CBS News' Long 3rd Place History

[NewsDirector37 0]

Hello all, while reading the CBS Evening News thread, a question came to me that I had to ask, so I thought starting a new topic would be better than using the current evening news thread to keep that more geared towards the actual show production.  As someone who fancies himself as a broadcast historian, the long suffering of CBS's evening news broadcast being in third place is puzzling.  Forgive me if this has been asked before, but what, in your opinion, is the reason they can't seem to compete with ABC and NBC?  I've read that ever since Dan Rather left years ago, they've been losing viewers, but I can't believe that one anchor leaving would cause them to not be able to compete with World News Tonight and Nightly News at least some of the time.  I am aware of CBS's long prestigious history (WWII, Murrow, Cronkite), as well as a good bit of Rather's time in the chair and the happenings with him.  Plus, as someone who works in local broadcasting, I'm aware of the ongoing constant shrinking of not just broadcasting, but linear TV as a whole.  Looking forward to seeing your responses and engaging with everyone!  Thanks for reading/responding!

[GraphicsMan 345]

I think with CBS you have to differentiate between close 3rd and a distant third. There in the latter during Rather era they were a close or strong 3rd. They just haven’t regained that momentum.

[TVLurker 389]

I believe that after Cronkite left and Rather took over, that was the beginning of their woes.

 

The transition period was alright and ratings were stable but around the beginning of the 80s was when the cracks started to show not only for CBS News but for CBS as a whole. CBS in the 80s and 90s was a whirlwind of mismanagement and terrible business decisions. CBS became both too big to fail and too complacent, making decisions that not only affected the CBS network but the company as a whole. They started to sell off a large amount of assets to other companies in a futile attempt to drive up cash flow, it kept them stable throughout the 80s but the 90s would see significant declines for CBS as a whole. Despite CBS having some stable programming like Dallas and 60 Minutes for example, CBS could not keep up with ABC and NBC which combined had more stability and better programming throughout all their divisions.

 

The most notable example of CBS' decline has to be the year of 1995 when CBS lost stations that defected to FOX. It was the climax of a buildup that not only involved some stations defecting from CBS but also the loss of value that a CBS affiliation once gave a station. FOX as a whole took advantage by not only getting NFC rights for the NFL but by cutting a deal with New World which while involving some ABC and NBC stations, hit CBS the hardest. Most of the new CBS stations were UHF stations which to this day are still struggling to get a foothold in their respective markets, while some stations were VHF, very few of said stations were upgrades when compared to their previous stations; especially KYW which despite the lower channel number didn't have the prestige or notability that WCAU has/had.

 

And not much needs to be mentioned about the disastrous and misguided 1995 season.

 

While CBS has been more stable in terms of entertainment and sports programming, their news division has fallen from stability to constant disarray. Their attempts to compete in the morning show space dominated by Today and GMA has always been mostly lackluster but the loss of Rather and inability to replace Rather is still seen as a sore spot for CBS. CBS has gone through several iterations of formats and hosts for programs not named 60 Minutes and CBS Sunday Morning.

 

The list of previous hosts for the CBS Evening News is longer than NBC and ABC's respective Evening news programs combined. In addition, no host since Rather has been able to provide stability for the CBS Evening News. While Scott Pelly's version of the CBS Evening News was the best since Rather, the ratings and monetary performance of said program pales in comparison to the Rather era where despite being 3rd, advertisers were able to rely on it for it's consistency and familiarity. CBS News brass has no faith in the show to give the host a chance to establish their tenue and because of that, nobody really sees the CBS Evening News as legitimate competition. And if the CBS Evening News isn't reliable than why watch CBS Mornings as well?

 

The only bright spot is 60 Minutes and CBS Sunday Morning and that is telling of itself.

 

I honestly don't think we're getting another Cronkite or Rather and I feel like the glory days past, present and future of CBS News are long gone. They'll be lucky if they make it to see the 2030s and that's me being optimistic.

[carolinanews4 455]

I agree entirely with TVLurker that the lack of consistent talent has hurt CBS News. Constant reimagining, rebranding, and relaunching morning and evening news products has been a disastrous approach. Why CBS blows up and relaunches "a new era" every few years, NBC and ABC make tweaks to evolve their shows. However, I think the 1995 affiliation switch gets overplayed. Indeed, it mattered then and in the immediate years that followed. But CBS primetime was able to ascend to the top of the network pile. Same for daytime. I believe the problem with CBS News is CBS News. The culture was set during Cronkite and never changed. 

 

There's no doubt that CBS News has an excellent pedigree. But NBC wasn't exactly asleep at the switch in the early days with Huntly and Brinkly, plus the Today Show. NBC News has continued to evolve as its audience has evolved. Heck, the early days of ABC News were a non-factor on the national stage. It wasn't until Roone Arledge envisioned newscasters as "stars" that they started to gain traction. In the 1980s and 1990s, NBC and ABC invested in their on-air presentation, including sets, music, graphics, etc.. Television is, after all, a visual medium.

 

Meanwhile, the culture of CBS News seems perpetually stuck in the Cronkite days. "We don't need to invest in our on-air presentation because we are CBS. Walter Cronkite worked here, damnit! Our reporting is the star." That worked in the 50s, 60s, and 70s when the picture quality was poor and Americans had two or three choices for news.

And when CBS does invest, it doesn't feel like they are being innovative. They seem to deploy technology as a means to cut costs. Take a look at the green screen studios they are installing at their local stations. To me, this is just a way to cut the costs of building physical sets. Other people are using these types of sets, but they are usually employed as a next-level storytelling tool. CBS is putting entire newscasts into a virtual environment, which doesn't seem to serve any purpose other than to say "we are the first to have a virtual studio!" By the way, WCBS was the first to have a virtual studio. See what good it did them. They had it in the late 90s. If you don't remember, look it up. It was over-the-top ugly. 

[TVNewsLover 861]

Let’s not forget that Oprah was on most bigger market ABC affiliates starting in the mid-1980s, and that audience then kept the tv on the same channel.

[C Block 1611]

I agree with a lot of what has already been said. I'll add this: Dan Rather talked about it a bit in his Emmy Television Academy interview a few years ago. One little nugget I found interesting is when he talks about Nielsen changing its method of recording ratings in the 1980s to a diary system, which harmed CBS in a way. He rambles quite a bit in the interview, but it's a very interesting watch if you ever have the time.

 

https://interviews.televisionacademy.com/interviews/dan-rather?chapter=14&clip=5106&full=true#full-interview

 

Toward the ~7:00 mark in that clip, he also talks about a confluence of other issues facing CBS beginning in the 1980s. ABC had finally become a strong competitor at that point, and there was a lot more pressure for network news divisions to become profitable rather than remain loss leaders. CNN proved that television news could become a product on its own rather than just a costly public service. Also, the period of Laurence Tisch as CEO of CBS was pretty brutal with a lot of cost cutting and huge layoffs.

 

I think all of that, plus the 1994/1995 affiliation realignment and loss of the NFL really hurt CBS. Once you're at the bottom of the pack, it's really had to affect change internally.

 

A more recent and overlooked (in my opinion) example of CBS fumbling things is CBSN. CBS beat everybody to the punch in doing streaming news more than a decade ago, but they completely squandered their lead in that space. NBC and ABC have far more compelling and comprehensive streaming products now. I think Fox's Live Now even gets more eyeballs than CBSN (or whatever it's called now) at a fraction of the production cost.

[EVVTV12 204]

On 11/10/2025 at 2:39 AM, C Block said:

A more recent and overlooked (in my opinion) example of CBS fumbling things is CBSN. CBS beat everybody to the punch in doing streaming news more than a decade ago, but they completely squandered their lead in that space.

This one really was a major fumble. CBS had the chance to redo everything and improve. But instead, they fell flat. Yes, the early days were mainly prerecorded, but it helped them. Once more live programming started, they improved. But, they didn’t really do anything else.

 

I was one of the people calling for CBSN to rename to CBS News Network and let stations broadcast it OTA. Have programming more in line with foreign broadcasters; newscast and programming from LA, Chicago, Dallas, London, and Sydney. Allow stations to air the network overnight during weekends. 
 

Now? They are just trying to remind people they exist. 

[Jase 1164]

On 11/10/2025 at 2:39 AM, C Block said:

A more recent and overlooked (in my opinion) example of CBS fumbling things is CBSN. CBS beat everybody to the punch in doing streaming news more than a decade ago, but they completely squandered their lead in that space. NBC and ABC have far more compelling and comprehensive streaming products now. I think Fox's Live Now even gets more eyeballs than CBSN (or whatever it's called now) at a fraction of the production cost.

Couldn’t have said it better about CBSN/CBS News 24/7. I quite enjoyed Anne-Marie & Vlad each weekday morning, but now that they have gone to solo anchors and a AR/VR set, outside of ‘The Daily Report’, it’s unwatchable. As I have said before, the busy background is distracting.

[Recovering Producer 410]

And the reality is, the new ownership has no motivation to make CBS, especially the news division, succeed. Bari Weiss may have said she wants CBS out of third place, but she’s the latest in a line of people who have wanted that but will never get the means to achieve it.
 

(IMHO the audience the new ownership wants has been gone for so long and has so many other options for right wing news that have always been conservative that having them come home to an old school mainstream outlet with a new lens on the world is just a fantasy.)
 

The Skydance purchase of Paramount was the equivalent of buying a bundle of random totaled cars from a junk yard.

 

The successful divisions are newer vehicles that were totaled for insurance purposes because modern cars get totaled after the smallest crash because of modern safety systems. But those totaled cars still have lightly used parts that are useful and profitable. 
 

CBS is a 1997 GEO Metro that somehow stayed on the road until it got rear ended and totaled out of its misery a few weeks ago. And the news division is the crushed trunk. Their realistic goal: strip out the catalytic converter for a little cash and sell the rest at a loss so they can get the tax write off. 

[Reweivvt88 173]

On 11/13/2025 at 10:33 AM, Recovering Producer said:

And the reality is, the new ownership has no motivation to make CBS, especially the news division, succeed. Bari Weiss may have said she wants CBS out of third place, but she’s the latest in a line of people who have wanted that but will never get the means to achieve it.
 

(IMHO the audience the new ownership wants has been gone for so long and has so many other options for right wing news that have always been conservative that having them come home to an old school mainstream outlet with a new lens on the world is just a fantasy.)
 

The Skydance purchase of Paramount was the equivalent of buying a bundle of random totaled cars from a junk yard.

Exactly. CBS News is being used as a sacrifice. It just doesn't make sense for some far right MAGA viewer or anyone who watches FOX News Channel all day to switch to CBS News. The FNC audience is extremely loyal and CBS can try all they want but it just doesn't make any sense for this audience to seek out CBS unless FNC does something to push them away (and even then. Newsmax would be more likely to get these viewers than CBS). FNC is extremely well funded and has significant resources, and is extremely right wing and makes no effort to hide this, while CBS News is trying to cover up and downplay their shift to right wing propaganda. All Skydance is doing is hurting the few successful programs CBS News has. 60 Minutes is no longer credible. Local newscasts from CBS owned stations in left wing markets like LA, New York, Boston, Chicago, etc is no longer credible and just being associated with a right wing news operation is going to hurt local news ratings for every station CBS has in left wing markets. On top of this, they are making massive cuts to their news operations.  If they really wanted to compete with a right wing 24/7 powerhouse they wouldn't have gutted their 24/7 streaming news service and cancelled multiple shows. They don't even want to spend the money to produce a live weekend morning newscast for the network. 

[MediaZone4K 2661]

My asessment....

 

Walter Cronkite leaving was the impetus. But Dan Rather was a capable anchor with a broadcast just as good as the competition. Someone had to be third place so I suppose it was just his lot.

 

Bob Schiffer was excellent, and I think he should've stayed on until his retirement in 2015.

 

Katie Couric introduced too much soft news and formatting changes like commentary which probably turned viewers off. 

 

Scott Pelly was too stiff and he did not have enough personality for the evening news versus a straight laced program like 60 Minutes.

 

Jeff Glor wasn't really given a chance, and he wasn't a household name. I suppose people found him plain and unremarkable so they didn't tune in.

 

Nora O'Donnell was good in the mornings but like Katie, CBS overestimated her popularity translating from mornings to evenings. Nora could also come off as snotty and biased at times.

 

Maurice and John are capable anchors. John however is overused and frequently miscast in anchor positions all over the network.  They have the best and most high-quality show of the big three broadcasts. However, David Muir and (at the time) Lester Holt had been well established with audiences for over 10 years. They are also are bigger names. CBS' constant reshuffling of their evening news (and morning) product with less popular talent perhaps made it hard to retain an audience.

 

Then there are the other factors like decline in traditional viewership, the 1994 realignments etc..

 

Long story short, right now, CBS is the best of the big networks in terms of journalistic quality but they just can't seem to get it right in the mornings or evenings.

Edited November 18, 2025 by MediaZone4K