"Wow, CBS News kind of speaks to me."

April 10, 2005 11:53 AM

How would you remake CBS News?Lizz Winstead has some interesting ideas, while Don Hewitt and Al Primo stick to what they know. Meanwhile, Mark Burnett's take is the most hilariously stereotypical piece ever written by a sleazy television producer. So, does anyone else have any ideas?
posted by fungible (41 comments total)

No NYT registration required for this version.
posted by CrunchyFrog at 12:27 PM on April 10, 2005

Yeah. Have Greg Gumbel and Jim Nantz do a sports segment. That way CBS can prove to its viewers that not only do other networks do news better, but they also do sports better. Showcase the weakness!

If Jack Welch ("If you don't have a competitive advantage, don't compete") ran CBS, he might just pull the fucking plug altogether.
posted by Kwantsar at 12:43 PM on April 10, 2005

I thought about it, and there are two ways that CBS might get me to tune in. (I emphasize "might" because I still probably wouldn't do it consistently):

A. They could tell me what's really going on in government and business, without worrying whether the current administration or grumpy, flag-waving old folks wanted to hear it. But they won't, so plan B is their best bet:

B. Make it very likely that I will see young (but legal, obviously) naked breasts if I watch the whole show. But don't just get into a cycle of showing them three minutes before the program ends in a cynical attempt to get me to watch 27 minutes hoping for tits-- I'll get wise to that. Show them randomly, and occasionally show more than one set over the course of the broadcast so I have a reason to continue watching even if I've already seen breasts. And on some occasions, show no breasts-- if I sat through the whole thing to be disappointed, I'll definitely watch the next day to make up for it (if showing none is a definite promise to show some the next day.)
posted by Mayor Curley at 12:50 PM on April 10, 2005

Burnett:
"A correspondent saying to the American public, 'I've got to be honest with you: it's too dangerous to go out and give you the facts.' I just think that sort of stuff speaks to a level of conversational honesty - a level of not being a dictator of the news."

"For example, if there were a correspondent on a news show that asked hard questions of the president, as they should, and got kicked out of the White House, I'd love to see them report the next night from outside the gate. ... I'd cut back to him each night until they let him back in."

I don't see why you think this is "hilariously stereotypical", fungible. I would be very happy if a news station would be this honest. Frankly, I didn't see anything in Burnett's segment that was sleazy or particularly objectionable. He did suggest content and marketing changes, but both of these are things CBS should address. Nothing sleazy there.

And the main idea was simply a suggestion to report the news in an honest and open way (including acknowledging when and why some stories aren't being covered) instead of simply handing down information from on high as if what the anchor is saying is all there is to the truth of the matter.
posted by oddman at 12:57 PM on April 10, 2005

heh heh heh... Boobies.
posted by keswick at 1:34 PM on April 10, 2005

Of all the people you're likely to speak to, I'm the most likely to get it right - because I have my finger on the pulse of a lot of young people.

Oh come on, that's comedy gold. Burnett doesn't want them to tell you they can't go into the White House because it's the honest thing to do; he wants them to tell you so he can turn the news into a "Fear Factor"-style ratings grabber.

Could the news be more honest? Sure. Would I trust that guy to do it? Good Lord no.
posted by fungible at 1:52 PM on April 10, 2005

I think if they want to bring back open and honest news they need to re-instate The Fairness Doctrine
because until we do that, we're going to have nothing but press poodles wetting themselves trying not to piss off their corporate owners and corrupt government.
posted by mk1gti at 1:52 PM on April 10, 2005

Maybe I'm a big geek, but this is a topic that has actually taken up some idle conversation time at my house in the past few weeks. My personal plan (if I were in charge) would be to split the news into two distinct halves -- each about 11 minutes long (since a 30 minute tv program is only 22 minutes of content after ads, etc.). The first 11 minutes would be dedicated to top stories in each region of the world -- the Western Europe segment, the Asia segment, the Africa segment every night. The second 11 minutes would be devoted to in-depth reporting of one or two major us stories ... less than a 20/20-type piece, but more than your average news blurb.

It'll never fly, though. Not entertaining enough.
posted by anastasiav at 2:03 PM on April 10, 2005

Seeing as how surveys show that the median age of those watching the TV news is 60, I don't suppose we'll see too many changes.
posted by telstar at 2:09 PM on April 10, 2005

Lizz Winstead is a twit. Don Hewitt and Al Primo are somewhat senescent. Mark Burnett's quotes are not in the least sleazy; in fact I'd have to give Hewitt marks for sleazy, based on his quotes.
And one other thing: a great segment would be where Andy Rooney is hunted down. Yeah! Then Barbara Walters...then Jon Stossel...
posted by nj_subgenius at 2:13 PM on April 10, 2005

anastasiav?
Isn't that what PBS' "Newshour" Does..... Begin with top stories, then break down the events and panel talk them?
aANd for an HOUR?
posted by Elim at 2:24 PM on April 10, 2005

Why not do a show where you get people who take the big stories of the day, tell them in headline form, and then say: "This is how Fox, MSNBC, The New York Times, blah, blah, all covered this story. This is how they got it right, this is how they got it wrong."

Or- bear with me here, this is a weird one- why not just report it correctly. Christ.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 2:26 PM on April 10, 2005

one word

howard stern

best interviewer around today

and gets ratings.
posted by tsarfan at 2:37 PM on April 10, 2005

I would also like to see a plaid sky, lemonade rivers and grass made out of black licorice . . . Oh, and all the rich sleazeballs in solitary confinement in prison after we've liquidated all their assest and re-invested it back into education, hospitalization and social services . . .
posted by mk1gti at 3:10 PM on April 10, 2005

I'd say for all Mark Burnett's finger-on-the-pulse Fonzie stylings, it's Al Primo that presents the best case for an engaging new program.

Making your reporter doorstep the President night after night until he is let in to interview him? People want to watch that? I think Mark Burnett just walked out of that Simpsons episode where they introduce Poochie to Itchy and Scratchy. "I'm the kung fu hippie, From gangsta city.
I'm a rappin' surfer, You the fool I pity." Desperately in touch with a different decade.
posted by fire&wings at 3:41 PM on April 10, 2005

I would have each segment discuss a single NYTimes editorial and then open the lines to callers with a "Does anyone else have any ideas?"
posted by srboisvert at 4:13 PM on April 10, 2005

The only worthwhile news program left on American TV is Democracy Now!
posted by muckster at 4:25 PM on April 10, 2005

Glad somebody else agrees. Amy Goodman is the bomb.
posted by ao4047 at 4:59 PM on April 10, 2005

Anyone remember Captain Kangaroo? I used to be very fond of the Moose Report. The Captain has gone to his (great, I hope) reward, but since Mr. Moose was a puppet he's probably still available. CBS, show some fighting spirit!
posted by jfuller at 5:20 PM on April 10, 2005

Three words: Sudden Death Weather.

If the forecast is wrong, to the guillotine with the weatherman. Williard Scott won' be so perky then, I tell you what.

Anyone remember Captain Kangaroo?

He was OK. He was no Gary Gnu.
posted by jonmc at 6:06 PM on April 10, 2005

I admire Democracy Now, and watch some of their stuff over the internet.

But at the same time I feel that they've got part of the disease of the American left. They seem happy to preach to the converted. They trot out down-home blues in the musical breaks, for lefty nostalgia value. And why does serious have to mean sleepy?

A guy like Jon Stewart is different, because he believes that everyday people are hungry for real information. Sadly, this is a radical stance for the American left.
posted by brevity at 6:06 PM on April 10, 2005

Two different people mentioned this Joe Schmo guy! Let's get HIM, the kids love him!
posted by apollo at 7:08 PM on April 10, 2005

That could be difficult, apollo. The Schmos are an elusive and ornery clan.
posted by jonmc at 7:15 PM on April 10, 2005

In 1996, the only thing I watched on TV was the nightly news at either 6:30 or 7:00 on whichever network was broadcasting it at that particular time. I rarely watched it beyond the first commercial, because they rushed through the headlines up front, and the remainder of the show was a couple segments that usually held no interest for me.

Then I got a dependable net provider, and with CNN.com my TV viewing stopped altogether.

I saw my first "Daily Show" last week and I was not impressed, so forget that. I have on occasion caught CNN's Headline News and I like that format: 5 minutes of headlines, 10 minutes of deeper reporting; repeat.

I really doubt that television in general, and network news specifically, will ever improve to where I buy another television.

Like newspapers, network news must report on the past 24 hours. When I worked the graveyard shift at a newspaper, the headlines we printed were often the same headlines I read on CNN.com that morning at 9 am before going to bed, 15 hours before. My guess is that the consumers of newspapers and network news are casual 'newsies'; people who do not need to know what happened within minutes of its occurrence.

All things considered, network news is obsolete and their best bet is to dump the show altogether.
posted by mischief at 7:17 PM on April 10, 2005

God. Andy Rooney.
"You know what I hate? The left lane of traffic... You want to go the speed limit, and there's always someone right there behind you. Slow down, I say! You know what else I hate? Ointment smells. I already know my ass hurts, I don't want to have to smell my ass hurting..."

Fix the news? Ok. You gotta get some Edward R. Murrow motherfuckers in there, some H.L. Menkens who are going to be smart, honest and willing to call out bullshit when there's bullshit afoot. (Rather used to be like that...)
See, because that's what gives people credibility. When the administration says that they'll increase revenue by cutting taxes, or that somehow social security will work better when it's individual and unsecured, a national voice has to be willing to simply call bullshit. Stop being cowed by the right claiming that the media is liberal and call 'em on their crap.
And you know what? When the left is in power, keep doing it. Right now because the media does trend toward liberal ideas like equal rights and freedoms, they have an easier time criticizing other liberals, but they tense up as soon as DeLay says that they might have a bias because the national media says he's a fucking crook. Or that they might not be fair because they say that creationism is bullshit that pacifies small, uninquisative minds.
And hey, you know what makes me watch? When someone is clearly not afraid of their bosses either. Have CBS run a story on how Viacom is a shitty vapid wasteland, or how their public filings are off. You bite the hand that feeds, and I'll tune in every goddamn day.
Feel free to pull in bloggers, pundits, whatever. But call them on their shit. Read up on their last public appearences, realize that partisan hacks stick to talking points, and be willing to firmly say "J'accuse. Don't lie to the public."
(They could even be willing to let legitimate differences of opinion stand as just that: equally viable alternative viewpoints. But that would take the smarts to be able to weed out the ones that are clearly, demonstrably false.)

Failing that, just show the hypnotoad.
posted by klangklangston at 7:23 PM on April 10, 2005

I said it before in a thread about PBS, and I'll say it again here: in general people don't turn to their televisions for intellectual stimulation. They see it as a device that delivers entertainment to veg out on, and maybe quickie news updates. This is not to say that most people eschew intellectual stimulation, just that they look for it elsewhere, like in books, magazines, or the internet.

I read a book about the history of videogames where the author mentioned a similar situation. At the time, PC games lagged far behind console games in terms of popularity. One observer posited that the console games were in the den with the TV, which was the "fun" room, and the PC was in the home office, which was the "serious" room, so games seemed like interlopers there.

Again, a broad generalization, but I think it's cogent and I think something similar exists in America's relationship with it's TV set.

God. Andy Rooney.

When I worked in a bookstore I waited on Andy Rooney once. I couldn't find the book he wanted. I had nightmarish visions of a "hidden camera" video of myself on 60 Minutes with him intoning "Don't you just hate it when these idiot clerks can't find the book you want..."
posted by jonmc at 7:27 PM on April 10, 2005

nj_subgenius Lizz Winstead is a twit.

Why? Just because you say so?

Can you do other tricks too ... like maybe disappear?
posted by RavinDave at 8:35 PM on April 10, 2005

I say, make it a game show where ideologically opposed people face off over quotes from the newspaper and each one picks true or false. That way, everyone looks stupid and the truth gets out- like cable news in reverse!
posted by paul_smatatoes at 8:39 PM on April 10, 2005

the "calling out bullshit change" is what seems to be repeated most. But remember everyone's gonna contest that... I I remember listening to an interesting panel of the big 3 or 4 news anchors answering questions on CSPAN, and they all talked about how they get a slew of astroturf/ bitching from both sides about any issue that they do cover. They specifically stated that they were trying to be objective, and were not affected or cowed by either side, but me watching the news would say that well they obviously are hampered by the fact that they are observed and reacted to...

A couple of them also responded to the not calling people on their bullshit charge, by say repeating a question that the guy tried to spin. They saw through the spin but the anchorly thing to do was repeat the question and hope the audience figured it out for themselves...
but is that enough? who knows, do we give the anchor a button to push that puts bullshit on the screen? do we have them review the facts after the taping and comment ?


I second hypnotoad
posted by stratastar at 9:11 PM on April 10, 2005

Just saying what's "correct" doesn't work anymore. Because even if you do, any number of people will try question that.

Reminds me of a quote in "America the Book": "Was the president successful in convincing the country?" Who fucking cares! Why don't you just tell us if what he said was true???
posted by fungible at 9:32 PM on April 10, 2005

I shut off cable about three years ago and have been quite happy ever since. There is no way I would go back to such mindless, pointless, tedium with such an utter lack of content. How many of you out there have cut the cord? How many of you think about it? The only thing you have to gain is happiness and satisfaction. You really have nothing to lose. Cut the cord. Kill Your Television.
posted by mk1gti at 10:35 PM on April 10, 2005

I stopped watching TV after Buffy moved to UPN and I couldn't get it without going to cable. I won't subscripe to cable because I remember the promise of 24-hour content and can't justify PAYING for the glut of infomercials that clog the hours I watch. The FCC's forced "pussification" of TV made the jump easier -- but it was coming anyway. I see salvation in satellite radio, but am still taking a wait-and-see attitude. I don't like the way it's currently handled (SIRIUS doesn't have a single headline-news channel!) -- nonetheless, the potential is there if they are smart enough to tap it (particularly for propogating short-wave feeds, which they are only now starting to exploit).
posted by RavinDave at 10:52 PM on April 10, 2005

Kill Your Television.

no.
posted by jimmy at 11:35 PM on April 10, 2005

You really have nothing to lose. Cut the cord. Kill Your Television.

It might not be a good idea. Is killing your television what made you become pretentious and condescending? Or were you like that before you did it?

And I hate to tell you this, but it's loserish to take life instructions from Ned's Atomic Dustbin.
posted by Mayor Curley at 3:50 AM on April 11, 2005

A local station where I live started doing the entire newscast in under 10 minutes, and now uses the remaining 20 minutes to do an in-depth town-meeting style coverage of local issues, one per day, with panelists representing both sides of the issue. It might have sounded like a good idea at the time, but to me it just points out how much time the average network wastes on bullshit and useless small talk before finally getting around to explaining what is going on in the world. If they can give me the news in 10 minutes, they don't need a full half hour to begin with.

My in-laws are news junkies. They start watching the news when the first 6:00 or 7:00 show comes on, and by switching channels at the appropriate times (taking advantage of cable coverage and news from alternate time zones) they seem to be able to have some network or local news on from 6 until 11:00. I have never quite been able to understand why they do this. After the first show about 85% of what they see is recycled, recaps of what they just heard, often using the exact same phrasing and accompanying video clip. The rest is local stuff. After around two hours of this I'd say 99% of it is recycled. I don't understand how they can sit there and watch the same thing over and over. When we visit them, I often find myself booting up their computer and pulling up MeFi over dial-up when a big story does hit, just because it is the only way I can actually stay current. I remember quite a few instances in which I was able to tell them exactly what they would be hearing from the networks for the next three hours, point by point, and then watched in frustration as they stayed tuned in to the news to see for themselves what I had already encapsulated. The most aggrivating part is that quite often they complain about how bad the coverage is, about how many times they've had to hear about such-and-such story today... they don't seem to realize that there are other channels, or even an "off" button.

As for remaking CBS news, I've got no real ideas that haven't already been discussed above. I'm just fairly certain that as people like my in-laws age, the market for old, recycled news is going to dwindle, because people like me have come to expect news when it happens, not ten hours after the fact. Internet access has probably spoiled it for the big networks, and there's not much they can really do about that.
posted by caution live frogs at 6:02 AM on April 11, 2005

Cut the cord. Kill Your Television.

Forget it. They're already to addicted to 2:1 commercial ratio.
posted by mischief at 6:04 AM on April 11, 2005

Kill Your Television.

But then how would I watch the Baseball games?





Television is what you make it.
posted by anastasiav at 6:22 AM on April 11, 2005

Television is what you make it

mine's mostly silent, a sulking dark thing in the corner.
posted by quonsar at 8:53 AM on April 11, 2005

My life during cable television: Hating almost all the shows for being boring, recycled a thousand times and way to damn many commercials, even during the shows! Even during *newscasts*. These are some of the shows I enjoyed watching: CNN (recycled news a thousand times) Discovery Wings (weapons contractor demo films recycled endlessly). The History Channel (recycled WWII films endlessly, along with Vietnam, the first Desert Storm, etc. They should have just called it 'The War Channel'.
The Comedy Channel and South Park and The Daily Show (the only decent thing on TV worth paying for) The Sci-Fi channel (no explanation necessary) FOX News (right wing propaganda 24-7, lies, lies and damn lies). Entertainment Channel (who gives a damn about hollywood celebreties lives or where rich people are vacationing?) COPS. Hate Your Neighbor. Revel in his or her misery. Hate the poor and disenfranchised.
Reality TV shows (massive projectile vomiting here).

Life after TV.
Happiness, time to read books. Time to go outside and see the world. Time to surf the net. Time to visit friends. Time freed up. Bliss.
posted by mk1gti at 9:54 AM on April 11, 2005

I liked the part where the TV held your mom hostage unless you watched "Trading Spaces."
posted by Snyder at 10:55 AM on April 11, 2005

Time to be a tool on a web community, I hear...
posted by klangklangston at 3:15 PM on April 11, 2005