it wouldn't change viewing habits as much. And also by that article, on days that George fills in, the ratings decline which does not happen with David.

 

 

Charlie allegedly preferred George over Diane to succeed him, so why should her opinions be treated any differently from Mr. Gibson's?

 

And this is also important to keep in mind. But I wouldn't consider it George's broadcast next automatically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On another note, I find this interesting and frankly agree with Diane.

 

http://www.showbizspy.com/article/263712/diane-sawyer-stops-george-stephanopoulos-from-taking-over-world-news.html

 

 

ABC is in a very interesting time, Robin just signed (I guess Ginger did too), Josh and Lara are negotiating and George is up next year.

 

Okay. We really should take that entire article with a grain of salt. It quotes an unnamed source. That person could know nothing. Then again, that person could be dead on. We have no idea.

 

On another note, what happened to the reports that George had a clause in his contract stating that if he were not named Diane's replacement on World News, he'd be free to leave ABC without penalty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Based on the ratings, its a rather respectable broadcast now. And I understand that people on this site dislike WN because it is lighter than the others but that doesn't make WN or Diane Sawyer "bad." They get to the news and then offer helpful and interesting stories. Its not like they are interviewing the Kardashians on WN.

 

Ratings does not always mean respectability. 'World News' is anything but what its title suggests. It's been dumbed down to boost ratings. Nothing more. To be clear, it still is the evening newscast I still watch and there are some aspects of it I like. The 'Made in America' series is well-done, timely and effective. I also like the 'America Strong' features, but it seems like it's only a substitute for the now-disgraced 'Person of the Week'. And I wouldn't mind what ABC was doing if they just got rid of that damn 'Instant Index'. That might be the most pointless bit I've ever seen. All the crappy celebrity bits and viral videos discussed are long-outdated, as I saw them on the internet earlier, but more often then not on my ABC station in the hour and a half BEFORE THE SHOW! Completely unnecessary. Several years ago, ABC News made an effort to connect the brand to the internet. Unfortunately, it was before its time, but now they're trying to connect the internet to the brand, and it only comes across as lame and cheap...especially when its delivered by an anchor pushing 70.

 

Forget heritage and tradition, I'd respect the broadcast more if they changed the name. It's the biggest lie in network news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ratings does not always mean respectability. 'World News' is anything but what its title suggests. It's been dumbed down to boost ratings. Nothing more.

 

So in other words, its everyone's personal opinion. Because I respect WN and think it is a quality broadcast. You can disagree, thats fine, I can agree to disagree, but the ratings say it all. WN is doing very well. If it wasn't a good broadcast, people would not be watching it.

 

If you want all hard news, there is a broadcast for that, if you want a 60 minutes style newscast, there is a broadcast for that, if you want news effecting your life and family, there is broadcast for that. Why should we only have hard news as an option? Because thats what the 6:30 EST half hour is "supposed to be?"

 

All I am saying is there is nothing wrong with "WN" and just because it isn't hard news all the time doesn't mean it isn't respected. If you wait until the end of every ABC news program, it says "ABC News, America's #1 News Source."

 

 

Forget heritage and tradition, I'd respect the broadcast more if they changed the name. It's the biggest lie in network news.

So they are supposed to throw away years of brand recognition because the main focus of the show isn't world news anymore? They would be very stupid to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want nothing but politics and war, watch CBS or read the NY Times. What those dishing criticism seem to be forgetting is that ABC is a business. Just like any business, the news division is catering to what viewers want to watch. Clearly, that is useful news with some lighter feature stories incorporated. Is it ABC's job to decide what viewers should want? Should The Home Depot stop selling plants and flowers because it's supposed to be a hardware store and not a gardening store, even though customers go there for both hardware and gardening supplies? It's not like WN has become TMZ for crying out loud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My only real beef and problem with World News is not because I'm against the current format entirely but because I've always watched World News and enjoyed its style under Peter and Charlie. Diane was a disaster from the moment she took over. Her delivery makes me cringe. Also I miss the depth of the reports during the "Closer Look" segments and I the Persons of The Week is a true shame under Diane's guide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

My only real beef and problem with World News is not because I'm against the current format entirely but because I've always watched World News and enjoyed its style under Peter and Charlie. Diane was a disaster from the moment she took over. Her delivery makes me cringe. Also I miss the depth of the reports during the "Closer Look" segments and I the Persons of The Week is a true shame under Diane's guide.

 

And I do want to clarify, I am being a bit critical. The show isn't completely unwatchable, it's just sad to see where the show was and where it is now. The changes that were made to the broadcast in the last few years weren't entirely necessary. To say that the current format is the main reason the show's seen a ratings bump isn't totally true. Charlie Gibson spent more time at #1 in his 3.5 years than Diane ever has in 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But...it's working. All of the changes everywhere, GMA and WN. They're working and catching up with NBC.

 

Although to get back to the GMA part of this thread, apparently Today is closing the gap*. At least that's how TVNewser always likes to phrase it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using TVNewsTalk you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.