When big (emphasis on big) news breaks

[brianpr3 175]

I heard a story that when President Nixon was about to resign all 3 of the network news anchors were on vacation HK smith of abc news was at his upstate ny house and made the drive down to DC in 5 hours  Walter Cronkite was sailing off of Nantucket and they had the coast guard get him and John Chancellor had a plane come get him (please correct me if im wrong)

Do the networks have a plan to get their anchor from vacation etc if they absolutely need them for the biggest news events 

[FiveNews 331]

In this age of being connected all the time, I'm sure there's a plan in place to get a hold of the big 3 anchors. I believe in the last decade, NBCs Lester Holt was out of the country on vacation and flew back to NY to cover the story. Unfortunately, I can't recall which "big" story is was. Most network anchors will usually end their vacation and come back to ensure they are the face of the network's coverage.

[MorningNews 1310]

I’m sure the anchors would find a way to get back in time for a majority of the coverage but there are much more robust contingency plans for network news these days than the 60s. For instance, George or Whit Johnson are more than capable of holding things together in David’s absence. Savannah or Tom Llamas could hold things down at NBC while Lester was en route. I have no idea who works at CBS.

[nomadcowatbk 144]

they plan breaks during what they expect are slow news periods

[brianpr3 175]

6 hours ago, nomadcowatbk said:

they plan breaks during what they expect are slow news periods

Well in the case i mentioned Nixon resignation they had to deploy the military for one of them 

[nycnewsjunkie 1419]

11 hours ago, MorningNews said:

I’m sure the anchors would find a way to get back in time for a majority of the coverage but there are much more robust contingency plans for network news these days than the 60s. For instance, George or Whit Johnson are more than capable of holding things together in David’s absence. Savannah or Tom Llamas could hold things down at NBC while Lester was en route. I have no idea who works at CBS.

Usually Major Garrett covers for Norah at CBS.

[WAVY 10 Fan 232]

Wasn't there a story about Dan Rather being on vacation when the Oklahoma City bombing took place and Connie Chung anchored CBS coverage herself initially (though the implication was when Dan got to Oklahoma City, he started anonymously bad-mouthing her; which set the stage for Connie to get the boot from CBS about a month later)

[Gavin M. 94]

1 hour ago, WAVY 10 Fan said:

Wasn't there a story about Dan Rather being on vacation when the Oklahoma City bombing took place and Connie Chung anchored CBS coverage herself initially (though the implication was when Dan got to Oklahoma City, he started anonymously bad-mouthing her; which set the stage for Connie to get the boot from CBS about a month later)

They really scapegoated her if that’s true. 

[mountainave 532]

14 hours ago, nomadcowatbk said:

they plan breaks during what they expect are slow news periods

 

Breaking news is, by definition, unexpected.

[Gavin M. 94]

15 minutes ago, Gavin M. said:

They really scapegoated her if that’s true. 

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-xpm-1995-04-25-9504250114-story.html

[brianpr3 175]

I also heard a stort that when scott pelly was on the cbs evening news there was a breaking news story and they had to pull him out of a play he was attending 

[EVVTV12 83]

7 hours ago, brianpr3 said:

I also heard a stort that when scott pelly was on the cbs evening news there was a breaking news story and they had to pull him out of a play he was attending 

True… It was, sadly, to report the news that Bob Simon had died in a car accident earlier that evening. 

[HanSolo 9]

Putting on my "viewer hat," I find this fascinating. I can't think of anything less important to me, personally, when a "big story" happens than if the "main" anchor is there, nor would I change over from station A to B simply because A has its coverage anchored, for however long, by someone who isn't [David/Lester/Norah]. 

 

I completely understand that with the big bucks, so to speak, comes sometimes having to get back to work unexpectedly. I do. But at the same time, I see these folks as human beings. I'm all in favor of them getting to have the time off they booked  and planned. I will never make their money or have their prestige, so it's easy for me to say they deserve their vacation time even if something surprising happens. But the same goes at a local level. They all schedule things as it is to avoid known major news events; if something freaky happens when they're trying to take family time or whatever, my completely personal stance is let them have it. You have a team for a reason. 

 

 

[mountainave 532]

There is some truth to your point -- specifically during breaking news -- that average viewers are more interested in the facts than who's in the chair... but the networks also know viewers like familiarity.  The networks have someone in the building 24/7 who is responsible for hopping in the chair in the event of breaking news.  During the day it's a familiar face, but during nights, weekends, and holidays, it's often a correspondent or anchor of a less-watched show (e.g., at ABC, after WNT production is done for the night, it's often whoever is anchoring Nightline that night). 

 

If breaking news that merits a special report (i.e. interruption of programming) happens outside of daytime, the networks will usually start with the on-call person in the building.  If the news is deemed to be truly significant (meaning coverage will be ongoing, involving more than just a special report during a commercial break), then the networks will typically call in the chief anchor or another daytime anchor who is more recognizable to viewers to take over the ongoing coverage.

 

Can't speak to what the arrangement at CBS was the night Bob Simon died.  There was obviously a very personal element to that specific story.  Wouldn't surprise me if Pelley wanted to be the one to deliver the news, even if someone else was in the building.

[HanSolo 9]

The reasons are of course clear from a business standpoint. Perhaps i'm the odd duck who doesn't care if Lester Holt is telling me whatever happened, or whatever person happened to be around. Wouldn't be the first and won't be the last time I'm an odd duck. Even for something absolutely huge, like (just an example, nothing more) perhaps the death of a sitting president, I'm not going to tune away because David was off on a beach in Hawaii and it took him time to get back. I don't doubt there are people who would, and yeah, I get why there's an "A" team, it just doesn't compute when I take off the "business" hat. Say I'm watching NCIS (does CBS actually have any other shows that aren't an NCIS offshoot? ) and whatever "big even" happens. I might watch World News Tonight regularly, but I'm not flipping over so they can tell me the same thing CBS is. (Again, odd duck, I get it. Just sharing some thoughts, and were it me being tasked with running things, I sure as heck wouldn't do it based off my own habits and tastes.)

[GraphicsMan 37]

You know that's what was unique about the split role between David Muir and George Stephanopoulos when that truck attack in NY happened in 2017 on Halloween, it was less than 2 hours before WNT yet they still called George in for that. When he should have been preparing to sleep they could've had David step in. I remember one day during a hearing and this was in 2019 when David did the all day coverage while George was out. I thought it was an odd setup. Especially that breaking news should be an evening anchor thing not a morning anchor thing. They ofc just felt bad about not giving George the WNT role.

[24994J 5322]

To be fair, that wasn't a "felt bad" for George thing. Not a cute favor, it was a compromise to keep him at the network, specifically declared in his contract. I believe Charlie Gibson had such a distinction worked in, after getting passed over for Woodruff & Vargas. That all went south so fast, though, that we never saw that arrangement in action. Back to George and David, I want to say January 6th coverage was the end of the former's time as chief anchor, with the latter taking over in time for the Inauguration.

Edited June 5 by 24994J

[MediaZone4K 1581]

On 6/4/2024 at 10:46 AM, HanSolo said:

Putting on my "viewer hat," I find this fascinating. I can't think of anything less important to me, personally, when a "big story" happens than if the "main" anchor is there, nor would I change over from station A to B simply because A has its coverage anchored, for however long, by someone who isn't [David/Lester/Norah]. 

 

I completely understand that with the big bucks, so to speak, comes sometimes having to get back to work unexpectedly. I do. But at the same time, I see these folks as human beings. I'm all in favor of them getting to have the time off they booked  and planned. I will never make their money or have their prestige, so it's easy for me to say they deserve their vacation time even if something surprising happens. But the same goes at a local level. They all schedule things as it is to avoid known major news events; if something freaky happens when they're trying to take family time or whatever, my completely personal stance is let them have it. You have a team for a reason. 

 

 

While I tune into the networks no matter who anchors during Special Reports, I do like to hear from the main anchors. 

 

While I notice when anchors are absent, everyone has a life so I don't fault them. 

 

I enjoy going to heavyweights when news breaks. When reviewing historic events on YouTube like 9/11,  though there are a plethora of outlets with uploaded footage, I primarily look for Rather, Jennings and Brokaw's coverage from that day. 

 

Talent matters from the pov of having consistent voices with you during major events. It amazing that during everything from Challenger to OJ and Iraq those same 3 men ushered millions through coverage.

On 6/4/2024 at 10:54 PM, GraphicsMan said:

You know that's what was unique about the split role between David Muir and George Stephanopoulos when that truck attack in NY happened in 2017 on Halloween, it was less than 2 hours before WNT yet they still called George in for that. When he should have been preparing to sleep they could've had David step in. I remember one day during a hearing and this was in 2019 when David did the all day coverage while George was out. I thought it was an odd setup. Especially that breaking news should be an evening anchor thing not a morning anchor thing. They ofc just felt bad about not giving George the WNT role.

During the Trump guilty verdict, I was thinking of George during Muir's coverage.

 

All in all both are very capable but Muir is more flexible in balancing light hearted and serious stories. David has a good voice, great presence, I just don't care for WNT's doomsday overly sensationalistic tone.

Edited June 6 by MediaZone4K

[HanSolo 9]

And that may be the difference between folks who gravitate to a board like this vs. the "general public" (and in no way is that meant as derogatory). The switching, the studying...and yeah, to an extent the level of even caring who's doing it in the moment. 

 

When I saw an alert there was a Trump verdict, ABC was the last channel I'd had on, so that was what came up and I watched. NBC or CBS could have easily been the last station, and wouldn't have occurred to me to bother flipping because "I like that David Muir" guy (to use an example). If anything, I sometimes switch over to CNN not for any given anchor, but once the networks end their special reports, if it's something I'm interested in, I figure there might be some additional coverage on a news channel. With regard to the Trump trial, I know plenty of people who didn't need any TV outlet; they could get what they needed on their breaking news alerts and move on. 

 

What I think would be interesting is data that shows perceptions and habits changing over time. We can all point to the era of Cronkite et al and how they were the trusted voices. By no means have we totally abandoned that era, but I think if we're objective about it, it's a very different world today. This isn't a knock on any anchor or outlet, but we simply, collectively, don't gather around just a handful of outlets and wait for the "voice of god" to tell us things. Some do. Some will continue to. But the old models change over time; we think it's abrupt when it manifests as a change to the status quo, but it's something that's been gradually evolving for a long time. 

[Breaking News 808]

4 hours ago, MediaZone4K said:

While I tune into the networks no matter who anchors during Special Reports, I do like to see how the main anchors are covering it, and I do notice when they are absent. (And everyone has a life so I don't fault someone for being off).

 

I enjoy going to heavyweights when news breaks. When reviewing historic events on YouTube like 9/11,  though there are a plethora of outlets with uploaded footage, I primarily look for Rather, Jennings and Brokaw's coverage from that day. 

 

Talent matters from the pov of having consistent voices with you during major events. It amazing that during everything from Challenger to OJ and Iraq those same 3 men ushered millions through coverage.

During the Trump guilty verdict, I was thinking of George during Muir's coverage.

 

All in all both are very capable but Muir is more flexible in balaning between light hearted and serious. David has a good voice, great presence, I just don't care for WNT's doomsday overly sensationalistic tone.

WNT is so over the top. I grew up with Jennings, but NBC & CBS has less stereo than ABC. Which is refreshing and you made some really great points too!

[24994J 5322]

[HanSolo 9]

That's an awesome graphic. It does make me roll my eyes as a viewer at times...maybe quite a few times....but it's what they do and it works for them, so no complaints. I'm pretty sure I know what I'm going to get, so that choice is on me.