On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 5:35 PM, JW <[email protected]> wrote: > > Affiliates won't allow the move to 7:30, the merger with CNN is seen > > by both CBS and CNN as tarnishing their respective brands, and Katie's > > salary wasn't what was preventing the network from hiring additional > > reporters -- they genuinely don't feel the quality of the newscast is > > suffering and have no motivation to make such a change. > > First, 7:30 belonging to the affiliates is a forty-year old FCC > mandate which marked the beginning of network prime-time starting at > 8:00. > > Second, Kevin's right that high anchor salaries aren't responsible for > fewer reporters. At some point, the networks decided that they didn't > need all those bureaus and reporters to cover the news, and they > passed the savings along to shareholders. If one were to decide that > it might be nice to have someone on board who understood what's going > on in Syria before it became a crisis, they could afford her > regardless of what the anchor is being paid. >
As I noted earlier, there are a number of reasons for the reduction in reporters. But it is a fact that CBS cut reporters (and other news positions) as part of their accommodation to the Katie-cast. Katie obviously led to an increase salary cost to CBS news, and her replacement will obviously make less money, and CBS could add a few reporters with the money saved and still have significant cash left over. Neither Deggans nor I are predicting what CBS is likely to do - simply suggesting what they should do, and now can do, to improve CBS News. As always, it is possible that CBS will decide to shit on the news and cash out as much profit as they can. -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! 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
