Studio B

Did we ever find out if CBS is building a new set for EN or are they permanently in CTM’s spot?

Permanently in Studio 57

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/evening-news-moves-to-a-new-studio/

For what it's worth, CBS has debuted new special report graphics.

I'm all for having a thoughtful conversation about it, but there's simply nothing else to talk about. I disagree with you and your statement that the Red Carpet of an entertainment award show, which many people have negative feelings about this year, is an appropriate setting for a nightly newscast. If ABC wanted to broadcast from the LA bureau then fine, but the Red Carpet of the biggest circle jerk in existence - that's just in poor taste. Agree to disagree.

Wait how would the LA bureau be much better? Of course they wouldn't be on site but they would clearly say that they are broadcasting from LA due to the Oscars that evening. Does actually being on site really destroy the show's credibility? And say what you want about the Oscars, they are newsy and if people have negative feelings about it, more so than usual, wouldn't that make it more newsy?

It's just self-promotion, like any of the morning shows, evening news shows or Sunday shows broadcasting from the Super Bowl. Not to mention that it's only the weekend show we're talking about.

Not sure how Suki will vibe in the long term. I could see her angling for a bigger spot in due time. She's not one to play second fiddle.

So far we know:

 

Suki and Jenn will be in studio 4:30-7 and reporting for GDNY after that (will be weird to see Suki report from in the field.)

 

Teresa has been re-assigned to evening reporter. Nothing yet on Antwan but I'd assume either the same or maybe returning to anchoring weekend evenings.

Antwan is a solid anchor, arguably one of the better folks they have. Could've been an interesting pairing with him and Suki on the Wake Up show. He's also reportedly a great guy and easy to work with, unlike Priolo.

Lahmers is a mess but she's reportedly connected way up at 1211 so we'll see what happens there.

Chris Jansing changed her twitter and put former NBC News Senior White House Correspondent. I wonder if she is going back full time to MSNBC as an Anchor.

Looks like it per her bio:

@msnbc intrepid traveling correspondent/anchor, former @NBCNews Senior White House Correspondent, at home baker

Meanwhile, seems like corporate higher-ups hope to move Brian Williams to a better timeslot than 11pm.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/12/brian-williams-quietly-conquering-late-night?mbid=social_twitter

I remember her from News12.. and when she went to Fox5 I was actually surprised.. is she still with the station? I haven't watched at night in a while

As far as I know she is, and the piece seems to indicate as such, but I can't imagine that lasting for long now.

If these CBS rumors are legitimate (consider the source), CBS has to have something up their sleeve in terms of luring somebody to the Broadcast Center because there isn't a de facto replacement in the mix. And frankly, I think Pelley has done a solid job and doesn't really need to be replaced.

How about..... Megyn Kelly?? Not likely but not impossible

They'd probably be relatively late to the game but I'd think she'd be a better fit on 60 Minutes than on the Evening News.

Why on earth would that clause be in his contract?

Think about that for a sec.....

I don't know if such a clause exists but I could see why it would exist. After all even after his credibility went down the toilet, he was still pretty popular and the ratings were still strong. I think that'd be more of an issue early on as he went to MSNBC but a year later as Lester Holt is fully settled in, I don't see why that would be a problem.

All of that said, I think MSNBC will continue to go forward with Williams hosting at 11 while also anchoring rolling news coverage as warranted during the day.

So while you're speaking of revisioning history... why don't you do yourself a favor and read the damn book in which Stelter explains how Matt worked with Jim Bell to have Ann ousted. Don't demean Matt by undermining his backstabbing actions, he and Jim Bell were the two leaders in the outing Curry coalition. I may dislike Lauer but I will use facts to back that up, don't challenge me on that.

I did read the book and Stelter's reporting that preceded it. Bell was the driving force behind firing Curry and getting her off the show. That's not to say that Lauer is innocent because he isn't, he could've stepped in to defend her but he didn't. Everybody knows he didn't like working with her, didn't want her in the first place and that he had complained about her to management. But the reporting indicates that Bell was the first one to deem Curry the problem and decided that she had to go.

From Stelter:

"By comparison, “Today” had stuck to the same camera angles and scripted intros and outros since the 1990s. Some suggested that the show was getting stale. Others privately wondered if Lauer’s star power was beginning to fade. By January, Bell had another culprit in mind: Ann Curry. So insistent was Bell that Curry was the problem — that she was “out of position,” as he put it in an e-mail to his deputies — that he had been talking about it with friends for months. One morning-TV veteran suggested to him that firing Curry, who had been co-hosting for only about six months at that point, would be tantamount to “killing Bambi.” Undeterred, Bell hatched a careful three-part plan: 1.) persuade Lauer to extend his expiring contract; 2.) oust Curry; 3.) replace her with Savannah Guthrie. According to this source, Bell called his plan Operation Bambi.

...

At “Today,” the enmity started at the highest levels, between Bell and the man who was technically his boss, Steve Capus, the president of NBC News. Capus, who was known around the office as “the Rage,” a reference to his short temper, resented Bell, who was adept at navigating NBC’s internal politics and who was perceived to be close to Steve Burke, the chief executive of NBCUniversal. When Capus learned that Bell wanted to force Curry out, he invoked “the streak” and argued that her removal would force the show out of first place. So Bell appealed directly to Burke. “We need to make a change,” Bell told him. Burke ultimately agreed. Operation Bambi was a go."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/magazine/who-can-save-the-today-show.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

From New York Magazine:

"Within six months, executive producer Jim Bell had come to the conclusion that Curry wasn’t working out. She frequently stumbled over the words on the teleprompter and her intensity sometimes made her difficult to watch during interviews with tragedy victims. But, more important, Lauer looked awkward and unhappy next to her—a situation that Lauer himself had also diagnosed. He openly complained about her to NBC staffers and to Bell. And the ratings seemed to reflect her struggles."

http://nymag.com/news/features/today-show-hosts-2013-4/index1.html

One issue is that the sets a bit too bright compared to the other newscasts and their old set. I think it may give off a slightly lighter vibe.

I agree with this. 57 is a great studio and the Evening News does do a nice job utilizing the various video elements there but I still get that temporary solution feel.

The page six article says he signed a 2-year contract-perhaps longer. That's not a yearly contract. Plus, his last major contract was for 2 years and before that 4 years, I believe. And if they had little to no faith in him, they would have canned him long ago. Same goes with the money, if Comcast felt they were paying him too much, then they would have sent him packing. He's not a god, he's replaceable.

But hey, lets let personal animosity get in the way of reporting facts!

Lauer will work on Today for as long as he wants but I don't think he has the desire to do it for that much longer, even as he just signed that contract. The fear inside 30 Rock is that once he goes, the ratings would slide especially as there still isn't the de facto next person in line. And since the show is doing well in the demo, there isn't this desire to replace Lauer.

I also enjoy the revisionist history about Ann Curry. She never was a good fit in the anchor chair on Today and that was obvious to anyone who watched. The ratings started to dip a little bit, they felt the urge to push out Curry and Lauer didn't offer her a life raft. Stelter has never said that Lauer was at fault for pushing Curry out and put the onus on Jim Bell.

Fox replaced news on co-owned WWOR with the Chasing News experiment that never dies. That way they don't have internal competition for the Ten O'Clock News.

They also happened to do that right after Sen. Frank Lautenberg died after he had been the thorn in Fox's side regarding license renewal. Who knows what happens next, especially as there has been a leadership change at the top of the O&O's with Jack Abernethy moving to FNC.

I have a question. Why do everyone seem to hate Dari Alexander? Yes she's not spectacular at her job but isn't that bad.

It would be nice if she could read a prompter.

Wow, if Juliet is really gone, that is pretty remarkable. It's no secret that her and brother John (now a foreign correspondent at FNC) received preferential treatment by their godfather Roger Ailes, but Juliet was quite enjoyable on GDWU. This is a pretty decisive move by management. It makes you wonder what could happen to Dari Alexander (another one who was protected by Ailes) in the coming months.

Dari could be next. If you remember, I believe there was a piece in the Daily News years back about how WNYW became a sort-of recycling bin for FNC and she was one of those mentioned. And it makes sense since she's terrible. But I did like Juliet and she was good (I wouldn't go as far as bc485 as label her as part of the greatest team ever, however).

Heard a rumor that Juliet Huddy is out from a fly on the wall. The timing of it (Ailes I believe is her godfather) is something.

Are they even anymore though? I read somewhere they lead in overall viewers but Today does better in the demo (and like you pointed makes more money for NBC than GMA does for ABC).

http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/morning-show-ratings-week-of-august-22-2/302923

Today won last week in both total viewers and in the demo, their first non-Olympics weekly win since March.

Nobody takes what the Brazilian authorities say at face value. Everyone knows the problems that are plaguing the country. That being said, Ryan LIED. He did not "embellish" the story like you or Billy say, he flat out lied. This is an excerpt of an ABC News article that quotes Ryan on what happened when a gun was pulled out:

 

And then the guy pulled out his gun, he cocked it, put it to my forehead and he said, 'Get down,' and I put my hands up, I was like 'whatever.' He took our money, he took my wallet -- he left my cellphone, he left my credentials."

 

And from the Washington Post:

Asked why he lied to NBC’s Billy Bush in a Sunday interview about a gun being pressed to his forehead and cocked in his initial story, Lochte said he was still intoxicated from drinking the night before. He later said he “definitely had too much to drink.”

 

I hardly call that embellishing, especially in a situation like this that has deep seated implications all around.

 

Plus, NBC and the USOC/IOC have a contract for the next several olympic games. I highly doubt they USOC/IOC are going to forfeit any of those billions of dollars Comcast has agreed to pay because of how Al Roker called out Ryan for lying.

And the USOC isn't exactly rushing to defend Lochte so why would they get so offended that Roker called him out on this?

As I have said before here and elsewhere, I am no fan of Al Roker but I think some are seeing something here that isn't there.

I the only things that might be changed next year is the 6pm hour (no need for another political show after MTP Daily) and 8pm because of Chris Hayes lousy ratings . Maddow gets really good ratings and she is their flagship show, she's not going anywhere. Plus O'Donnell gets decent ratings at 10pm so I think he'll be staying around.

But the thing is, Hayes' ratings are not that bad anymore and much of the replacement talk appears to have subsided. His show is pretty competitive with AC360 ratings-wise of late.

Umm no. An equal share was earned post-2000. He's burned bridges at ESPN, FSN, MSNBC, and CurrentTV. It's obvious HE is the problem. I think other's critiques of him are right on. ESPN was right to move on, and MSNBC would be stupid to give him another chance.

Let's be clear, the reason why ESPN didn't renew his contract a year ago was not because he was a headache but rather because it came as the network was trying to shed costs. By most accounts, he was a team player and didn't cause problems this go-around.

TV Newser reporting that Today will not be replacing Natalie Morales as the newsreader in a move I find wholly unsurprising. The role has basically been rendered irrelevant these days (CBS hasn't used one since the current CBS This Morning launched).

http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/the-today-show-wont-be-replacing-the-news-anchor/302624

I might add... Neither Bryant, nor Jane, nor Deborah or Katie EVER let any of that silly/stupid stuff happen when they were hosting. when she filled in once for Bryant, Faith Daniels(the newsreader) had that same attitude as Bryant or Deborah or Katie: she never let any of that stupid stuff get in the way of the interviews or reporting the news. In fact i think Arthur Kent was co-hosting that week, he had that kind of attitude too. Hugh Downs or Frank McGee, back in the day had that same kind of attitude towards the show. On GMA, David Hartman was doing the same thing and he didn't tolerate it either! I wish that ABC would tell them not to do that on GMA.

I do like Bryant Gumbel (and it's Gumbel, not Gumble), but let's not act like he was completely above the fray and above any intra-show squabbles. Just search 'Bryant Gumbel memo' and you'll see what I am referring to.

I mean, I love revisionist history as much as the next guy but I love how some here are acting like some of this internal stuff and "big egos" is something new with the edition of the program than it was in prior editions of Today or other news shows in general. There have been big egos in television and television news as long as both have been around, this is nothing new.

Bryant Gumbel had his own HBO sports show and he wanted to devote a lot of time to it. He left by his own accord, I don't believe he was forced out. He did eventually go to Early show and that did not work out.

 

*Al Roker is acting like a prissy jerk on the Today show, I wonder if he has been drinking a lot. Word on the street is that Today show people go crazy during Olympics time and party.

Roker has always been a jerk, only now people are seeing it in front of the camera instead of behind it.

Don't forget, Gumbel also left because CBS gave him a primetime newsmagazine, Public Eye, which lasted only one season. Then with nothing really to do, they were able to cajole him into another morning show reboot.

When they added her where? to GMA or The View? And Candace was hired as the conservative voice of the panel. Do you honestly think, they would put two conservative voices on there?

 

 

 

Baloney. Barbara-whether one likes her or not, had been long established even before Paula probably began her career. Barbara's biases were evident, more so towards the end of her run on The View. That being said, I cannot remember a time when Barbara touted that she was a born-again Christian, conservative or even a liberal. One could assume which way Barbara leaned on the political spectrum based on how she reacted to topics/stories talked about on the show, but she never publicly acknowledged her political leanings.

Is saying you're a born-again Christian really the same as admitting political beliefs?