The anchor is not just a news reader. They are the managing editor of the entire program. That means they are in charge of collecting all the stories and making sure they get reported on, organizing the order that stories will be presented, and delivering the news in a clear and concise way.
Also, they're conducting high profile interviews, developing sources who they are in constant contact with, trying to get scoops and stories. Making sure they have good rapport with high profile politicians and policy makers.
There's a lot more to it than just sitting in front of a camera and reading.
I am, apparently, a big fan of nightly news. It's one of the few places where you can get several minutes coverage of a single story and people aren't just screaming at each other for an hour. And people do develop a connection to one anchor or another. I'm a huge Brian Williams fangirl and do not care for Katie Couric. I also tend to enjoy Diane Sawyer's reporting (but I will scream if they use that annoying soft-focus on her - it's the news, not a soap opera!).
However, my reason for not watching has zero to do with cable television and everything to do with time. I am never home in time to watch the news. And, I don't know anyone else who is. Instead of running Dateline or Primetime or Nightline or whatever 4 nights a week, how about just running the actual news in that time slot??
I think it's so funny how people get all up-in-arms about a flippin NEWSREADER. Like when Brian Williams took over for Tom Brokaw, it was as though we were discussing some sort of hugely important transfer of power, affecting the livelihoods of millions of people.
They read the news. Like, 5 stories a night. In a world where a bazillion things happen every day and there are roughly a bazillion better ways of finding out about them than watching some over-produced, cleaned-up, boring, old-fashioned, advertisement-interrupted newscast for half an hour.
@wordinedgewise: I don't know - I wouldn't call them "newsreaders" when they're going on 20 hours straight with stubble and rolled up sleeves reporting on 9/11 or reporting live from Iraq or hunkering down in the Superdome during Katrina...
@odinsraven: Fair enough, in those rare occasions. But 99% of the time, they do a 10-second intro, and shoot to the person who actually filed the story. Like Richard Engel. He is a badass.
I was commenting more on the odd attachment people seem to have to the people who report the news. It seems disproportionate, considering how many thousands more reporters are out in the field and totally unrecognized publicly.
@wordinedgewise: Oh, that's the point. It used to be so much more than that. An anchor used to be THE voice you turned to for information, comfort, understanding.
I will not lie, I am of a slightly older generation, and I wept like a baby when Peter Jennings died. So.
@wordinedgewise: They are more than mere newsreaders. They are editors of their shows, they affect content, and they actually have a point of view. Brian Williams is smart and erudite, and it shows when he is on other shows. Yes, the shows can be dull and content-lite, but the people who anchor these shows have decades of experience and probably deserve a tad more respect.
@pmarble: Oh come on. I never said I didn't like Brian Williams, I do actually. What I'm saying is, no one gives a shit about the people who write, produce, or edit most other shows. I stand by my statement that the attention given to newscasters (specifically on the nightly news shows) is disproportionate.
@labeled: I'm 29 and I cried BUCKETS when Peter Jennings died. I grew up watching his newscasts with my parents. Not only was he always a voice of reassurance, but he was a true journalist, too.
No one on the news since -- network or cable -- has struck me in the same way.
*sniff!*
@VeryFancyBunny: I think maybe anyone who had their set turned to ABC during 9/11 feels/felt the same strong emotional tie to him. And that's how it should be, or if not that, at least how it used to be - with time, you learned to trust the person anchoring, and therefore trust the newscast.
09/03/09
Also, they're conducting high profile interviews, developing sources who they are in constant contact with, trying to get scoops and stories. Making sure they have good rapport with high profile politicians and policy makers.
There's a lot more to it than just sitting in front of a camera and reading.
09/03/09
But that's just me.
09/03/09
09/03/09
However, my reason for not watching has zero to do with cable television and everything to do with time. I am never home in time to watch the news. And, I don't know anyone else who is. Instead of running Dateline or Primetime or Nightline or whatever 4 nights a week, how about just running the actual news in that time slot??
09/03/09
They read the news. Like, 5 stories a night. In a world where a bazillion things happen every day and there are roughly a bazillion better ways of finding out about them than watching some over-produced, cleaned-up, boring, old-fashioned, advertisement-interrupted newscast for half an hour.
Such as.
09/03/09
09/03/09
I was commenting more on the odd attachment people seem to have to the people who report the news. It seems disproportionate, considering how many thousands more reporters are out in the field and totally unrecognized publicly.
09/03/09
I will not lie, I am of a slightly older generation, and I wept like a baby when Peter Jennings died. So.
09/03/09
09/03/09
09/03/09
No one on the news since -- network or cable -- has struck me in the same way.
*sniff!*
09/03/09