mountainave 530 Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 Rebecca Jarvis will be anchoring World News again this evening. I think she is great and has the confidence needed to be successful in that seat. Probably helps that she's quite bright and used to anchor CBS This Morning Saturday. As I mentioned earlier, I think she is among the top candidates, if not the top candidate, to replace David. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyHarry 718 Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 Rebecca Jarvis will be anchoring World News again this evening. I think she is great and has the confidence needed to be successful in that seat. Probably helps that she's quite bright and used to anchor CBS This Morning Saturday. As I mentioned earlier, I think she is among the top candidates, if not the top candidate, to replace David. She's only 33 so I don't really know what to say. Part of me says she must be talented to get network level jobs, the other part of me says is this how low network news has gone? It's not like she's had a chance to become a seasoned correspondent. Diane Sawyer was a pretty face at one time, but she has also been around. A 33 year old? Sounds like she'd be more qualified for Fox's Five at Five. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountainave 530 Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 She's only 33 so I don't really know what to say. Part of me says she must be talented to get network level jobs, the other part of me says is this how low network news has gone? It's not like she's had a chance to become a seasoned correspondent. Diane Sawyer was a pretty face at one time, but she has also been around. A 33 year old? Sounds like she'd be more qualified for Fox's Five at Five. That's true, but if you think about it, ABC's talent across the board is on the younger side -- especially the correspondents they've been hiring over the last two years or so. To a certain degree it challenges the notion inherent in your point that a qualified network news anchor will have been a seasoned correspondent. I think that certainly was the case in the past, but perhaps the game is changing -- less about journalistic qualification and more about ability to present well. Sometimes they go hand in hand, but I suppose other times not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyHarry 718 Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 That's true, but if you think about it, ABC's talent across the board is on the younger side -- especially the correspondents they've been hiring over the last two years or so. To a certain degree it challenges the notion inherent in your point that a qualified network news anchor will have been a seasoned correspondent. I think that certainly was the case in the past, but perhaps the game is changing -- less about journalistic qualification and more about ability to present well. Sometimes they go hand in hand, but I suppose other times not. I think one of the reasons so many people complain about the press is because of this lack of seasoning. The younger you are, the more susceptible to dogma you are (at least I know I was). Is this lack of seasoning why so much of the news sounds like regurgitated press releases? In my opinion, the foundation for being a good journalist is being a skeptic with a lot of real world experience. Real world experience and being naturally cynical allows you to cut through the BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountainave 530 Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 If you care what Dan Rather thinks, here is his take on the transition: http://reliablesources.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/29/sawyer-to-depart-abc-anchor-desk/. Rather and Toobin paint Muir as young and inexperienced. He might not have been a political or war correspondent, but he most certainly has traveled the country and the world. If you think about it, it makes sense that those who were political or war correspondents and went on to assume the anchor chair (Jennings, Brokaw, Rather) ran shows that covered more political and international stories, whereas Sawyer and Muir, who have covered largely stories of human interest, have shows with more of those stories. I do think the networks (at least ABC and NBC; CBS seems to be maintaining some of its hard news principle) are trending toward appointing anchors for their personality and delivery as opposed to past practice in appointing anchors with reporting rap sheets from around the globe. That being said, it would make sense in my opinion to have a personality-driven morning show and more of a hard-news evening show. I recognize that part of the decision to make George the Chief Anchor may be the heightened importance of morning shows and their content, but most -- not all, but most -- of the commentary I've read or heard about ABC's transition neglects the obvious possibility that making George the "Chief Anchor" was simply a way to appease him since he wasn't made anchor of WN. I guess that's more of a negative spin on the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountainave 530 Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 I think one of the reasons so many people complain about the press is because of this lack of seasoning. The younger you are, the more susceptible to dogma you are (at least I know I was). Is this lack of seasoning why so much of the news sounds like regurgitated press releases? In my opinion, the foundation for being a good journalist is being a skeptic with a lot of real world experience. Real world experience and being naturally cynical allows you to cut through the BS. Having the younger faces is probably also an attempt to appeal to the younger demographic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyHarry 718 Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 If you care what Dan Rather thinks, here is his take on the transition: http://reliablesources.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/29/sawyer-to-depart-abc-anchor-desk/. Rather and Toobin paint Muir as young and inexperienced. He might not have been a political or war correspondent, but he most certainly has traveled the country and the world. If you think about it, it makes sense that those who were political or war correspondents and went on to assume the anchor chair (Jennings, Brokaw, Rather) ran shows that covered more political and international stories, whereas Sawyer and Muir, who have covered largely stories of human interest, have shows with more of those stories. I do think the networks (at least ABC and NBC; CBS seems to be maintaining some of its hard news principle) are trending toward appointing anchors for their personality and delivery as opposed to past practice in appointing anchors with reporting rap sheets from around the globe. That being said, it would make sense in my opinion to have a personality-driven morning show and more of a hard-news evening show. I recognize that part of the decision to make George the Chief Anchor may be the heightened importance of morning shows and their content, but most -- not all, but most -- of the commentary I've read or heard about ABC's transition neglects the obvious possibility that making George the "Chief Anchor" was simply a way to appease him since he wasn't made anchor of WN. I guess that's more of a negative spin on the situation. What he said is largely spot on, but let's remember the "fake but accurate" memo that caused Dan Rather to be deposed from his anchor seat ... and Dan Rather was arrogant enough to go down with the ship. This is actually relevant for another reason, because when that whole "fake but accurate" scandal went down, it exposed another one of my pet peeves about the news and that is that they have no sense of proportion. e.g. Thirteen people protesting outside the statehouse that spit out a press release to the newsroom is "big news" or made to look like it ... likewise, the same thing happened during the Rather Scandal. Anybody who knows what an IBM Selectric is could tell you that memo was not written on an IBM Selectric. It was obvious from the beginning that the memo was typed out in MS Word or in some other word processing program. Yet the networks were broadcasting the theory that you could buy a typewriter ball in the Times Roman font back in the 1960's as if Times Roman was in wide use back in those days. They were giving equal weight to the theory everybody was changing fonts around back in those days which was unlikely. If they had a TimesRoman font ball for the selectric, it would have been such a rare and unlikely occurrence that it would have been like lightning striking. Would a 33 year old be smart enough to see through that BS when even seasoned reporters were stupid enough to fall for it? Doubt it. For the record, I am conservative-libertarian, but I like a news media that kicks everybody in the ass. But I would like to see a bit more even handed ass-kicking than what is the norm. If you're going to turn Valerie Plame and the "fake but accurate" memo into big scandals, I want to see the same thing with Benghazi and the IRS scandal (which is a real scandal). I want to see both sides getting their butts kicked because that's the only way to keep them in line. And that goes to my first argument: Does a 33 year old wet-behind-the-ears news correspondent have what it takes to grill the Obama administration like Dan Rather would have? Dan was a lib but lets face it, he valued good TV more than good politics. He was biased, but he went after libs too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningNews 1289 Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Look at how Dan Rather's career ended and he had 23+ years of experience. He should save his comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanewsguy 509 Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 She's only 33 so I don't really know what to say. Part of me says she must be talented to get network level jobs, the other part of me says is this how low network news has gone? It's not like she's had a chance to become a seasoned correspondent. Diane Sawyer was a pretty face at one time, but she has also been around. A 33 year old? Sounds like she'd be more qualified for Fox's Five at Five. Three things I want to say: The younger the cheaper. The younger the more immature they are. Browse around their Twitters and Facebooks and especially Instagrams and you'll see what I mean. And the ones that set their Instagrams and Twitters to private/protected obviously have something to hide. Therefore, I would much rather get my news from a 65 year old than a 33 year old. Let's just say I was watching small market news one time and the anchor person couldn't pronounce Ben Bernanke's last name correctly, pronouncing it as "Breck-er-neck." I don't even know how you get that from Bernanke but this goes to show you, if you can not pronounce an important American political figure's name properly then you really shouldn't be a newscaster. I would rather see Martha Raddatz get this position, you can trust her more than Rebecca Jarvis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BehindNYNews 143 Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Three things I want to say: The younger the cheaper. The younger the more immature they are. Browse around their Twitters and Facebooks and especially Instagrams and you'll see what I mean. And the ones that set their Instagrams and Twitters to private/protected obviously have something to hide. Therefore, I would much rather get my news from a 65 year old than a 33 year old. Let's just say I was watching small market news one time and the anchor person couldn't pronounce Ben Bernanke's last name correctly, pronouncing it as "Breck-er-neck." I don't even know how you get that from Bernanke but this goes to show you, if you can not pronounce an important American political figure's name properly then you really shouldn't be a newscaster. I would rather see Martha Raddatz get this position, you can trust her more than Rebecca Jarvis. It's a weekend newscast. It's not like she would be getting the weekdays. Plus, she is young so ABC could groom her to what they want. And people like when anchors are active on social media, so thats a positive. David wasn't 33 but he was [about] 36-7ish. That's really not that big of a difference. Rebecca would be great for the demo just like David is. The alternative, that many seem to forget, if you don't like one person, there are 2 other broadcasts to watch. Just because you don't like her doesn't mean America won't. I'm sure over the next month or two, they will test several anchors to see who can A. keep the ratings and B. connect with America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TVNewsLover 727 Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 David wasn't 33 but he was [about] 36-7ish. That's really not that big of a difference. Try 40 (and a half). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidwestTV 1173 Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 If you care what Dan Rather thinks, here is his take on the transition: http://reliablesources.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/29/sawyer-to-depart-abc-anchor-desk/. Rather and Toobin paint Muir as young and inexperienced. He might not have been a political or war correspondent, but he most certainly has traveled the country and the world. If you think about it, it makes sense that those who were political or war correspondents and went on to assume the anchor chair (Jennings, Brokaw, Rather) ran shows that covered more political and international stories... Speaking of that, I always thought that Richard Engles could possibly be a good replacement for Brian Williams. He certainly deserves it. Having the younger faces is probably also an attempt to appeal to the younger demographic. That and possibly in an attempt to keep them there as long as possible so that the younger viewers can age with them so by the time they're older adults they'll be more inclined to watch them out of loyalty and familiarity (as well as raise a new generation to watch them). Try 40 (and a half). That's still arguably young to some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24994J 5269 Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Try 40 (and a half). We're talking about when he got the weekend job, which he started (Saturdays only) in like '06 or '07. That would mean he was like 33, like Jarvis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningNews 1289 Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 A special report today for the Presidents immigration proposals with George on vacation, David Muir is presenting. So no to the questions of calling George in from his vacation to cover special reports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24994J 5269 Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Doesn't George's title only become applicable when the transition takes place? Also, if he's on vacation, they're not going to bring him in, just like NBC or CBS wouldn't bring in Brilliams and Pelley just for a POTUS news conference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BehindNYNews 143 Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 We're talking about when he got the weekend job, which he started (Saturdays only) in like '06 or '07. That would mean he was like 33, like Jarvis. ✓ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24994J 5269 Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 We're talking about when he got the weekend job, which he started (Saturdays only) in like '06 or '07. That would mean he was like 33, like Jarvis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningNews 1289 Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Doesn't George's title only become applicable when the transition takes place? Also, if he's on vacation, they're not going to bring him in, just like NBC or CBS wouldn't bring in Brilliams and Pelley just for a POTUS news conference. I actually forgot that this begins in September. Anyone else think this transition puts Josh's decision to leave into perspective a bit more than before? Articles suggest that Diane began talking about a transition last year that would move David to WN and keep George at the helm of GMA, in turn blocking Josh from the position. It certainly plays into the speculation that he wanted a time table (and money) set for when he could take George's place. Anyway just speculating on my part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BehindNYNews 143 Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Elizabeth Vargas is anchoring WN tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountainave 530 Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Jarvis back in the chair tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breaking News 802 Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 I like Diane Sawyer which I'm only a few who like her, but ABC NEWS is ugh crap! Do you believe this was Ben Sherwood doing of creating a newscast that has less World News? Where the world news at in the newscast? ABC NEWS is pure fluff, and I rather have George on the evening news vs. Muir. That just me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24994J 5269 Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 Elizabeth is anchoring tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoadStar 363 Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 Is it just me, or is there something a little... off.. about Elizabeth's face? Like she got just a touch too much botox or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountainave 530 Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Is it just me, or is there something a little... off.. about Elizabeth's face? Like she got just a touch too much botox or something? Don't know about that, but her hair is much shorter than it has been in the past. Maybe that makes her face appear differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrtraveler01 737 Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 I like Diane Sawyer which I'm only a few who like her, but ABC NEWS is ugh crap! Do you believe this was Ben Sherwood doing of creating a newscast that has less World News? Where the world news at in the newscast? ABC NEWS is pure fluff, and I rather have George on the evening news vs. Muir. That just me. You should watch GMA. Even for morning TV it's pretty bad. The sensationalist tone combined with the fluffy stories just makes it seem way too over the top for me. But it gets ratings which is what counts, so I doubt much is going to change. Same with World News. Although I've stopped watching ABC News ever since Sherwood took control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.