Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shinerbock
My contention is not so much with Couric as with the concept of evening network news. Lets be honest, very few people on network(or cable) news are thought provoking and story-breaking journalists. It seems as though the requirements are to be fairly attractive and well spoken, but it isn't required to have the cognitive ability to understand the stories you're reporting. I think most people who really pay attention to current events/politics/policy would agree that that the evening news is packaged for the masses.
|
You're absolutely on the mark. In a major network, the anchors and reporters are referred to as "talent," for a reason. It's because they're paid to look nice and sound nice. Most of them never write anything. You'd be surprised how many don't even proof their copy, and just read what they're handed cold.
When they do a live, oncamera interview... they're handed extensive research and fed the questions.
There is a huge pool of writers, producers, and bookers who do everything for "the talent.". This is unlike local news where the reporters and anchors actually research, write and produce their own copy and field stories.
There's a saying among writers and producers in the networks.. "We paint the masterpiece and then hand the brush over to the anchor so they can sign it and take credit for it!"
But there are times when the anchor has to really earn his/her pay.. and that's during a breaking story such as the shuttle crash, Katrina, etc. That's when you see what they're really made of.
And.. in the major networks.. there is extensive research done in order to find out "what sells." Focus groups are conducted and consultants are brought in.
Threaded Mode
