Print
Email
Share
KEN AULETTA: Hi, my name is Ken Auletta and I'm going to be moderating this discussion. Probably the only people less -- more popular than members of Congress -- (laughter) -- are the five of us up here, because we're members of the press.
We're here today to talk about foreign policy and meeting industry challenges, which is, really I'm going to focus much more on talking about how the networks -- the four networks represented here treat foreign policy, and what some of the future challenges are in the television world.
I'm not going to give you a long introduction, just by name: David Westin, president of ABC News; Sean McManus, the president of CBS News; Steve Capus, the president of NBC News; and Jonathan Klein, the president of CNN/USA.
A word about format: We're going to have a conversation here for 30 or 40 minutes, then we're going to go out to the audience for questions from members. This is on the website of the Council. It's on the record. And please, if you would, turn off your cell phones or any electronic device.
At Walter Cronkite's service yesterday former President Clinton made a statement. He said, "I once went sailing with Walter Cronkite, and he said to me, 'I learned -- one of the things I learned in television news business is that you can't just be a well-educated citizen by watching television news. You have to read newspapers.'"
Do you agree with that?
MR. : Sure. (Laughter.) Sure. Absolutely.
AULETTA: And more than just newspapers. I mean, there's so much more that can keep you up to speed and well-educated.
MR. : I don't think television news ever set out to be the only source of people's information.
AULETTA: What if it were?
MR. : Well -- (laughter) --
(Cross talk.)
MR. : I mean, I think (what ?) would happen, television news would have to change if it played that role, necessarily, and people would have a different set of information, and more limited.
MR. : And there's not enough hours in the day to learn what you can learn from newspapers and magazines, to watch that much television to figure out what's going on in the world.
I think, you know, one of the things we're facing is a lot of our kids probably will never read newspapers, which does not mean they'll be less informed. They'll get their information from different sources. But, I think reading and getting the perspective you get from some kind of print source is absolutely vital. And I think, as good a job as we do in producing news coverage, we can't duplicate what the written word can often do -- often give you. I think it's very --
AULETTA: Jon, but you've got 24 hours on CNN. Do you have a slightly different answer?
JONATHAN KLEIN: No, because people don't sit and watch for 24 hours straight. So, you're still getting people for brief moments in time and hoping to keep them longer and pull them through.
The interesting thing is that the 24 hours does give you time to challenge some of the preconceived notions about what works and what doesn't in television news. It's one thing to be putting on a 22-minute broadcast.
That does require a different way of thinking than, say, you know what, can we attract viewers with Fareed Zakaria interviewing global thought leaders for an hour every Sunday? And the answer turns out to be yes, right. He usually wins his time period that way. That's not something that these guys could, or would do on their networks, it's just a different business, really.
AULETTA: Steve, let me start with you, with the next question, which is that if you go back to 9/11, after 9/11 the American people said, how come we didn't know more about Islam and al Qaeda? And then there was a tremendous growth of international news coverage in all media. And then it seems to have slipped.
And let me cite -- the previous panel talked about statistics on international news coverage, and actually the Pew Center Project for Excellence in Journalism, has come up with some. And they said that in 2007 NBC News, the nightly newscast, 19.8 percent of their coverage that year was international news; this year, so far, it's down to 13 percent. They said that CBS was 10.4 percent in '07; this year, so far, 13.7 percent. ABC News was 19.6 percent, they said; and now it's down to 12.9. CNN was 26.2 percent; and now it's down to 14.8 percent.
So, why?
STEPHEN A. CAPUS: I think you can look at statistics and you can come up with it any number of different ways. You know, I tend to look at the quality of the journalism. And I think there is some great work being done by all of the organizations right now that, in my -- what I would hope to see is that we celebrate some of the fine work that's being done. People are putting their lives at risk covering international news these days, and doing a great job.
You know, we haven't had a panel like this before in the time that I've had this job, but we talk to -- we tend to talk to each other when something awful has happen to somebody who works for us, and that has primarily been in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. But, you know, I think there's some great work being done there. "By the numbers" is not necessarily the way I view it. You know, I look at reporting that comes out of Washington that may not get classified as international.
And I think you also have to consider that, as Jon was saying, you've got -- if you're doing a nightly newscast, you've got to look at what's happened in the world. You've got a precious amount of time -- small amount of time that you're trying to put an awful lot of information and context to the events that have happened in a single day. And whether that's happening domestically or internationally, it's a tall order to try to figure out how to get it all in.
AULETTA: And probably Iraq has something to do with that -- (inaudible) --
MR. : Falling off the radar?
MR. : Yeah. But if you go back through history, this has always been the case. I mean, if you go back to the 1920s, there wasn't nearly as much foreign coverage in The New York Times. And then it went up with World War II; and it went back down in the '50s; and then it went back up with the war in Vietnam.
This has always been the case. This is not a new phenomenon. And I don't know what the right number is, by the way -- I don't know whether 14 is too little, too much; I don't know whether it's 50 percent. I'm not sure you can program news according to a quota.
MR. : Yeah, and I think the point also is -- that Steve made, is that it's the quality, not the quantity, of what you're doing. And I think, on a given day -- and Steve made the point very well, with 22 minutes, you've got to make a subjective decision on what is the most important news story to lead with, and what are the most important stories to do later in the broadcast.
And, you know, if I look at some of the work that Richard Engel did this past week; Lara Logan is embedded right now with some troops on Afghanistan; or Martha Raddatz in Iraq; or what Anderson's done this week -- I think for anybody to say that the networks and the cable networks are not committed to international news, and are not doing a good job of covering the news, I think is really, is ludicrous I think.
And I go back to 2006, when the war broke out in the summertime, when we were all planning on having nice summer vacations, and all of a sudden, in 26 hours we had nine correspondents in the Middle East -- and I'm sure these guys had the same amount. You know, the response, when something is important to cover, I think, is remarkable.
And I think, with a limited amount of time at the networks, I think we do a pretty darn good job in doing that. And I think if -- in the editorial decisions, if we thought that more international news was needed on a certain day, you'll do -- you'll do three or four stories on -- (inaudible) --
AULETTA: Let me pick up on that point, if I can, Sean. Let's assume that the dirty little secret is that the public really is not as interested in international news as they are domestic and other news -- which I don't expect any of you to admit that, but it happens to be the truth. (Laughs.)
But, having said that, do you feel any obligation, as news presidents, to, at some time, say to your viewers, eat your spinach and watch this story?
MR. : Yeah.
MR. : Of course.
MR. : Absolutely. Every day.
MR. : We all do it every night.
MR. : Every single day.
AULETTA: And do you do it every day? What are examples of that?
MR. : You know, I think all of us have done series -- you know, last night the president of the United States asked for an hour of air time, in prime time setting, full Congress meeting, to talk about the ABCs of health care and make his case. All of us have been doing a tremendous amount of reporting of what's really behind all of this -- where are the priorities; what does this mean; what is this definition; what is the implication of a move like this?
And I do think that there is an obligation, that goes along with running a news division, to make sure that we are putting context and real information out there on a daily, nightly basis. There's no question that that's part of our job.
MR. : All of us run businesses too that exist in multiple dimensions -- on-line, on mobile devices, and those audiences actually tell you more about the state of mind of the audience. And, for us, international news is the number four category, so it's right behind crime and entertainment. (Laughter.) But, it's ahead of a lot of other categories that you, you know, would think might be much.
So, it actually tells you that there is a big appetite out there, the more niche oriented you get. These guys have to exist in a more generalized environment, at least on television. For us, in a news niche on cable, we can deliver more. I think we're expected to deliver more.
And our audience, I think, probably regards it as, you know, not so much "spinach" as just a part of a -- you know, the well-balanced diet that they're looking forward to every day. And you run the risk of under-delivering if you don't really offer a lot of it.
AULETTA: You want to talk about spinach, or should I --
MR. : I mean, I don't think of it as spinach, but, I mean, I regard our job as reporting as much of the truth as we can find about things that matter to people. And some of those things are things that people just care about. And I don't think it's my job to judge that they shouldn't care -- (inaudible) --
But things that matter to people are also things that they don't know they should care about. And it has to be a balance of the two. I mean, we all took the president's address last night. We didn't do that because we thought it would have the highest ratings -- we'd make money off of it.
The health care -- I agree with the health-care reform issue, I have no information at all that the American people is craving a lot more coverage about Congressional back-and-forth on health care.
Iraq, I think people have been off the Iraq story since about two or three months into the war, basically, and yet we've all committed amazing resources -- not just in terms of people and money, but, as Steve said, danger to our people over there -- consistently throughout that. And that's because that's an important story; we have troops there; it's important to the country, and we cover it.
So, we all make these decisions every single day.
AULETTA: Sean, let me ask another question, and start with you, if I could.
Technology has made tremendous changes in the news business, in the news gathering business, particularly for television. One of the complaints that people raise about the networks is the reduced number of bureaus overseas. And yet those bureaus have been replaced by, in many cases, one-person offices as -- (inaudible) -- Could you tell us why that works and why it's not a diminishment of international reporting?
SEAN MCMANUS: Well, I think it works because there is a different way to gather news now, which you just mentioned. You know, we also have to take a step back and realize that, whether we like it or not, we are part of corporations and we do have some financial responsibility to our corporations.
Having said that, many of the decisions -- and David just mentioned the one about carrying speech last night, many, if not most, of the decisions we make are not based on the financial realities. They're based on what we think a news division has to do.
And the fact of the matter is -- with technology, with travel, and with the cameras that the smaller reporters have, there are ways to cover the news with less people. You don't need a, you know, a camera crew with, you know, camera, lighting, an associate producer and a writer.
And some of the kids that now are coming out of college, who like to be -- like to be referred to as "video journalists," I mean, really are qualified to go into a situation, like the riots in Iran a few months ago, and report some of the best stories, in the best background, that you can ever see on television.
So, I think the way that we're all trained now to cover news, especially -- and it's not just the, I don't want to just generalize and say "the young kids," because there are some correspondents we have who are older, who are passionate about trying to redo the way they cover the news.
I think it's just a different format. And it's necessity. I mean, it's -- in order to cover as many stories as we want to cover, you can't do it the way you used to, with the infrastructure that used to be in place, you've got to do it more efficiently. And I think we're doing that.
And I think, again, if you look at most of the stories that we've tried to cover in depth, I don't think the quality of the coverage is less than it was when Walter Cronkite was doing it in a very different way.
And I'm a -- I sound like cheerleader for what we're all doing, but I think -- I just would like examples of stories that we haven't done as good a job on as we should have. And I'm happy to debate that, but I'm pretty proud of the job that we've all done, those of us sitting up here.
AULETTA: Steve --
CAPUS: Ken, I think there's a couple things: We've all faced the economic pressures and the realities of what's gone on in our industry. Where I think most of us have decided to invest is in actual coverage, and things that are going to be either written about on-line, show up on our broadcasts, show up on cable.
The infrastructures, as Sean mentions, have been reduced. There's no question about it. The NBC London Bureau is now housed within ITN headquarters in central London. It's not a stand-alone facility. I would much rather write a check to someone who is out covering stories for NBC News, than to a landlord of a building where we have -- in a tremendous amount of square footage.
And it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense these days, when there is set amount of resources and you've got to be smart about what you're investing in. And that's what we're trying to invest in now. Yes, it's smaller, the gear is smaller.
The ability to go to places is actually enabled by decisions like that. Ann Curry has been able to go into Africa six times in the last -- in recent years, simply because there isn't an entourage that has to go in and do it. And I think, as a result, we've been able to put the spotlight on parts of the world that have not been covered as extensively in the past.
MR. : Look at the picture next to you -- all that new-fangled technology that we're using to cover. You know, the business has always embraced the latest, greatest stuff to allow more people to penetrate more deeply in.
Cinema verite documentary making was enabled by the technological advance of making film cameras lighter. So, suddenly you didn't have to just stand outside on a tripod, you could actually pick the thing up and get in there. So, this is just taking (that to them ?).
AULETTA: David, last year ABC had 17 offices overseas --
DAVID WESTIN: How do you count offices? You mean with -- including stringers, and things?
AULETTA: Yeah. I'm counting offices -- (inaudible) --
(Cross talk.)
AULETTA: -- 17 countries.
WESTIN: We have a lot more than 17.
AULETTA: -- 17 countries.
WESTIN: No, we have a lot more than 17, if you count the stringers.
AULETTA: Those are the figures that you -- your office has supplied.
WESTIN: Well, it's a problem with my office. (Laughter.)
AULETTA: They're overseas working on a story. (Laughter.)
But, let me -- forget the number. Can a one-person office, can that person, if he or she calls the producer in New York, can they get stories on the air with the same clout and leverage that --
WESTIN: Well, they can get stories on the air. The same "clout and leverage," I mean, anyone who's worked in a news division would know there's a variety of clout and leverage. Let's be practical about that --
AULETTA: How loud you scream -- (inaudible) --
WESTIN: Well, you know, anchors have a tendency to have a little bit more clout and leverage than correspondents, you know, and --
MR. : I've not noticed that, actually. (Laughter.)
WESTIN: (Steve ?) is much more egalitarian than -- (inaudible) --
(Cross talk)
MR. : -- (inaudible) -- have that experience.
WESTIN: But, the point is, the more important point is we, a couple years ago, sent out these digital reporters -- which we have in a variety of locations around the world, who operate largely by themselves, often in a BBC facility or a AP facility. And we did it, frankly, to support our digital operations, our on-line operations and our streaming broad-band operation, and to have somebody there in case something happened in the area, to get us on the air for the first 24 hours until we get a full team in.
And that's worked beautifully. The thing we did not -- I did not anticipate was the number of times when the people, because they were living there and really familiar with what was going on in the place, would call up and say, "there is a very big story here," that would make it on the air, that otherwise never would have made it on the air, because we just (weren't planning to. ?)
And, frankly, to go back to your question, Ken, I think one of the things that happened within television news -- I'll talk for us, not CNN so much, because I'm not sure about the cable, but for the broadcast people, is, as the money was coming in, the cost structure built up. And that included, let's be honest, the compensation paid to correspondents and producers.
As those people got more and more expensive, it was more difficult to send them for a week, or two weeks, out to cover a story. Often we'd be parachuting them in, and they'd do the standup, but they were there for 24 hours. They were not reporting the way it used to happen. And that was a -- that was a cost issue. No question about it.
Having somebody there, that can live there in that environment, and really know what's going on, and call back in and say there's a story, has allowed those people to get on the air much more than I ever anticipated.
AULETTA: You know, another angle on the technology thing, when we watched what happened in Iran, and people in Iran Twittering, and Facebook, et cetera, and one of the -- how do you, how does this -- it obviously gives you lots more information, and particularly in a closed society; on the other hand, how do you verify it's accurate? So, what are the coming challenges you face, Jon?
KLEIN: It takes a lot of effort, often a lot of money, a lot of manpower to verify all of the stuff that comes from the fact that, basically -- we now have a bureau that is six billion strong. That's everybody in the world can contribute news to CNN, or any of these guys. But, you do have to run it down.
We created, in the specific case of Iran, the "Iran Desk." We have a number of Farsi speakers who work at CNN anyway, not -- we didn't build it up in, you know, in anticipation of this, they just happened to work there, including our head of international news gathering. And they worked literally around the clock, staffed -- eight people per shift, comparing notes on what we were hearing over the transom; making phone calls, often under dangerous circumstances; checking with exiled communities, who they were in touch with anyway.
And often, you know, temptation was there -- you'd hear some dramatic piece of information -- "they're killing somebody on the bridge," and "quick, we have to get a" -- and you had to resist that until you could run it down and verify. And some of the stuff turned out to be true and some did not. But, it was a massive effort.
MR. : Ken, we opened a bureau in Tehran a couple years ago. We've got a full-time producer/correspondent, who happened to have been detained during the demonstrations; was beaten --
AULETTA: Is he still incarcerated?
MR. : No, no, he is out, and has just gone back in. He came out of Iran for awhile and he's gone back in -- Ali Aruzi (sp), who did some great work during this time, and I think is an incredibly talented reporter with a very bright future, operating in incredibly difficult circumstances in a very dangerous place.
But, that's a bureau that was opened in recent years. And we've -- you know, we've opened in places like Pakistan, and Afghanistan, and other places now where there were bureaus, where there were not before. They're not enormous facilities. They may have a handful of people, but there's a presence there.
And I think that that sort of investment is what people -- what we have, and will continue to do.
MCMANUS: I think if you look at our Paris bureau, which used to be one of the better assignments in CBS News -- (laughter) -- before my time, unfortunately, but I think, in our height, the Paris bureau probably had 16 or 17 people in it full-time. And you ask yourself, if I had 16 or 17 very qualified journalists, would I have them sitting in Paris, or would I maybe take three of them and put them in Tehran, and three of them, put them in Pakistan?
I think any intelligent operator would say that's not a good way to run a business. And I think if -- you know, I like to look at some of the mistakes that, you know, the car companies have made, and I look at, you know, the news business. And what happened is that the automobile industry changed dramatically, and the U.S. companies probably weren't fast enough in adjusting.
But, we're adjusting every day. And I think if the news build doesn't figure out, and continue to figure out new ways to do business, we're going to be like the automobile industry, except the government will not bail us out. We'll go out of business. And we can't afford to do that.
And I think -- I would like to spend 95 percent of my time worrying about editorial decisions, and figuring out better ways of structuring our broadcasts. However, I spend a lot of my time trying to figure out, taking the budget that we have and spending it in the most intelligent way, and -- as Steve said, putting the money that you have on the air, and not in offices.
And I think the more money you spend on people, or technology or elements that directly get on television at 6:30, that's --
AULETTA: Let me ask you -- let me pick up on that point. So, if Katie Couric came to you tomorrow -- and the same question could be -- (inaudible) -- for all you other folks, and said, "You know, I'm making roughly $15 million a year and I want to give back $4 million of that" -- I'm not getting to you, Brian (sp) (laughter), I know you make less (laughter) -- "but, I want to, I want to give back $4 million of that, on condition that you apply it to news coverage." Would you make -- could you make that deal?
MCMANUS: (Laughs.) I would find it difficult to say no to that.
AULETTA (?): "McManus calls on Couric." (Laughter.)
MCMANUS: Of course, I would. I mean, if -- you know, if a group of employees got together and said, "Cumulatively, we're making a million dollars a year. We think we aren't -- not doing a good enough job covering the news, we'll give you back $100,000," of course I would say yes to it.
But, I don't think -- I mean, that's not the issue we're dealing with. I think we're dealing with, as I said, the declining audience, which is a -- you know better than I do, is a fact of life on all network television, not just news, and we're in an environment where we're trying to spend the money most efficiently. And I don't expect to get any money back from people who are committed to get it, but I do expect to spend a lot more time trying to figure out a better way to cover the news, if we can.
MR. : He should maybe put it into marketing her show instead. (Laughter.)
AULETTA: No, no, but she made a condition -- it has to go into news gathering. I haven't asked whether Les Moonves would agree to that.
But, let me just move on to --
MCMANUS: I can speak for Leslie and say, yes. (Laughter.)
AULETTA: But, you know, you picked up on --
MCMANUS (?): This can only be trouble. (Laughter.)
AULETTA: Say that again?
MCMANUS (?): I said this can only lead to trouble. (Laughter.) Now, let's talk about --
AULETTA: Don't let me stop you. It's okay.
(Cross talk.)
AULETTA: You what?
WESTIN: I had an anchor offer something close to that.
AULETTA: And?
WESTIN: This anchor is no longer with us. Was not making $15 million, but not far off of it. Actually, my recollection of the proposal was a matching plan, where for every dollar this person gave up -- I'm trying not to reveal gender, the company would match with a dollar. And I said, no.
AULETTA: Because?
WESTIN: Because my job is figuring out what resources we need, and allocating it correctly. And if I'm not doing that job, they should get a new Westin.
But, if I believed that a million dollars, or $4 million into news coverage would genuinely improve ABC News, then should be fighting for that anyway -- I should get that anyway. And if I don't, then I shouldn't be giving it up to an anchor to decide how we should be allocating our money. And so I said, thanks very much, I appreciate it, but no.
MR. : But, what it does speak to, Ken, is within all of our organizations are people who feel passionate about journalism, and about our industry, and about where it's headed. And we've all had conversations with people who have said, listen, if I can do something that helps keep people employed, if I can do things that help keep the quality of coverage high, sign me up.
And people have those conversations. They're below-the-radar conversations, but they go on every day because people are passionate about what they do.
MR. : Yeah, and --
MR. : I'm sorry, go ahead.
MR. : Well, the truth about all journalists, I think, is that journalism is an obsession. It's not a profession. Most of the people in this business would do it for a hell of a lot less money.
The money has sprung up around us, it's turned out to be a good business in many cases, but most of the -- most of the people I can think of, some in this room, and some elsewhere, would do it for the love of it. And, yes, they have to put food on the table, but they're not doing it in order to make $15 million a year.
MR. : Look at the people -- just one other point, look at the people who go overseas into these war zones for us. Every single one of them is a volunteer for those assignments.
MR. : Not for the money, and not thinking it's going to land them their own show in prime time.
MR. : And if they think that's why -- if we think that's why they're doing it, chances are we're going to say, don't go, because that's the wrong reason to sign up for an assignment like that.
AULETTA: You've all touched on the issue of a future, and shrinking audiences, and how you cope with that world. When you look at what technology allows, I can get my information any time I want, on my schedule rather than on yours. And your audience (is ?) necessarily shrinking, as are newspapers and many magazines, et cetera.
So, what do you have to do? What is the new -- what are the new things you have to do to keep your networks relevant, and maybe even increase your audience or shore it up?
MR. : Well, unfortunately, I don't think there are any tricks. I think it all comes down to the content. And I think people are going to judge whether it's worth devoting a half an hour of their time to watching a evening news broadcast, or a "60 Minutes," or a "20/20," or a "Dateline," or all the broadcasts we put on the air.
I don't know of a -- if I knew of secret, if we did, I think we would be employing it now. And it's not fancy on-air promotion, because that can drive some viewers, on a temporary basis, and then they'll make their decision on a -- you know, permanently, whether they're going to stay or not.
But, it's the quality of what you're putting on the air. I think, you know, we sit down and we look at the numbers for all of our broadcasts, and say, what can we do to improve them? And you come up with, you know, a nice promotional campaign; and you come up with some marketing ideas; or you change the pieces around. In the end, it's the quality of what you do.
And I really believe that's, in the end -- especially news viewers, the decisions that they make are based on what they think of the quality of your content.
MR. : Look at the success --
MR. : Otherwise, why would they --
AULETTA: -- "60 Minutes" is --
MR. : -- why would they be watching? I mean, it's -- they're not watching it because, you know, someone is, you know, better looking, or not as good looking at someone else. They're watching because they think they're getting informed. And eventually they will go to place where they believe they're getting the best information, I think. I mean, if not, then I don't think any of us should probably be in our jobs.
AULETTA: "60 Minutes" has had some of its most successful seasons ever in the last couple of years.
MCMANUS: Yeah, with stories on credit default swaps. Two of our highest rated -- (inaudible) --
AULETTA: Yeah, international stories.
MCMANUS: -- credit default swaps. And I think that's a, you know, really good example of, if you stick to your knitting and decide what your broadcast is going to be, and you don't sacrifice the quality or your standards at all, and you resist temptations -- which Jeff Fagar does. Every week he probably has opportunities to put on a story that, short-term, might spike his numbers. And he just doesn't do it because, over time, all you have is your reputation, and that's based on the quality of your content.
CAPUS: You asked the -- you used the key word here, which is "relevance." I mean, if we become irrelevant to the audience, then shame on us, and we'll never get that back.
And so Sean's absolutely right, you can do some things that might get you a short burst, or a short pop, but, in the long-run we have to stay relevant to the audience. And that means place your reporting in the places where it can be consumed by as many people as possible. If that means it's MSNBC.com on-line, great. If that means it's on MSNBC on cable, fine. If that's on "Today," "Nightly," "Meet the Press," "Dateline," great.
AULETTA: What if the --
CAPUS: Our best scenario is having it on all of those places, (by the way ?).
AULETTA: But, what if it means that appointment television -- 6:30 at night, when many people are not even home from work yet, including women who work, who were more devoted watchers 20 years ago -- what if it means that that kind of appointment television is a relic, and, therefore, the notion of an evening newscast is a relic. Can you imagine that happening one day?
MR. : Someone wrote a book predicting that, I think.
AULETTA: Really? (Laughter.) I'm getting old. I forget (these things ?).
WESTIN: I came to Capital City's ABC in February of 1991 when the Gulf War was on. And I remember the first day I was in the office, we were talking about the death of the evening news.
Now, that that was over 18 years ago. It's alive and kicking, and getting -- reaching millions and millions of people. So, my experience, at least, is that people have overpredicted the death of the evening news for a long time now.
Now, you had an -- (inaudible) -- in what you said, which is, if appointment television is no longer the case, or a relic, doesn't that mean that evening news will die? Those two things are not necessarily tied up together. I mean, there could be --
AULETTA: No, no --
WESTIN: -- reporting on the evening news, that's brought together, that's made available on dot-com, and on streaming video, and broad-band, and things that people do want, and need and value, that will keep the evening news alive for a very long time to come, even if they don't have the time to tune in at 6:30 at night. So, the two are not necessarily tied.
AULETTA: No, no, but I'm actually asking -- I actually, I could -- could you imagine a time when you no longer have that 6:30 slot, you've given it back to someone else, but you still have -- you're producing news on all these different platforms?
WESTIN: I could imagine anything. I could imagine playing in the U.S. Open, but -- (laughter) -- I don't think it's probably going to -- (inaudible) --
MR. : No, I've watched you play tennis -- (inaudible) -- (Laughter.)
WESTIN: Exactly. Well, if I could -- that's my point. I could still imagine that have seen me play tennis.
MCMANUS: The other thing, I think, Ken, you have to remember, is that we don't do newscasts at 6:30 to make a lot of money for the network. And, fortunately, the people who are now running the companies, that decide what we do, believe that there is -- part of the obligation of having a network is supplying a full-service news organization.
And I think -- I know my boss doesn't believe that the CBS television network would be what it is without a strong and vibrant CBS News. And he could cancel the evening news tomorrow and make probably a lot more money for our corporation. And I guess you could say, well, that's good for the stockholders and the investors. He doesn't make decision based on that.
And it's hard for me to imagine that there is going to be someone who's going to run one of our parent companies, who's going to say, "You know something, CBS News is not important, we don't need to do that." Because it's part of an obligation. It's part of what -- you know, with all due respect to, you know, USA Network and Lifetime, it's one of the things that makes a network different and important. And I think that's going to continue for a long time.
And you talk about the ratings. Listen, the ratings have been going down steadily for a long time, but there are still about 25 million people a night that watch one of our three broadcasts. And, despite all the great work that Jonathan does -- and you do some of the best work on television, I mean, the cable audience, compared to what we generate at 6:30, is minuscule. And I think that's something to remember.
I mean, there are a lot of people -- and yes, they're older, and yes they are declining, in terms of numbers, but an awful lot of people rely on us as a very important, if not the primary, source of news. And I think that's an obligation of the network, and I think it's an obligation of a news division also.
KLEIN (?): The interesting thing is that they -- the broadcast networks attract, (in aggregate ?) that 20 million some-odd number. We attract, on the big events, more viewers now than we've ever generated. Such that, on some of those big nights, we're beating the broadcast networks on coverage like election night, and the primary coverage, and things like that. It's an interesting phenomenon that takes place.
And it may have something to do with, in this very fragmented media environment, being able, as a cable network, to be in touch with viewers all the time, right -- just constantly letting them be aware, hey, if there's a speech, if there's a primary, if there's a Michael Jackson funeral coverage, Ted Kennedy funeral -- you know, you're just able to be in touch more often.
But, I think the public may place too much emphasis on the evening newscasts as a barometer of the health, or importance, or vitality of the broadcast network news organizations. They each have programs. I mean, look at -- "Nightline" came out of nowhere to revive itself with, you know, programming that is watchable, and fun and interesting every single night, and nobody thought that that would happen. The "Today Show" sets the agenda every morning in those first 20-25 minutes.
So, they have a lot of tricks up their sleeve, beyond the evening newscast.
WESTIN: And that leads to a point that I think, at least, is important, because, listening to us, it sounds like we're a bit defensive of the status quo.
AULETTA: Really? (Laughter.)
(Cross talk)
AULETTA: Sorry, I couldn't resist.
WESTIN: You couldn't resist that.
I think everything that's been said is absolutely true, but I think there is another point. I think there is one fundamental change that we are only beginning to come to terms with, and we have not -- I'll speak for ABC News, I won't speak for my colleagues who have not come to terms with -- (inaudible) -- we need to provide people with information that's valuable to them, and that's relevant to them. We also, in this new world, have to provide them with information they're not getting anywhere else. It has to be distinctive.
That didn't used to be the case. When there were -- in the "good old days," when we weren't there, when there were three broadcast networks, you know, you could basically do the same news everybody else was doing, and they'd tune in because they really trusted Walter Cronkite, or they loved Huntley-Brinkley, or whatever. Those days, I think, are gone, and I'm not sure we've caught up with that yet.
And, actually, it goes back to some of the international coverage we were talking about earlier, because often some of the most distinctive, unusual, different coverage that you can to happens to come from overseas stories. At least that's been our experience.
Now, it could also be a Brian Ross investigation, or something like that, but those sort of really exclusive reports, where you own it, on enterprise journalism, I think become much, much more valuable, because it gives people a reason to tune in. Because if it's just information that's accurate, and reliable, and relevant and valuable, they can get that from a lot of different sources now.
CAPUS: But, every time we've taken these steps, the first thing that happens is this chorus of, "Well, look what they're doing, they didn't cover such-and-such today." You're going to make -- you're going to have to make some tough decisions when you go down that path. And I would argue that we've been doing that for quite some time, especially in the evening.
But, every time that, you know, we do that, then it's, "Oh, you're too featury," or "you're too soft," or, "how dare you to say -- to provide context, as opposed to reporting on what happened today?" We take it on the chin on those days. That's fine. Everybody can, and should have a view on what we're doing.
But, I think these evening newscasts are incredibly important to the overall health of, not just the news divisions but also the networks. I mean, the image -- one of the best images, frankly, of NBC is going to come from the news division -- the strength of Brian's broadcast, the strength of "Today," "Meet the Press," and so forth.
I mean, I think that, I don't see -- to your question about, "do we envision it going away," I don't see it going away.
AULETTA: But, pick up on trust, and Brian, and the thing you were just playing on. One rarely encounters someone in public life who doesn't complain about -- not just you guys but everyone in the press, being preoccupied by conflict. And if you listened to President Obama's speech yesterday at the Cronkite memorial service, he was talking as well about the weaknesses of the press, and how the speed to get things published sometimes contradicts the need to get it right, which he said Cronkite stood for.
So, what do you say to a person in public life who says, "You guys, I'm not worried about your Liberal bias, I'm worried about your bias for conflict, and there's too much of that in the press?"
KLEIN: Bias for what -- of?
AULETTA: Conflict.
KLEIN: They're probably talking about a lot of outlets that we don't have anything to do with. You know, blogs can really range from the super-relevant and important, to just pure noise and gossip. And there's so much of that. There's so much tabloid Press out there -- print press out there. And the direction that "Web news," quote, unquote, is going is so gossip-oriented --
AULETTA: No, but --
KLEIN: -- that it adds to that.
AULETTA: -- but, Jon.
KLEIN: The complaints are probably less about the NBC Nightly News doing that --
AULETTA: No, but to be specific, Robert Gibbs, the press secretary to the president of the United States, has said in his briefings, regularly, "I'm tired of watching these food fights on cable." (Laughter.)
KLEIN: Well, a lot of -- we bend over backwards to avoid that, and to focus on substance. There's a lot of it on cable, but of course that's their beef. I mean, they're an interested party. They're not above the fray, you know, like the Supreme Court --
AULETTA: So, is that part of the answer, though, to the politician or public official who complains, that "that's your beef;" you have a vested interest, or?
KLEIN: Well, they do have a vested interest, and they are not nonpartisan in it, and they tend to complain when they don't have people agreeing with them. They don't complain -- you know, they don't complain about Keith Olbermann being over the top and opinionated when Keith Olbermann agrees with them, or Rachel Maddow. They do complain when O'Reilly or Glenn Beck, you know, weigh in against them. And it was the opposite during the previous administration.
MR. : I'm not sure there's necessarily that much more dissatisfaction. It's just that there are so many more venues to express that dissatisfaction, whether it's talk radio, or the blogs, or cable television. I mean, I'm not sure if you went back 20 years and actually asked, as many people who are blogging or making comments on, you know, community websites, what they thought, whether they would be any less critical. It's just now that there's a much better vehicle to express your outrage.
And I think that, obviously, didn't exist 10 years ago, much less 20 years ago. So, there's a lot more noise around television news. We're under a lot more scrutiny. The politicians are much more vocal about what's being done, primarily because in the last three or four years obviously cable news is unbelievably opinionated.
And that gets politicians' attention, obviously. And they talk about. And it feeds upon itself. But, I'm not sure that people are more or less dissatisfied now, it's just that -- (inaudible) --
AULETTA: Why then does survey research suggest that no one approaches in the press the numbers that Walter Cronkite once had for being trusted?
MR. : Fragmentation.
MR. : That would be true of pretty much any institution in the United States of America.
KLEIN (?): But, we have -- we have a daily opinion poll, which is the -- in the form of the ratings. I mean, people -- again, if we're not relevant, if we're not trusted, if we're not respected, people are going to tune out.
I mean, it is in our best interests to make sure that these news divisions are as appealing and as respected as possible, and doing work that -- it stays relevant for the audience. Because, if not, we're doomed to extinction given the fragmented world in which we're operating.
KLEIN (?): But Ken, in my experience one of the really difficult parts of being a journalist -- you must feel this way, is if you're going your job you will always be criticized. And, on the one hand, you can't simply disregard the criticism, because often there's a point to it that you have to -- (inaudible) -- At the same time, you can't be so defensive about it that you change what you're doing -- you change your reporting, you back off. And trying to do those two things that are (inconsistent ?) -- (inaudible) -- is very difficult to do.
In my view, when you talk about covering conflict, the thing that resonates with me, and that I am concerned about, and I've spoken internally and externally about this within the network context, is some of the cable back-and-forth that we see -- which is fine, it's what they do, they do it well, they're successful with it, I'm not criticizing that -- can infiltrate what we do, and it can turn into reporting which is, "on the one hand/on the other hand."
And you can find people to express just about any point of view in this society at this point. Part of our job is, when there are things that we can know, rather than simply -- (inaudible) -- who knows what's going on, we have a responsibility to step up and say, this is what we know.
That can be true with medical studies; it can be true with what's going on with the health-care debate. I mean, some of the things you can prove: is it right or is it wrong? We have an obligation to step to the fore.
It can be true with polls. Polls get reported -- like, "oh, there's a poll that says this, a poll that." Some polls are very valuable and accurate, some are not worth the paper they're written on.
And I do become concerned that sometimes, as we watch our brothers and sisters in cable, that we can fall into a pattern, even on the evening news, of doing pieces which are easy to do -- get a person on this side, and a person on this side; you put them both up; "okay, I've done my job; you decide" to the audience, which is not a service.
So, I think there is a point I would take in that criticism that we need to really guard against that.
CAPUS: I'm also going to speak up here for cable news a little bit, in that, you know, I run both NBC Network News and MSNBC. And clearly, as the cable news environment has become more politicized, there was concern within NBC News, is that going to portray -- is NBC News going to be painted with the same brush? And we've had these conversations extensively, as you can well imagine.
But, I think that cable news -- you know, CNN learned it with "Crossfire," when everybody kind of got into it, that -- we certainly learned it through years and years of experimentation with the one side, and the other side, and the hot argument. And, you know, there was an awful lot of time spent doing that sort of programming.
And, in the end, the audience said they wanted something else. Because, I think what we found is that the old food fight that used to be thing that drew a lot of attention on cable news, has kind of -- that time had passed with cable news. I think there's a lot more of substance going on there.
I think, to your point, David, about trying to hold people's feet to fire, and do some real reporting, and state what's fact and what's fiction, is what, at its best, cable news is doing these days.
And I think, you know, we look at, from NBC -- and to answer the question about, does the audience understand the difference between the two, and the mandates of the two divisions of NBC News, I think the answer is yes. I mean, you can't have the success that we've had on the broadcast side if you think that you're going to be painted with the same brush as MSNBC.
MR. : And what Steve says is a critical point. I mean, there's a place for opinion in journalism. Newspapers have always had an editorial page. They have had op-ed pages. It's perfectly legitimate. But, you know when your on the editorial page you're getting opinion; you know when you're out in the op-ed section what you're getting. When it gets dangerous is where the two start to spill over into one another and the audience isn't sure --
MR. : Well, that's the argument that happens, arguably, on Lou Dobbs, on his network --
(Cross talk.)
MR. : I think we have to be very careful --
MR. : Not any more --
MR. : -- Keith Olbermann --
KLEIN: -- actually, Lou doesn't offer his opinions on his show anymore. He doesn't do it. We stepped in and we made him understand this very thing, that you -- he's got a radio talk show where he does all sorts of things. That's radio. We don't oversee his radio talk show.
But, the interesting and the optimistic piece of news here is that, as our cable competitors have become more overtly partisan on the Left or the Right, and we have really tried to focus on being a deliverer of news and analysis that is down the middle -- even as they rise, and they are rising in the ratings, both Fox and MSNBC, prime time -- our numbers are higher than they've been in six years.
So, there is an audience for what we do. There is an audience for what they do. There's all kinds of audiences these days. That's why my answer to your question was "fragmentation." There's no one person you can trust.
People trust the person whose point of view they believe. So, some people adore Glenn Beck and trust everything he says. Think of your favorite columnists in the Wall Street Journal, or the Financial Times. You trust the ones you believe. You read their column and you say, "That guy gets it. How come they don't all get it that way?" And that's what everybody does. That's where -- that's the root of trust.
AULETTA: But, that's a fundamental change from the days of Walter Cronkite, and the days where --
MR. : There weren't as many options.
AULETTA: Pardon?
MR. : There weren't as many options. There -- (inaudible) --
AULETTA: No, no, but --
MR. : -- people you could choose to trust.
AULETTA: Understood. But, it begs the question -- my last question before we go out to the audience, which is, do we pay a price as citizens in America? The fact that you don't -- that people seek the news from their favorite sites, be it Beck, or Olbermann, or ABC, wherever it is, because they don't trust this universal --
WESTIN: You said, "Beck, Olbermann and ABC." (Laughter.)
AULETTA: No, no. I didn't mean that -- (inaudible) -- I just meant various news. That's it.
But, is there a point where no one -- there is no commonly accepted set of facts that people accept? Walter Cronkite talks about Vietnam. That's common accepted fact in The New York Times -- commonly accepted. And we've moved to an era where that's -- there is not a commonly accepted set of facts?
MR. : I think there's a little bit of a disconnect here, in that we're talking about the overall news business, and we're talking about cable, and Olbermann, and Beck, and ABC News, and CBS News, I don't think -- and maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think what we're doing, and what my counterparts are doing at ABC and NBC at 6:30 is all that much different than what Walter was trying to do. You can argue whether we're doing a better or a worse job, but our charge is still the same, and --
AULETTA: I'm talking about the audience, not you.
MR. : Right.
AULETTA: I'm not suggesting you're doing something different. I'm saying they perceive, because of variety, and the polarization of society, the audience receives information differently than they did 10, or 15 or 20 years ago.
MR. : But Ken, I would have three responses. One is, that's what's happened. Get over it. I mean, that's just, that's just true, that's right.
And, more important than that, it's a terrible mistake for any of us to try to put ourselves between what technology makes possible and what our audience wants. And our audience wants that, and it's their right to want it. Who are we to say no?
Number two, why don't we trust the American people, ultimately, to really come to the right conclusions? We always have, through the history of this country. I mean, if you go back to the broadsheets in, you know, the late 18th century, there were some pretty remarkable newspapers out there saying some pretty scurrilous things -- about Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. But, somehow we trusted the American people to figure out what's really going on and come to sensible decisions -- over time, on average, not that we haven't made some mistake.
But three, we can't let the "best" be the enemy of the "good." The fact that we will not reestablish Walter Cronkite, because of technology -- (inaudible) -- does not mean we can't have people who are trusted. Brian Williams is sitting here, Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric, who are not Glenn Beck or Olbermann.
I mean, I don't -- we shouldn't just give up the game and say we won't get to Walter Cronkite, so let's throw in the towel, it's impossible. I don't think that's true. I think that we can have relatively more trusted people and that there's a great value in that.
AULETTA: On that eloquent note, let's turn to the audience which has some questions.
Steve, would you stand up and identify yourself -- wait for the microphone, yes.
QUESTIONER: Hi. Thanks, Ken. I'm Steve Shepherd (sp), City University Graduate School of Journalism.
There are many reasons for the decline in audience of the nightly news shows. But, surely one of them is the secular change towards digital delivery and people spending time on the Internet to get their news.
What are you doing about that? How will you address this increasingly large audience, a younger audience who gets their news in other ways than watching your shows? How will you reach them? And what is a business model that might work to reach them?
CAPUS: MSNBC.com is our on-line home, and it's an enormously successful, not just journalistic enterprise, I would argue, but also business. And, you know, every week I'll get -- we get tons of research.
Every week one of the things that I get that's most interesting is the Total Audience Measurement Index, the "Tamios" (sp) they call it, which not only looks at the traditional ratings, but also includes, you know: "Meet the Press" is seen on broadcast, it's seen a couple times on MSNBC on cable; and there's a big section on MSNBC.com with the program in its entirety, segments, things that are done exclusively for the MSNBC.com audience; Brian, you know, begins his day every day by writing his daily/nightly blog, and is on that thing throughout the day.
I think it's about -- I'll say it again, it's about being relevant to your audience. And if people are consuming their news via the Internet, then you need to be in that space. And you need to be there with, again, unique content and a trusted source, and be a trusted source for that information.
So, I mean, that's where we've placed our biggest bets, in terms of trying to attract a young -- attract a younger audience and stay relevant in their lives.
AULETTA: Next question?
Yes?
QUESTIONER: Yes, I'm -- (inaudible) -- Al-Haya (sp).
And I just want (you to touch on ?) which stories have not been covered by you. I'd like to mention just a couple -- for example, what's going on in Yemen now. It's a fundamental, big crisis that even affects the United States in the final analysis because it is about the reverse of al Qaeda. Lebanon is another example. These are big stories that have been missed by, I believe, all networks, or have been visited occasionally.
So, not that you need my support, as a great (moderator ?), but to the point that has been made quite often, I feel that somehow you have not done international news unless there (is) American news. And that's a problem, that's -- And so the question is, could we do the example of (Fareed Zakaria ?), for example, anywhere to replace some of the egocentric shows that are focused about one person? Or can this sort of thing make its way to a network -- ABC, CBS, NBC proper? Thank you.
MCMANUS: Well, I can't argue -- and I'm sure there are other good examples, I can't argue with you that there are stories out there that we aren't covering. We have, unlike Jonathan, to a large extent, we have a lot of limitations in what we can cover. And we try to do a lot of those stories on "60 Minutes," The mix of stories on "60 Minutes" is much more international now than it used to be.
But, to be honest with you, with a 22-minute broadcast every night, there are always going to be stories that we probably should be covering and don't have time to cover. You know, it's a finite universe that we're existing in.
Having said that, you know, I'm sure that there are stories that should be on the evening news that we're not covering, and we maybe need to do a better job doing that. But, it's a really, really good point. And sometimes we tend to -- more often than we should, perhaps follow the news, instead of get ahead of the news.
And there was obviously criticism, which we won't go into now, about, you know, the war in Iraq, and how much was done before that. And I think we all learned a lot of lessons now. And I think one of the things that we've talked about, editorially, is trying not to make some of those same mistakes with what's going on in Afghanistan.
I think if you're looking at the reporting that's being done by all the news organizations on Afghanistan, I think the approach is very, very different. And I think the questions that we're asking, both there and in the States, are much more pointed. And I think we're much more analytical, in terms of what's happening in Afghanistan right now, and what is going to happen there in the future.
But, I take your point, and it's a good one.
QUESTIONER: Yes, I thank you. Rory O'Connor (sp) from Media Channel.
Sean I think you -- I thought you made a great point when you compared the network news divisions to General Motors. But, from my perspective, instead of embracing a change, as you seem to be saying, you all seem to be still manufacturing Hummers.
Now, a case in point is the comments on the anchors. You know, $15 million for a news reader seems like a lot to me in a day when bureaus are being shut down. So, I guess my question is really to David, because you just had an opportunity to address this by replacing Charlie Gibson, and yet you went with Diane Sawyer. I don't know how much she makes, but it's probably in excess of $7 million, $10 million, you tell us.
Also, I must, just for the record --
WESTIN: Well, I'd be eager to do that, actually. (Laughter.) I've been hoping someone would ask that question.
QUESTIONER: Okay, I'd like to hear that.
And also, just for the record, I wonder if you could amplify on, what I found, your shocking admission that you had refused a dollar-for-dollar offer from a previous anchor to improve news coverage.
WESTIN: Well, let me go back to that. I tried to make this clear, but maybe I should be even more forceful in it.
As long as I have this job, it's my job to figure out how we allocate our resources. And if I'm going to give that up to the anchors -- so that we all get together, so they get to decide where we open bureaus and where we don't open bureaus, and when we send people out on reporting missions, and when we don't -- then I shouldn't have my job.
That's just not the way, in my opinion -- it's not a collective. We don't take a plebiscite, you know, to decide when we cover the hurricane or whether we cover our story in the Sudan, or something. And that's just the way I perceive my job. And I think that that's what that inevitably would have meant.
And I also should say, I have little doubt that if I went to my bosses and said, we need four more million dollars, and it's really going to make a big difference in news coverage, that I could get that. The problem I have is a different problem.
We're spending that $4 million in places where it doesn't affect news coverage and it doesn't help us. And until I've taken care of those issues -- and it goes back to some of the infrastructure in the bureaus, and things. I mean, Garrick's here, and so maybe he can tell me whether it's actually true or not, but I'm told that there was a wine cellar and a chef in the Paris bureau, at one point, for ABC News.
Now, I don't know what that did to help our coverage in Paris. (Laughter.)
AULETTA: Maybe Garrick could tell us --
MR. : Oh, I could think of something. (Laughter.)
GARRICK UTLEY: (Off mike.) It was Pierre Salinger.
WESTIN: It was Pierre Salinger. That's exactly right.
So, my response was to allocate those resources, and I'm not done allocating results properly.
And let me just take issue with one of the things you said "for a news reader." I think that betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of an anchor. People tend to see only the part of the iceberg that's above the surface, that you see on the air, and you say, well, they get on and they read the news.
A really successful, good news anchor represents the entire institution in who they are. Charlie Gibson's a good example. Charlie Gibson was a beat reporter for years in Washington. He paid his dues. He has covered every major story. It's not because he can just, quote "read the news," it's because of what he brings to the organization, brings to the reporting, brings the editorial judgment of what goes on the evening news and how it's done.
So, it's a misnomer. If it were a "news reader," you're absolutely right. We'd just get the pretties one, and, you know, the one that reads the prompter the best. That's not the way it works. I can understand where someone who doesn't understand it from the outside would see it that way. It's actually not the way it works at all.
And, to the last one, it's not just Diane, I've had the burden of several decisions about the evening news anchor. It's more than one. I've had several of those, unfortunately -- not through choices of my own.
AULETTA: Garrick? Wait for the microphone.
QUESTIONER: Garrick Utley, the Levin Institute, State University of New York.
Jonathan, CNN -- because you're in a slightly different category, you're CNN-USA, but CNN obviously has CNN International, a vast organization, news gathering, covering the news, and that hasn't come into the conversation.
I recall that when the Iraq invasion incurred, I believe CNN had all its people in place, all editorial material coming in. But, there were two anchor studios -- one for CNN-USA, with the American flag; and separate anchors across the hall for CNN International, more or less without the American flag, which is a very interesting -- I think it's the first time in history that an organization, for understandable reasons, had the same editorial content but a certain tone or delivery system because of that. But, that aside, that it shows the importance of CNN International.
My question for this country, and our viewers here, is to what extent do you see a possibility, and would it be a desirable in CNN's eyes, to have CNN International as a separate channel on cable -- it exists, I know, in certain tiers, if you pay for it, but really, as a real presence, would the cable carriers want that? Would CNN want that, as competition to CNN-USA? Because that would be the real test of what Americans want to watch, in terms of international news. So, tell us about the strategy.
KLEIN: The cable operators really are the ones who decide which of our suite of networks -- including HLN, Turner Sports, TNT, TBS, which ones they want to carry. And they choose to carry CNN-US, the network we all know and love is CNN here.
It is available on certain systems. Certain systems have chosen to make it available to their viewers. But, that's their decision. We don't put it -- you know, shove it down their throats or anything like that.
We have, as you know, in these negotiations, the programmers have limited leverage, and so that's how that comes about.
AULETTA: Let's get that woman in the back there with her hand up -- yes.
QUESTIONER: Yeah, Eva Schweitz (sp). I'm a journalist.
James Murdoch said recently he is not satisfied with the way the BBC is a competition, because the BBC is getting, in effect, tax money from the British taxpayer. He considers that an unfair advantage. So, what is your take on that? Are you seeing the BBC as unfair competition because it's on American TV as well -- there's BBC-America, and I think they do have a following.
MR. : Well, they have a following, but they've had a tough time getting traction. To Garrick's question about, would the audience go with it, they've had -- they have had a tough time, with an incredibly strong offering, from a programming and production and journalistic point of view, but it is having a tough time getting an audience and traction in the United States. I don't -- you know, I don't draw any conclusions from that, I just point that out.
Do I think that we're disadvantaged by that? No. I think that 'good for the BBC,' and that's wonderful. I would note that Mr. Murdoch's network didn't carry the president's speech last night, which I think is an interesting editorial call, but there you go. I'll leave it at that.
AULETTA: Yes, sir? Just wait for the microphone, please. In the front row here -- no, in the front row. This gentleman. Thank you.
QUESTIONER: I'm Eugene Staples (sp).
What happens if we continue to see the collapse of newspapers, let's say 10 years from now? Maybe 10 percent of what's left now, which is sort of a ridiculously small number that remain out of what used to be a great written media. How much of that load are you going to be able to pick up, or how much do you want to pick up; or who's going to pick it up? Anybody? Nobody?
MR. : Well, loss of newspapers would be a tragic loss for the country. I agree with you, it's something that we have to seriously contemplate as a possibility. But, it would be a great loss.
I mean, I've said to one of the senior people at Google, when I do Google searches a lot of what I get, as a practical matter, comes from newspaper reporters across the country. And if you, with a magic wand, wiped out all of those local reporters, it's going to even hurt what we get on the Internet, in terms of information. So, I hope that it doesn't happen. It won't be good for the country and it won't be good for journalism in general.
Now, if it were to happen I think we would all have to take a hard look at whether it makes sense for us to move in and try to cover some of the local things in more detail than we have been. Now, that's for the local stations, it would be. I don't think the networks would go in as a network, but through our own stations and affiliates.
AULETTA: And there will be some people who will want to step in and fill that void, as there always have been in the history of newspapers. But, often it's a philanthropical undertaking, that is not meant to generate the kind of profits a billionaire could generate investing in other businesses.
So, you see David Geffen panting to take a stake, or take over The New York Times. There will be those, sort of, socially-minded folks, probably, who would step in for key newspapers, I would guess.
AULETTA: Questions?
Yes, the gentleman there, please.
QUESTIONER: Yeah, I'm Crocker Snow, the director of the Edward R. Murrow Center at the Fletcher School.
And I find it notable you've all noted the diminishing audience for the network news, obviously, and you've all implied that a lot of younger viewers are not with you that were 15, 20 years ago. I find it really notable that nobody here has mentioned Jon Stewart, and the role -- not only Stewart as an individual, but that way to get across important news issues and points of view.
MCMANUS: Well, I think there's a great place for Jon Stewart. I think he -- a lot of people enjoy watching him. I think he's in a very different business than we're in right now. And I don't think -- at least in the foreseeable future what he is doing is something that applies to what we're doing.
I think, you know, a lot of young people -- and you can debate this, a lot of young people think that they are getting their news from Jon Stewart. And I would just question how you define news at that point. I watch the show four nights a week, if I can. I love the show.
But, I think it's a, it's a little bit like comparing, I think -- and I don't mean this in a derogatory sense at all, because I think he's one of the most creative entertaining gentleman on television, but I think, to try to mix up what he's doing with what we're doing, I think is kind of like comparing what, you know, we're doing on the CBS Evening News to something else on the CBS Television Network, like an entertainment show.
I mean, I'm not saying he's not providing a lot of good information, giving his perspective and his insight, but I think it's a very different form and a very different program than what we're trying to produce.
AULETTA: And he's the first to admit that.
MCMANUS: Yeah.
AULETTA: We have time for one last question.
Yes, sir?
QUESTIONER: Morey Hellitrize (sp), a 1960-61 fellow.
The attention span of young people seems to be contracting. How does the network plan on addressing that, since the attention span is contracting -- "quick, quick, quick, get me the news, never mind the depth, never mind the breadth?"
MR. : That's been happening for some years. It's funny, if you go back and look at World News from 20 years ago, it seems so slow now. I mean, it takes forever, and there's so much. And it's -- so, that's a pattern that's been happening.
But, the real answer is, the way to reach younger people is through going to them in the ways they're coming to the news -- it's the Internet, it's cell phones, it's things like that. And giving them material that they can access, and just see the part that they want, and get in and out. And if you do that, our experience at least, is you can be pretty successful with that.
AULETTA: Last word, Steve?
CAPUS: I think, you know, we all attended Walter Cronkite's memorial yesterday, and it was a beautiful, fitting tribute to a great man and journalist. I do think, though, it is very tempting to look in the rear-view mirror and always proclaim what has gone before us as the golden era of whatever profession you're looking at.
I do think that there is some great work being done these days, and it deserves to be celebrated as much as it deserves to be picked apart. And I'm not asking for a free pass. I think we're all open to scrutiny, and welcome it, but beware of scrutiny from people who are politicos, and let's get behind the people who have devoted theirselves (sic) to this craft, and recognize that there is still great work being done. And the work that we do does play an important role. It should not be the only source of news for people, but it is an incredibly important time.
And the other thing I would just say is, I don't apologize for -- as a news person, and somebody who grew up at NBC News, I don't apologize for running my organization as a business, because if I don't do that, someone who comes in -- without a journalism background, is going to step in and say, you had your chance, you can't do it. And so it behooves us to get it right.
AULETTA: I did have a question I was going to ask, which is what happened to the wine cellar in Paris? (Laughter.) You don't have to answer that.
I just want to thank you gentlemen, and thank the audience. (Applause.)
(C) COPYRIGHT 2009, FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE, INC., 1000 VERMONT AVE.
NW; 5TH FLOOR; WASHINGTON, DC - 20005, USA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. ANY REPRODUCTION, REDISTRIBUTION OR RETRANSMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.
UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION, REDISTRIBUTION OR RETRANSMISSION CONSTITUTES A MISAPPROPRIATION UNDER APPLICABLE UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW, AND FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE, INC. RESERVES THE RIGHT TO PURSUE ALL REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO IT IN RESPECT TO SUCH MISAPPROPRIATION.
FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE, INC. IS A PRIVATE FIRM AND IS NOT AFFILIATED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. NO COPYRIGHT IS CLAIMED AS TO ANY PART OF THE ORIGINAL WORK PREPARED BY A UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE AS PART OF THAT PERSON'S OFFICIAL DUTIES.
FOR INFORMATION ON SUBSCRIBING TO FNS, PLEASE CALL CARINA NYBERG AT 202-347-1400.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT.
-------------------------