Jump to content

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.
BehindNYNews

ABC World News Tonight

Recommended Posts

I think changes to the broadcast in terms of content are unlikely. As someone else said, Diane's World News became more tabloidy after Ben Sherwood became president. Secondly, they are having succes in the ratings for the first time in 20 years. Why change course now?

I think whoever made the decision to change it back to "World News Tonight," whether it be the new EP, David, or an exec, is clearly pushing it in the direction of a more "Jennings-esque" broadcast... If they plan to keep the broadcast the same in terms of content and presentation, basically a continuation of Sawyer's tenure, they wouldn't have changed the name. The renaming is a technique of distancing the broadcast from it's immediate past, which some people didn't like, and moving in the direction of their previously well-liked broadcast with Peter Jennings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think whoever made the decision to change it back to "World News Tonight," whether it be the new EP, David, or an exec, is clearly pushing it in the direction of a more "Jennings-esque" broadcast... If they plan to keep the broadcast the same in terms of content and presentation, basically a continuation of Sawyer's tenure, they wouldn't have changed the name. The renaming is a technique of distancing the broadcast from it's immediate past, which some people didn't like, and moving in the direction of their previously well-liked broadcast with Peter Jennings.

Agreed. Also, to the previous poster, let's not forget that Charles Gibson had success with hard news, even leading the broadcast to #1 for a brief period. Hard news works and if the anchor/managing editor embraces it and it's done right, the audience responds well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't bet on it. I think they want to be seen as doing hard news, all the while serving up soft content. This way the audience thinks it's eating its spinach but in in fact being served sugary treats. Ideal combo from ABC's perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Do we know if David is anchoring tonight or if someone is subbing?

 

I would *think* David would not be anchoring tonight. My bets would be on either Dan Harris, or one of the other fill-ins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would *think* David would not be anchoring tonight. My bets would be on either Dan Harris, or one of the other fill-ins.

It was established on yesterday's show that David will be in next week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would *think* David would not be anchoring tonight. My bets would be on either Dan Harris, or one of the other fill-ins.

My bets are on nobody. College football likely preempting the Saturday edition for the next three months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't bet on it. I think they want to be seen as doing hard news, all the while serving up soft content. This way the audience thinks it's eating its spinach but in in fact being served sugary treats. Ideal combo from ABC's perspective.

That doesn't even make any sense... You can't be "seen" as doing something without actually doing it ... The hard news approach CBS is taking is not working in the ratings, and that's because the majority of the public does not want a newscast of all hard news... What we may refer to as "fluff" is actually just a way to steer away from the horrible stories facing our world, because people can get that news all day. I know it's been said on here before, but clearly the ratings are speaking for themselves. People want to hear good news, and if you refer to feel-good stories as fluff, then so be it. But the average American news viewer doesn't want to hear 30 minutes of terrorism, crime, and racism... I agree ABC was leaning in a direction that often came off as "fluffy" but I feel that could also be attributed to the presentation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesn't even make any sense... You can't be "seen" as doing something without actually doing it ... The hard news approach CBS is taking is not working in the ratings, and that's because the majority of the public does not want a newscast of all hard news... What we may refer to as "fluff" is actually just a way to steer away from the horrible stories facing our world, because people can get that news all day. I know it's been said on here before, but clearly the ratings are speaking for themselves. People want to hear good news, and if you refer to feel-good stories as fluff, then so be it. But the average American news viewer doesn't want to hear 30 minutes of terrorism, crime, and racism... I agree ABC was leaning in a direction that often came off as "fluffy" but I feel that could also be attributed to the presentation.

To be fair, CBS has had low ratings for 30 years, and has little to do with the content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, CBS has had low ratings for 30 years, and has little to do with the content.

True, true.. But their crusade for hard news isn't doing much... They may be gaining viewers (albeit slightly) but they also aren't stealing them away from NBC and ABC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That doesn't even make any sense... You can't be "seen" as doing something without actually doing it ... The hard news approach CBS is taking is not working in the ratings, and that's because the majority of the public does not want a newscast of all hard news... What we may refer to as "fluff" is actually just a way to steer away from the horrible stories facing our world, because people can get that news all day. I know it's been said on here before, but clearly the ratings are speaking for themselves. People want to hear good news, and if you refer to feel-good stories as fluff, then so be it. But the average American news viewer doesn't want to hear 30 minutes of terrorism, crime, and racism... I agree ABC was leaning in a direction that often came off as "fluffy" but I feel that could also be attributed to the presentation.

 

I agree completely with what you said. I know many people enjoy ABC World News, because of its feel-good stories. If they want to hear about crime, terrorism, racism, etc. they could turn to CBS, cable news, or even just read the newspaper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Actually, in the last year, WN has performed best in the ratings when George or David have anchored.

 

This is partially correct. At WN with Diane Sawyer, when David would anchor, ratings would be stable and often improve but when George would anchor, ratings went down from Diane's regular numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't think there was a "World News Tonight" this evening, because of college football.

 

Never saw one, went right into a 45 minute local newscast before the 8pm showcase game...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how long do we think it'll be until a new set and graphics? Diane Sawyer got hers on the first day of the broadcast and new music about three years later. Charles Gibson got a new set a year and a half after taking over. Elizabeth Vargas and Bob Woodruff got new graphics on day one.

 

For David Muir, maybe a new set isn't in order just yet but I'm hoping a new open and maybe a shift back toward the Jennings-era music down the line. For now, though, it seems that everything will remain the same as he settles in.

 

To this day, this remains as my favorite WNT open and set:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a reminder guys to make sure you check your season passes because of the name change if you want the show to record.

 

Hell after Marianne Bannister left WBAL and Donna Hamilton took over her post at 6 and 11 PM, WBAL left the program title the same but updated the program description to "Donna Hamilton and Rod Daniels". For some unknown reason my TiVo interpreted it as a completely new show and wouldn't record. Then this year when Kai Reed left WJZ and the description was changed my TiVo didn't require any intervention.

 

So how long do we think it'll be until a new set and graphics? Diane Sawyer got hers on the first day of the broadcast and new music about three years later. Charles Gibson got a new set a year and a half after taking over. Elizabeth Vargas and Bob Woodruff got new graphics on day one.

For David Muir, maybe a new set isn't in order just yet but I'm hoping a new open and maybe a shift back toward the Jennings-era music down the line. For now, though, it seems that everything will remain the same as he settles in.

To this day, this remains as my favorite WNT open and set:

I don't see any immediate changes to the set since they just debuted that new 12x2 video wall. Maybe they will update the desk?

 

Maybe one day down the line they will move their newscasts from the joint newsroom to a dedicated studio now that "The View" is moving to "Katie"' old studio now that one is available.

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.