The Race at "Meet the Press"

The memorial service for the great broadcast journalist was held today, but people are already beginning to speculate who will replace Tim Russert on NBC's Meet the Press. This process isn't driven by a lack of respect for Russert, but because of the fact that this is one of the highest rated news programs in the country and filling that seat is very important.

Reflections from MediaBistro:

The New York Times' Bill Carter and Jacques Steinberg raise a few of the expected names for potential Meet the Press anchor. "From inside NBC, the potential candidates include the evening news anchor, Brian Williams, who would be doing double duty (as [Bob] Schieffer did for a time at CBS), correspondents David Gregory and Andrea Mitchell and MSNBC hosts like Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough and Keith Olbermann," they write. "Several of those names are already lightning rods for critics, however" (emphasis added).

Allow this critic to be among the first to say "amen." Here is my assessment of these candidates:

* Brian Williams. Williams is sharp, smart, and articulate, but many blame him for the leftward reputation that has come to NBC. Furthermore, his current job is full time plus and so is the position at Meet the Press (especially if it continues to include the Washington Bureau Chief post).

* David Gregory. Gregory always seems to have an agenda. His style reminds me of Sam Donaldson. Tough? Yes, but quite selectively and he seems to be more vindictive towards some than others. That was what made Russert so great, he was an equal opportunity attacker.

* Andrea Mitchell. Generally speaking, I like Mitchell. However, the Meet the Press demographic is almost identical to those who view the evening news. The experiment of placing a female in the anchor chair at CBS with Katie Couric will have everyone moving with extreme caution at NBC.

* Chris Matthews. Matthews is very smart, but clearly very liberal. He wears his convictions on his sleeve. He loves certain guests and shows disdain towards others. He is very well versed on political and national affairs, but he doesn't seem to be the kind of personality that should be in the Meet the Press chair.

* Joe Scarborough. Scarborough's roots are Conservative, but in recent years he has worked very hard to simply be fair with everyone. Furthermore, like Russert, he has roots in politics that have led him to the media. As a Conservative, I would certainly favor Scarborough over the others being mentioned, but his ideological roots are too far too Conservative to make MSNBC comfortable, in my opinion.

* Keith Olbermann. I think Jon Stewart of the Daily Show would be better, in my opinion. He's funny without being angry. I am actually shocked that his name was even dropped in consideration. I hope is is pure speculation and not serious discussion.

Rumor has it, the race seems to have already narrowed to Gregory, Scarborough, and Matthews. I believe Scarborough was put in that group to avoid the characterization that MSNBC was only interested in Liberals. Furthermore, the rumor mill has seemed to eliminate Gregory and the buzz is surrounding Matthews, who is certainly the most political animal on the MSNBC scene.

The one name that was not mentioned in the process, and the one that I think would have been the strongest, was Tom Brokaw in an interim position. Brokaw is serious and knows his trade, regardless of how uncomfortable I might be with his ideology, he was cautious in how it demonstrated it. Furthermore, he enjoyed the highest ratings of any of the big three anchors. His emphasis on "the Greatest Generation" (those who sacrificed during WW II) has placated the concerns of many and he will appeal to the dominant, older viewer, audience.

The great thing about Brokaw, oddly, is that he seems past the desire to do such long term, which will lead to the opportunity to have many others sit in the chair and audition for the post while everyone knows it is in good hands. It will be interesting to see what NBC finally does to fill this massive void.

According to recent surveys on marketing, most advertising attracts sellers (others who want you to buy more ads) and not buyers. Do you want to know why? Email info@HoustonBusinessShow.com and put "marketing audio" in the subject line and we will get it to you.

Kevin Price is Host of the Houston Business Show (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at HoustonBusinessShow.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

The Network News Mystique

It shouldn't surprise anyone that I'm a devoted viewer of news in general during the day and Fox News in particular. My posts at this blog reflect that fact. However, on those very rare days that I'm at home at 5:30 PM (Central), I begin looking for a network news channel like clockwork. In the past it was always NBC because I like the way Brian Williams presents. His liberal agenda, however, has me moving away from the network. Then, with the move of Katie Couric to CBS, I became very intrigued to watch that train wreck unfold. Now, more often than not, I'm tuning into Charlie Gibson (photo) of ABC News because it is slightly less biased than the other two.

The question is, with the several hours of news I see daily, why would I want to see the broadcast networks? It has come down to a few reasons:

* Creature of habit. Before there were so many cable news channels, people got their news from the networks at the end of the day. The younger a person is, the less likely this will be a factor.

* Entertainment quality. The networks spend significantly more on the 30 minutes of nightly news than the cable companies do on hours of their news programming. They use their best talent, with the best sets, and the finest graphics. If "good looking" broadcasts is important to you, than you probably still find yourself watching the network evening news.

* The "catch all" factor. When you cover the news 24/7 like they do on the cable channels and you find yourself watching them often, you often wonder if you are missing something because there is so much out there. That 30 minutes tells you all the major stories of the day (at least we hope).

* The major network "legitimacy." I think everyone wants to know what "the big networks" are saying. The stories they cover and the way they cover them often tells us the direction the news is going and the stories we can expect in the future.

In light of the fact that I'm typically disgusted by the liberal ideology pervasive in the "mainstream media" today, I'm surprised that I can still stomach it, let alone take extra steps to watch it. But through it all the major networks still have their own mystique.

Newsweek Shamelessly Exploits Troops

While US forces continues to fight terrorism in the Middle East, Newsweek Magazine waged a war of exploitation on our troops. The above 12 American soldiers -- well trained volunteers who were defending our country in Iraq -- were killed when their helicopter was shot down in the conflict.

Without regard to the personal opinions of each of these people or their families, Newsweek has made them the poster children of the horrors of this war. The magazine explains the profound personal impact this lost has in its slow continuous drum beat against this war. This is just one more example of how irresponsible the media is and how consumers of the news needs to hold them accountable. In truth, people are doing just that by continuing to vote with their remotes for more conservative channels such as Fox News. Meanwhile, NBC, the recently deemed "most liberal" network by many conservative watch dog organizations, has seen a nose dive in its ratings with ABC's Charlie Gibson over taking the long popular Brian Williams of the Peacock Network in recent ratings.

I hope people keep taking a stand for our troops and against terror. I hope they are conscious about every media decision they make.

Katie Couric: In the News Again, And She Isn't Happy

I have been writing about the decline and demise of Katie Couric since she began her gig as anchor of CBS Evening News. Couric, who arrived at the network with much fanfare and a salary that is twice as high as her counterpart at ABC News (Charles Gibson) and three times more than Brian Williams of NBC. She has maintained a solid hold on third place virtually through out her short tenure.

Some are crying "sexism" and I actually projected that would play a role back in September when she started. The average viewer of a nightly news program is 60 years old and predominantly male. Such individuals may not be interested in getting their news from a relatively young lady like Couric. I argued back then that the viewer would be interested in hearing from someone more like them or the one who is like that smart older son.

Furthermore, the same demographic (male and 60) tends to be very conservative and Couric has made a career of showing her liberal preferences. I'll never forget her interview with Senator John Kerry (D-MA) when he ran for President in 2004. She was in awe of his "intelligence" and "charisma." I honestly expected her to jump in his lap! Much of the decline of Dan Rather was due to his obvious political agenda, such an approach wouldn't work with Couric either, regardless of how attractive audiences may find her.

In the end, there is little that can be done to save evening news, not even Williams or Gibson. It will likely always attract this shrinking demographic, because younger Accumulators (people in the prime of the career and taking care of children and parents) are getting their news online. Before long, relative "nobodies" will be doing the TV version and the "rock stars" of the industry will be exclusively on the Internet.

Katie Couric's Big Day

Today was Katie's big day as host of CBS Evening News. She made history by being the first female anchor of the most prestigious and important 30 minutes of news. Yes, I know, that is a lot of hyperbole, but that is the media's position on it, not mine. In reality, evening news is in desperate shape and Katie Couric wearing little to no clothes would not be able to likely save its staggering decline in viewership (by the way she was fully and appropriately dressed). Furthermore, the approach they took with Katie will likely contribute to this media's further decline.

First of all, the new approach is no longer the evening news. It is, instead, a mini version of a news magazine such as 20/20, Primetime Live, or 60 Minutes. Instead of making sure the major news stories were covered in less than 30 minutes, Katie gave Morgan Spurlock of "Supersize Me" fame an opportunity to trash our "divided nation" and to express his opinion that we need to stop operating in extremes in her new "Free Speech" segment. Furthermore she had Thomas Friedman of the New York Times on who discussed how we need to restore the friendly US that much of the world loved and appreciated (and often used as a doormat, but we won't go there). The new format was mildly entertaining, but it wasn't the "Evening News."

Second, it isn't the right approach to reach the typical Evening News viewer. That viewer is 60 years old and likes to hear from older sons (such as Brian Williams and Charlie Gibson) and not necessarily from that "chatty" Couric girl. I'm just talking the typical senior, in my opinion, not necessarily my view. I don't see her surviving long trying to reach the senior crowd. Further, the networks are actually trying to distance themselves from seniors and are trying to pursue the all important Accumulators -- 35 to 55 year olds who largely drive the economy today. Which is exactly why they pursued Katie, who falls in the age group and other parts of that key demographic.

Third, she won't likely reach the Accumulators either. Most of them are doing a lot of things at 5:30, but watching the evening news isn't one of them. They are picking up kids, making meals, taking care of parents, or several other things that have nothing to do with the smiling Katie. This audience is reached now, largely, through the Internet, which allows them to watch the footage they want to watch and see it when they care to see it. In no time the podcast version of the news will have a much larger audience then the TV broadcast, but with the rate evening news is going, that won't be saying much.

I hate to be negative. I actually like Katie and miss her on the Today Show, but I believe this experiment will fail and she will have an audience significantly smaller than she did early each morning on NBC. By the way, the morning shows like Today are about the only viable way to reach the all important Accumulators because they are busy multi tasking and find the background noise of information and the relaxed environment of the program a great way to launch a day. It is sad she left this viable place to reach an audience to go to the largely dead network news. But don't worry, we will likely see her on some other day time show in the not too distant future. Watch out The View!