On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 12:43 PM, Mark J. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Victims of the tight economy and high salaries, those familiar aging > faces are disappearing and being replaced by your basic ambitious > young people who look on the local gig as a way station for Fixed > Noise or "Entertainment Tonight"--and as much as you may want to bring > up Ron Burgundy, it's likely the veteran anchors are a lot more > concerned about their hometowns and serious journalism than their > replacements (in fact, their presence may be in many casts the last > vestige of serious journalism on those stations): > > http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/business/media/01anchor.html?pagewanted=all
I take issue with the idea that the anchors are responsible for serious journalism. It has always been the reporters and assignment editors who determine the quality of journalism at any TV station. It's been decades since anchors had to know anything about city hall beside the mayor's name. There's some arguable value to the standing relationship between anchor and viewer and laying off a well-known face could cost a TV station more than they are saving. But given the choice of keeping field reporters or a legacy anchor, I hope stations choose reporters. Tom W --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Like TV only smarter. You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
