Letterman Redux

This last weekend, the talking head parade on TV just couldn't stop yammering about Ted Koppel being punted from network TV. Much has been said about this whole sorry spectacle, but I'd just like to make a few points about some of their sillier statements:

Nightline is necessary because it's the only 'hard' news show left.
Many pundits saw the potential cancellation of 'Nightline' as a blow to the nation, because it was the only show providing quality analysis instead of 'info-tainment'. Well, let's suppose that is the case. Who's fault is that? News on television is packaged as entertainment because they need the ratings to pay for big production values and outrageous salaries for those 'concerned' TV journalists. In an era where even Ted Koppel in late-night can pull in 8 million a year, you've got to put up the numbers. And where are all the big-time anchors who are lamenting the dumbing down of TV? Oh yeah - they are hosting newsmagazine shows for bigger salaries. Memo to Dan Rather: If you want quality news back on the air, how about offering to take a salary cut to, say, $1 million a year, on the condition that you get more control over content? Not willing to make that deal, hmmnn? And here's a suggestion for network executives: The next time one of your pampered crybaby news anchors demands a raise, tell him that you'll give it to him only on the condition that the show be made a little lighter on facts and heavier on entertainment in order to raise the ratings. Then publish the negotiations and let the simpering prima-donna expose himself for what he is.

Americans need Nightline because they need the in-depth coverage.
I know TV people hate to admit this, but television has NEVER been good at in-depth coverage. This is especially true in the web era. Today, if people want serious coverage, they can go to any number of web sites and read the story, view interactive maps, and follow links to background material. If they want to know even more, they can use a search engine to dig up the same source material that the talking heads have condensed down to 30 second sound bites in their attempt to be 'thorough'. We also have a number of 24 hour news networks, newspapers and magazines, and radio. Even in the bad old days before the internet, television was a poor choice for in-depth coverage. Newspapers did it better.

Advertisers are wrong in thinking that young people are a better audience.
This was a major recurring theme - the pundits kept pointing out that Nightline's raw viewer numbers are as good as Letterman's, but Koppel's audience is older, and therefore less desirable to advertisers. The pundits questioned the wisdom of this, saying that older people have more money and the advertisers are wrong to target young people. This is arrogance in the extreme. To assume that a multi-billion dollar advertising industry lacks the basic insights available to your average "Reliable Sources" panelist is ridiculous. Advertising has become a science. They know what they are doing. But this arrogant attitude permeates TV news people. They love to give opinions on things they don't understand, and they consider the opinions of others to be irrelevant. They are the keepers of truth, and have the six-month J-school diplomas to prove it.

I suspect Nightline will be replaced sometime in the near future. Jon Stewart and "The Daily Show" would make a fine replacement. Or maybe they'll wait for Conan's contract at NBC to come up and try to put him up against Letterman and Leno (which would be very interesting). Either way, the Republic will stand. Koppel will migrate over to CNN or get a primetime newsmagazine show or replace Sam and Cokie on "This Week". In the meantime, the cable networks will fall all over themselves to air a "Nightline" type show in that time period to try and pick up the viewers. No one outside of the professional pundit biz is losing any sleep over this. And I've already said too much about a very silly controversy.