ABC World News fluff

[Oprah 10]

I've been watching a bit of ABC World News just to see what they're covering vs. NBC/CBS and the others and I am continually amazed at just how much fluff junk is in that newscast. You flip between the shows halfway through and see that NBC and CBS are still on serious news pieces and that Diane Sawyer is talking about light celebrity/consumer/health pieces.

 

I think this article has a lot of truth to it. Kind of sad to see how bad it's become.

 

http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/149929/tyndall-abc-spends-half-its-evening-newscast-on-soft-news/

[skbl17 188]

What makes it all the more disappointing is how great ABC News used to be. Things went downhill fast after Peter Jennings' death in 2005; Charlie Gibson's departure from World News (Tonight) only exacerbated the downfall of ABC News in quality. Interestingly, ratings are actually up in the Sawyer fluff era.

 

That's all ABC cares about. If it's bringing in ratings, there's no need to change. I have a very complex theory as to why that is the case.

 

The sad truth is that almost every news organization today, whether print, cable or broadcast, defines success in quantity (RATINGS!!!!) rather than quality. CBS is a recent exception, with the turnaround after Couric's departure in 2011, but they've suffered in the ratings as a result. Unfortunately, many people aren't interested in hard news (with people describing hard news as "boring and depressing" rather than being informative). Therefore, "fluffcasts" (they are not newscasts by any means of the imagination,) will do better in the ratings. In today's market, high ratings equals more advertisers; that in turn allows the network to get more money. It's all about profit.

 

In all honesty, I'd like to see a stronger, more determined and more focused PBS/NPR combo to provide a significant public broadcasting counterweight to the "fluffcasts" on most cable news channels and broadcast networks. In Europe and parts of the Asia-Pacific region, this has worked well, in fact, many European countries had public broadcasting as the only medium until 1955 in the UK and the 80s and 90s in other countries. As a result of this history, the fairly young commercial broadcasters in most of these countries tend to be much more informative and less fluffy than their American counterparts. To be fair, NPR and PBS do a generally good job with what they have, but fall to the usual "leftist communism/socialism" trope and endure low audiences. This can be explained, in my view, in two ways:

 

The general mood of a significant segment of the American public is not receptive to public television and radio. Public broadcasting tends to be viewed as a bastion of leftist principles by some in the U.S. (not everyone, mind you, but at the least, a very loud minority). There's also the "public broadcasting is boring" trope, which is much more prevalent: while commercial television and radio is seen as exciting and cool, despite the content, PBS, NPR and C-SPAN are considered as boring, out-of-touch media outlets with nothing better than documentaries, coverage of Congress, history programs, kids' educational programs, and repeats of old, black-and-white comedies and plays. That's far from the truth, but it's a big part of the consciousness here.

 

Nationally organized public broadcasting was late to the party in the U.S.. In fact, the first stations to be officially licensed in 1941 were commercial stations, which is almost unique among industrialized nations. Public broadcasting on a national level got organized with NET, but didn't really get going until 1967, with the Public Broadcasting Act. Therefore, public broadcasters in the U.S. have had a serious handicap since the beginnings of television. We've had a profit- and ratings-driven broadcasting system since the start. Americans didn't get a feel for public broadcasters the way our European (and to a lesser extent, Canadian) friends do. Therefore, our tolerance of fluffiness on commercial news broadcasts is much higher.

 

Other possibilities for redemption (on the cable side, which is much worse,) are BBC World News and the future Al Jazeera America. While the former tends to be more well-regarded than the latter will likely ever be in this country, both BBC World News and Al Jazeera have had a lot of difficulty getting into the U.S. market. The BBC has only just started making inroads with BBC World News, but Al Jazeera will never shake off the petty, misinformed claims of being "Terrorist TV"; I honestly can't see AJAM succeeding particularly well in this country, despite its promise and its backing by what could arguably be the best news channel in the world, Al Jazeera English.

 

Finally, the last possibility is that CBS could be resilient. While CBS News programs (sans 60 Minutes) lag in the ratings, they have experienced a ratings resurgence as of late; although they are far behind ABC, they have seen incredible growth in the viewership of their news programs over the course of two years. If CBS holds onto its current format long enough, they might be able to break the shell of sensationalist fluff at ABC. Maybe.

 

For now, though, quantity rules. If journalism, honesty and objectivity must be sacrificed to obtain higher ratings and more profit, then so be it. Fluff gets viewers, viewers get advertisers, advertisers pay the network(s) involved. Thus, the network will stick with the fluff for one reason and one reason only: it works. Diane Sawyer can continue to fluff (and even lie in some instances) her way through ABC World "News" and the rest of the network can too; if it gets ratings, it will stay. It will take nothing short of a miracle (or a nightmare at ABC News) to get ABC to pull a CBS and reverse course. Maybe an anchor or news director replacement?

 

Edit: I just have a correction to make: ABC World News is not number one nationally; thanks to MidwestTV for pointing that out!

[Jterry 43]

Yeah, all you have to do is see how the cable news networks handled Egypt this past day to understand the situation at hand - ratings. It's fluff or sensationalized to most of us but it's what ABC and/or Diane Sawyer have decided to do in order to combat the declining evening news numbers, and it seems to be working well enough that it won't be changing anytime soon. Even when it's covering hard stories, it's like watching the evening news equivalent of Inside Edition (I remember somebody else here said that before).

 

On the other hand, CBS's turn back to hard news indeed gives me hope, especially since it does seem to be resonating with more and more viewers, if gradually. AJA's launch later this year will certainly be of great interest, but I echo AtlantaTV in wondering if it even has the chance due to the continued misconceptions about the brand.

[Guest]

female demo.

 

female demo.

 

female demo.

[10Viewer 319]

I think "Nightly News" has sort of tried a 'middle way' approach with less infotainment than "World News".

 

But some light news days I am pretty disappointed in "Nightly News". Though they seem to shine on heavy news days, like the Boston situation in April.

[24994J 5276]

I'm mainly going to address 'World News (Tonight)' in the final block of my statement. I'm not going to make too big of a deal about the other shows at ABC, mainly because I don't take issue with them.

• 'GMA' is tough to address. The field of morning shows is vast, and while that may spread the audience thin, it also leaves a lot of wiggle to try stuff out. If you don't like something that is on, change the channel. The argument can be made that the 3 networks and 3 cable newsers currently offer 6 different formats for your viewing pleasure. That leaves something for everyone. Right now, 'GMA' has a great team that, in my book, rivals the Gibson-Sawyer-Roberts-Perkins team that I so adored a decade ago. The chemistry that has developed is amazing. Everyone plays a role on the program and it works on every note. They've become an on-air family unlike anything I've seen before on a morning show. The sibling relationship between Sam, Josh and Lara, the maternal authority of Robin and the stiff paternal exterior of George have made this the team to beat. They've gone fluffy, there's no denying it, but they're doing a damn good job at it. 'CBS This Morning' has taken the hard-news route, and it's showing to be a good move in terms of the ratings. 'Today' is trying to offer the best of ABC and CBS, but is coming up way short, and is paying the price. My eyes are still on WGN in the morning, but ABC is my solid #2.
  
• 'This Week' lost it's way under Amanpour, but is pretty good since George came back. 'MTP' is unwatchable and while I like Bob Scheiffer, 'Face the Nation' is just so ridiculously boring...and that's when it was only 30 minutes.
  
• 'Nightline' has developed a formula that works. They have a good team, and I believe the show has a new edge since it moved to the later time slot. All I know is that I'm watching it more than I did when it was in the post-news slot.
  
• '20/20' has gotten better since David Muir joined the broadcast, but that's not to say that Chris Cuomo was the problem. They got way too hooked into the true crime stories that plague 'Dateline' to this day. Though not back to their old formula, they have brought more variety to the weekly subject matter.
  

Of course, this leaves us with the elephant in the room. We all could be quick to blame Diane, and some of it is deserved. She didn't spend all those years building up her personality on 'GMA' just to push it aside for the evenings. Nobody is or should be expecting the Jennings-era broadcast out of her, it's not her style. The closest that 'World News' came to the glory days was under Charlie Gibson, and I must say, he would've given Peter a run for his money if they had ever gone head-to-head. The Gibson broadcast was near-perfect in this modern era of news, alas age was not on Charlie's side. The real blame needs to fall on President Ben Sherwood. Let's face it, the 6:30pm slot went in the crapper after David Westin left. The handover from Westin to Sherwood took place in December of 2010, about a year after Sawyer took the helm. Granted, the show was already a little softer in tone and image by then...but again, that's Sawyer's style. If you compare 'WN' in 2010 with 'WN' in 2013, you will see 2 completely different productions.

 

Same anchor. Different boss.

 

Of course, I doubt Sherwood is going anywhere anytime soon, but I do hold out hope that a Stephanopoulos-captained ship can redeem itself. I will admit, Sherwood has done a good job at playing to the strength of the personalities, and that could bode well for us down the line. I've said it before and I'll say it again, George is not capable of doing Diane's 'World News'. But since the job is pretty much his, the network will be forced to make necessary adjustments, and that is when I'll make my final verdict of this network's future.

 

To review: 'GMA': tolerable, 'Nightline': good, 'This Week' and '20/20': on their way back, Current 'World News': HORRENDOUS, Future 'World News': potentially promising.

 

BTW, Elizabeth Vargas proved yet again Wednesday night that a woman can anchor a network evening newscast without trying to give us a warm and fuzzy feeling inside, unlike Sawyer and Couric. Again, the pairing of Woodruff and Vargas could've worked had unfortunate and coincidental circumstances not taken place.

[Evening Magazine 18]

But which flavor fluff?

 

[mre29 1340]

Of course, I doubt Sherwood is going anywhere anytime soon, but I do hold out hope that a Stephanopoulos-captained ship can redeem itself. I will admit, Sherwood has done a good job at playing to the strength of the personalities, and that could bode well for us down the line. I've said it before and I'll say it again, George is not capable of doing Diane's 'World News'. But since the job is pretty much his, the network will be forced to make necessary adjustments, and that is when I'll make my final verdict of this network's future.

Why is the job "pretty much his"? What if the network gave it to, say, David Muir?

[MorningNews 1293]

Why is the job "pretty much his"? What if the network gave it to, say, David Muir?

George had the World News spot locked into his recent contract when he joined GMA. I'm not sure if or why that would have changed.

 

I 100% agree about Diane and World News it's the absolute worse of the three broadcast and this is coming from someone who is sworn to ABC lol. I mentioned this not too long ago here but I myself watch Scott Pelley, his broadcast is always the best. The news isn't always hardcore breaking stories but they're informative and captivating compared to Diane who barely touches the days news before she fills us with the latest celebrity news, silly lifestyle stories and the mockery that she's made of "Person Of The Week." And seriously that index segment that she does which features the trending stories of the day has potential to bring something new and innovative to the broadcast but it's littered with crap as well.

[IndyNewsGuy 13]

 

I'm mainly going to address 'World News (Tonight)' in the final block of my statement. I'm not going to make too big of a deal about the other shows at ABC, mainly because I don't take issue with them.

• 'GMA' is tough to address. The field of morning shows is vast, and while that may spread the audience thin, it also leaves a lot of wiggle to try stuff out. If you don't like something that is on, change the channel. The argument can be made that the 3 networks and 3 cable newsers currently offer 6 different formats for your viewing pleasure. That leaves something for everyone. Right now, 'GMA' has a great team that, in my book, rivals the Gibson-Sawyer-Roberts-Perkins team that I so adored a decade ago. The chemistry that has developed is amazing. Everyone plays a role on the program and it works on every note. They've become an on-air family unlike anything I've seen before on a morning show. The sibling relationship between Sam, Josh and Lara, the maternal authority of Robin and the stiff paternal exterior of George have made this the team to beat. They've gone fluffy, there's no denying it, but they're doing a damn good job at it. 'CBS This Morning' has taken the hard-news route, and it's showing to be a good move in terms of the ratings. 'Today' is trying to offer the best of ABC and CBS, but is coming up way short, and is paying the price. My eyes are still on WGN in the morning, but ABC is my solid #2.
  
• 'This Week' lost it's way under Amanpour, but is pretty good since George came back. 'MTP' is unwatchable and while I like Bob Scheiffer, 'Face the Nation' is just so ridiculously boring...and that's when it was only 30 minutes.
  
• 'Nightline' has developed a formula that works. They have a good team, and I believe the show has a new edge since it moved to the later time slot. All I know is that I'm watching it more than I did when it was in the post-news slot.
  
• '20/20' has gotten better since David Muir joined the broadcast, but that's not to say that Chris Cuomo was the problem. They got way too hooked into the true crime stories that plague 'Dateline' to this day. Though not back to their old formula, they have brought more variety to the weekly subject matter.
  

Of course, this leaves us with the elephant in the room. We all could be quick to blame Diane, and some of it is deserved. She didn't spend all those years building up her personality on 'GMA' just to push it aside for the evenings. Nobody is or should be expecting the Jennings-era broadcast out of her, it's not her style. The closest that 'World News' came to the glory days was under Charlie Gibson, and I must say, he would've given Peter a run for his money if they had ever gone head-to-head. The Gibson broadcast was near-perfect in this modern era of news, alas age was not on Charlie's side. The real blame needs to fall on President Ben Sherwood. Let's face it, the 6:30pm slot went in the crapper after David Westin left. The handover from Westin to Sherwood took place in December of 2010, about a year after Sawyer took the helm. Granted, the show was already a little softer in tone and image by then...but again, that's Sawyer's style. If you compare 'WN' in 2010 with 'WN' in 2013, you will see 2 completely different productions.

 

Same anchor. Different boss.

 

Of course, I doubt Sherwood is going anywhere anytime soon, but I do hold out hope that a Stephanopoulos-captained ship can redeem itself. I will admit, Sherwood has done a good job at playing to the strength of the personalities, and that could bode well for us down the line. I've said it before and I'll say it again, George is not capable of doing Diane's 'World News'. But since the job is pretty much his, the network will be forced to make necessary adjustments, and that is when I'll make my final verdict of this network's future.

 

To review: 'GMA': tolerable, 'Nightline': good, 'This Week' and '20/20': on their way back, Current 'World News': HORRENDOUS, Future 'World News': potentially promising.

 

BTW, Elizabeth Vargas proved yet again Wednesday night that a woman can anchor a network evening newscast without trying to give us a warm and fuzzy feeling inside, unlike Sawyer and Couric. Again, the pairing of Woodruff and Vargas could've worked had unfortunate and coincidental circumstances not taken place.

 

WOW!!! Out of the Zillions comments on this website, this one is 100% on the point! I couldn't have said it any better. Gibson was THEE man, I've since been watching a little more BriWi at 6:30. Brian and Pete Williams have both dominated Breaking News coverage this year. It seems ABC has been scrambling to get it's varsity team on-air for the Big and Unexpected "Special Reports" starting with the tragedy in December.

 

CBS should just keep what they are doing. While all of there news presentations are too boring for my taste, plenty of people like it. They have a strong product, probably won't be number 1 but number 2 and competitive ratings are a win.

 

GMA don't change a thing. NBC, don't watch it.

 

And I'm rooting for David Muir to take World News next.

[MorningNews 1293]

Though World News is crap, I must admit I am so sick to death of people declaring GMA as overly fluffy! The show has no more or less fluff than Today or any other average morning program around the globe. For instance just the other morning GMA featured a story about mothers breast feeding one another's children while Today teased a story about people's cranky face. The first half hour of GMA is jam packed with the mornings top news followed by mostly features and lifestyle or current event topics. The team at GMA is a force to reckoned with!

[RetroCirq 148]

What makes it all the more disappointing is how great ABC News used to be. Things went downhill fast after Peter Jennings' death in 2005; Charlie Gibson's departure from World News (Tonight) only exacerbated the downfall of ABC News in quality. Sadly, ratings are actually up in the Sawyer fluff era; they are the number one network evening news program in ratings.

 

That's all ABC cares about. If it's bringing in ratings, there's no need to change. I have a very complex theory as to why that is the case.

 

The sad truth is that almost every news organization today, whether print, cable or broadcast, defines success in quantity (RATINGS!!!!) rather than quality. CBS is a recent exception, with the turnaround after Couric's departure in 2011, but they've suffered in the ratings as a result. Unfortunately, many people aren't interested in hard news (with people describing hard news as "boring and depressing" rather than being informative). Therefore, "fluffcasts" (they are not newscasts by any means of the imagination,) will do better in the ratings. In today's market, high ratings equals more advertisers; that in turn allows the network to get more money. It's all about profit.

Sorry for being the ying to the yang here, but I'm part of that camp that do feel that the newscasts at CBS, especially felt boring yet depressing. Although I do give Pelley and Company a lot of credit for bringing in looking at quality hard news as opposed to overly fluff newscasts. Lets just face the reality folks, the idea of doing hard news is more complex thanks to behind the scenes problems as opposed to having three anchors monopolize the stories

[MidwestTV 1173]

 

Sadly, ratings are actually up in the Sawyer fluff era; they are the number one network evening news program in ratings.

 

Since when have they been #1? NBC Nightly News continually beats them.

 

Anyways, yeah no I hate ABC World News. It's more or less the evening version of Good Morning America. Another reason why I hate it is that damn lighting they have placed on set! Diane literally looks as if she's GLOWING or something, or as if she's an angel reporting the news. Whatever it is, it makes her completely and totally fake. I hate it. Despise it. I damn it all to hell that's how much I despise their lighting. It also doesn't help that their graphics take away all sense of seriousness. Hell, while CBS's graphics may have looked old since the moment of their inception and are also incredibly plain, dull and boring, they give off this feel of importance and seriousness. Sort of like "our graphics may not be grand, but that's because the news is by far more important." They also suit Scott Pelley. Then again, the graphics for all three of the networks actually do seem to suit their anchors very well.

 

Getting on the serious note though, I reckon that ABC News's numbers have been rising purely because they're not NBC. I blame most of that on the Today Show (obviously) and somehow that also trickled down to NBC Nightly News and Brian Williams. I honestly think that some people also blame Williams for the departure of Curry as well. There's also the fact that Diane Sawyer is a woman and hauling in all of the female viewers (around 60% of her audience is female apparently. If that's not true anymore then it's still a majority.) and came from Good Morning America, a show that obviously has a great team personality and chemistry. Compare this to NBC who now almost has an image of neglecting their female personalities and replacing them with women that most viewers appear to not really like, or haven't grown on them yet.

 

In regards to that article someone up there posted earlier:

 

“World News” Executive Producer Michael Corn tells Bauder “the broadcast reflects Sawyer’s sense of curiosity and adventure … It does more on health matters, for example, because health has a real impact on people’s lives.”

That may be true...but...

 

 

“We believe we lead with the most interesting story of the day,” he said. “There’s nothing wrong with not being boring.”

Again...that also may be true...but...that's generally not what Americans want nowadays. There is a key, critical difference between leading with the most interesting story of the day compared to the most important story of the day. Americans daily are criticizing the news media more and more and demanding harder, more serious news under the belief that almost all of the news networks are either "hiding" something from them, are too "afraid" to report the real news or just don't really want to report the news.

 

 

David Bauder reports that ABC’s “soft news” includes a greater emphasis on health, medicine and family stories — content that is a match for the “World News” audience, which is 60 percent female.

But no, no! You are ABC WORLD NEWS, Not ABC AMERICA News! All of your soft news stories are INCREDIBLY American.

 

So you see, the reason why I can't stand WN is because it spends less time covering international stories than it does covering domestic stories. Sometimes I get the feel from watching them that they cover significant world news only because they HAVE to, not because they want or feel the need to: 1) as a legitimate news organization and 2) because it's in their own damn name! Diane Sawyer, to me at least, does not seem like a breaking news-type woman. Meaning, that come a significant breaking news story, she WOULDN'T be the person I turned to because she's just too dang soft! I would almost feel as if she's either A) trying to underplay the severity of that said breaking news event or B] trying to comfort all of us about it and is failing miserably. The same could almost be said for ABC News on a whole. When NBC and CBS (to an extent) do breaking news, they freaking do breaking news! That's why people still flock to NBC for breaking news on the broadcast side like people will flock to CNN for breaking news on the cable side: because the viewers know that network knows how to do it.

[MorningNews 1293]

George often delivers more breaking news and special reports than Diane. He's a rockstar when it comes to lead a breaking news report where as Diane looks confused and uninterested. The fact that when news breaks even in the afternoon it is often George or David Muir who reports it shows that the network is aware of Diane's performance and has little faith in it.

[jrh1985 56]

George had the World News spot locked into his recent contract when he joined GMA. I'm not sure if or why that would have changed.

I 100% agree about Diane and World News it's the absolute worse of the three broadcast and this is coming from someone who is sworn to ABC lol. I mentioned this not too long ago here but I myself watch Scott Pelley, his broadcast is always the best. The news isn't always hardcore breaking stories but they're informative and captivating compared to Diane who barely touches the days news before she fills us with the latest celebrity news, silly lifestyle stories and the mockery that she's made of "Person Of The Week." And seriously that index segment that she does which features the trending stories of the day has potential to bring something new and innovative to the broadcast but it's littered with crap as well.

I just figured that David would be next in line since he does weekend World News. Does he not want the week? I will be shocked if Lester does not follow Brian.

[MidwestTV 1173]

 

I just figured that David would be next in line since he does weekend World News. Does he not want the week? I will be shocked if Lester does not follow Brian.

 

I would be too, but given how popular Ann Curry is when she anchors....

 

Which is another thing, I would take Ann Curry over Diane Sawyer anchoring an evening newscast ANY day.

[BehindNYNews 143]

I'm gonna quote this press release headline from Tuesday,

 

“ABC World News” is the Only Evening Newscast to Grow Both Overall and Demo Audiences in 2013."

If Americans don't want to watch World News then why is this the topic of the press release. Diane/ABC must be doing something right. Considering we are on a news forum, most of you want more hard news, and thats fine, but that does not mean you are the majority.

 

 

On a side note, I love Diane and don't want her to leave, but when she does, I'm rooting for David Muir.

[jrh1985 56]

What I still don't understand is why ABC didn't stick it out with Woodruff and Vargas? Yes, Bob was hurt in the war, but wasn't it known early on that he was going to be OK, it was just going to time? I can't remember the timeline back then. I liked Woodruff and Vargas! It was something NBC & CBS didn't have.

[skbl17 188]

 

Since when have they been #1? NBC Nightly News continually beats them.

 

Sorry, I was looking at WSB's sweeps numbers when I posted that. NBC Nightly News is number one nationally, with ABC in second and CBS in third.

 

I still stand by everything else I said though.

[24994J 5276]

 

What I still don't understand is why ABC didn't stick it out with Woodruff and Vargas? Yes, Bob was hurt in the war, but wasn't it known early on that he was going to be OK, it was just going to time? I can't remember the timeline back then. I liked Woodruff and Vargas! It was something NBC & CBS didn't have.

 

Quick response: she was pregnant, even before they took to the air in November/December 2005.

 

Long response: there were a lot of contributing factors. In addition to Bob's January injury, Elizabeth was also pregnant at the time, due sometime in May/June. They pretty much stuck with the co-anchor format through March 2006, with either Charlie or Diane sitting in. One thing I recall fondly was the nights that Elizabeth was off...while a lesser organization would've gone the cheaper route, they still went with 2 faces. Chuck and Di were AWESOME at night (which is why I think Gibson/Sawyer was better than Gibson/Lunden, the former duo could anchor at any time of day...Joan wouldn't have been able to pull off nights, but that's for another thread).

 

As time went on, Vargas was on less and less, and by the end of April, ABC knew that they couldn't leave the viewers hanging again like they had done just the year before during Peter's illness. Had she not been pregnant, I guess Elizabeth could've continued solo, even knowing that Woodruff was unlikely to return. Unfortunately, while being a familiar face, I don't think she had the name-recognition to go it alone. They could've added Gibson as permanent co-anchor, but he had paid his dues and didn't need a primetime desk wife. It's also important to remember that Charlie's contract with GMA had him going through 2007, at which time he had planned to call it a career...then Peter got sick, and the rest is history. As it stands, Gibson was announced as sole anchor in May, and worked double-duty until mid-June when he left GMA for good. The name of the broadcast changed about a week later.

 

Put simply, the timing was just terrible for the Vargas/Woodruff anchor team to even have a chance. We can ask ourselves, what if Elizabeth didn't have a baby that soon, or at all (not to sound sexist)? What if Bob didn't go to Iraq that winter? What if Peter hadn't passed?

 

My what ifs (assuming the prior event happens)...

• Peter doesn't get sick, probably hangs around til after the '08 election (ala Brokaw). Gibson is skipped over, as he reitres in '07. Who gets the job? Probably Sawyer, but co-anchors are unlikely, as the economy is in the crapper.
  
• Bob doesn't get injured, Elizabeth has her baby, Bob goes solo for the summer, and they pick up where they left off come Fall '06. I don't think that the duo would've lasted long, though. Maybe they make it 5 years, but I still think Sawyer would've succeeded them eventually.
  
• Elizabeth doesn't go on maternity leave. Bob doesn't return, Elizabeth makes it through to maybe '07. Sawyer takes over.
  

Whatever way, I think Diane was going to assume the anchor chair no matter what happened.

 

(I apologize for going really deep into this subject, but this the sweet spot of my news history knowledge. I can't help myself.)

[MidwestTV 1173]

 

I'm gonna quote this press release headline from Tuesday,

“ABC World News” is the Only Evening Newscast to Grow Both Overall and Demo Audiences in 2013."

If Americans don't want to watch World News then why is this the topic of the press release. Diane/ABC must be doing something right. Considering we are on a news forum, most of you want more hard news, and thats fine, but that does not mean you are the majority.

 

 

On a side note, I love Diane and don't want her to leave, but when she does, I'm rooting for David Muir.

 

That's why I'm standing by my theory that people are flocking to ABC just because they're not NBC with the whole Today Show saga and people also have this odd thing against Brian Williams too for some reason.

[Breaking News 802]

I don't have a problem with Dianne, and like everybody else who has a job she's being told what to do, and etc. I blame her boss Ben Sherwood, and ever since he become in charge of the ABC News division the story count on world News has not been world news unless it's major breaking news. Yes there are alot of fluff pieces, but there's no serious news content, and again it would start at the top. Ann Sweeney and Ben Sherwood, but again Mickey Mouse is worried about the bottom line $$$$ no about content.

[MidwestTV 1173]

 

I don't have a problem with Dianne, and like everybody else who has a job she's being told what to do, and etc. I blame her boss Ben Sherwood, and ever since he become in charge of the ABC News division the story count on world News has not been world news unless it's major breaking news. Yes there are alot of fluff pieces, but there's no serious news content, and again it would start at the top. Ann Sweeney and Ben Sherwood, but again Mickey Mouse is worried about the bottom line $$$$ no about content.

 

But here's the problem though...their strategy is obviously working. It only seems to bother US, the people that demand better things than what's being produced.

[sanewsguy 509]

World News Tonight with Diane Sawyer is such a joke. GMA is also a joke. ABC News as a whole is a joke. I stay far away from them. They are not a credible news organization under Ben Sherwood.

[ElliotJones 52]

 

female demo.

 

female demo.

 

female demo.