Record Low Viewership For ‘CBS Evening News’

[n2doc]

By BRIAN STELTER
One week after media reports cast doubts about Katie Couric’s future on the “CBS Evening News,” the third-place broadcast set a record low for viewership.

The “CBS Evening News” attracted an average of 5.39 million viewers last week, placing the newscast more than two million viewers behind the second-place “World News with Charles Gibson” on ABC (7.51 million). The “NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams” ranked No. 1 for the week with 8.17 million viewers.

While the network nightly newscasts have posted audience declines for more than two decades, a new low for the “Evening News” will likely be seen as another negative indicator about the broadcast. The CBS newscast has ranked below ABC’s and NBC’s for many years.

The previous record low, 5.46 million viewers, was set last September when Ms. Couric visited Iraq.

Two weeks ago, multiple reports said that Ms. Couric and CBS have discussed a potential departure from the “Evening News” after the presidential election. Perhaps some viewers read all the accounts of Katie Couric’s uncertain future at CBS News — and surmised that her evening newscast wasn’t worth watching.

Last week, Les Moonves, the chief executive of CBS Corporation, visited the “Evening News” staff to emphasize his support for Ms. Couric and the broadcast. In accounts of the meeting that were shared with journalists, Mr. Moonves reportedly said “Katie is our anchor today, tomorrow, next week and long into the future.”

He has not made any public comments about Ms. Couric in the past two weeks.

Update: 12:12 p.m.: “NBC Nightly News” beat ABC’s “World News” by over 600,000 viewers last week — “an unusually wide margin for the dueling newscasts,” Rachel Sklar of The Huffington Post reports. She suggests that “the angry viewers claiming that they would no longer watch ABC after last week’s poorly-received debate made good on their promise.”

http://tvdecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/22/a-new-record-low-for-cbs-evening-news/index.html

[Selatius]

1. Charles Gibson belongs at the bottom for the sham debate he hosted Wednesday night.

He and ABC and parent company Disney should be ashamed.

[Uncle Joe]

5. It's like Disney says "It's a small world after all"

and I believe Gibson and Stephanopoulus never looked smaller than during that "debate".

[Selatius]

8. They outdid themselves. I thought Disney's propaganda piece Path to 9/11 was the lowest of low.

Nope, they went lower.

[Uncle Joe]

9. Thankfully,

I missed that program.

[Selatius]

11. Pure propaganda. All the blame was pinned on Clinton. Nothing on Bush at all. Nothing. nt

[ginnyinWI]

2. I'm watching Brian Williams now--before the debate I watched

Charlie Gibson. That debate opened my eyes, and now I don't trust him. Katie--I watched part of her first show--that was enough.

[hvn_nbr_2]

3. Which GOPPravda outlet will win the race to zero viewers? nt

[warren pease]

4. It's not the messengers. It's the message.

It seems at long last that a good number of Americans have realized they're getting nothing but pap, swill and drivel from the network newsreaders.

Those who think there's more to life than stalking D-list celebrities and pandering to the Xbox demographic are finally catching on that they've been lied to, manipulated, taken for idiots and suckers, assumed to have the taste of a pubescent mall rat and subjected to endless hours of increasingly awful commercials.

People who get their news from the Intertubes, with 24/7 access to the international press and some pretty smart op/eds and analysis on any number of forums, blogs and news/information sites will know more in a couple of hours than a CNN viewer will learn in a year.

However, if you want to stay on top of OJ's compelling search for the real killer -- as he travels the golf courses of the world looking for the one-armed man -- CNN's the place to be.


wp

[Uncle Joe]

7. What you said about the endless hours of commercials to the tenth degree.

:puke:

[Clear Blue Sky]

10. You are spot on.

Paying someone with nice legs $15M to read from a teleprompter is hardly news.

Too many alternatives out there - web, talk radio, blogs, etc.

[spanone]

6. i like this. maybe people don't like perk with their news.

[calimary]

15. I think that's correct. You don't hire Gidget to do the news. Especially at the network level.

Yes, I think it's also true that a lot of the audience has faded - to the internet and cable and other outlets, PLUS the fact that the news is mostly SO damned dismal these days, and the coveted younger demos have discovered Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. Network news just demands a little gravitas, I think. There don't seem to be any ways around that. I think a woman could do it if they made a sensible choice, like maybe Christiane Amanpour or someone like that. But picking someone known primarily for being perky is rather idiotic. Morning news delivery is a COMPLETELY different animal that evening news presentation. In the mornings, perky is good. You NEED perky. By evening you need maturity, circumspection, and a bit more sober, measured approach.

What were they thinking? That ratings and appeal could translate into other day parts? In radio, you don't often see the morning drive talent repositioned or recycled into afternoons or evenings. There's a reason for that.

[aquart]

12. I never turn on CBS Evening News anymore.

There are many excellent female journalists. They chose to go with an infotainment perky person. And then they can pretend we didn't want a woman.

[Breeze54]

13. All three suck. They get about 5 mins of my time and that's it. Click! n/t

[cliss]

14. For once, good news on the DU.

I'm really happy to hear that viewership is down. I hope people turn off their TV's permanently and go to the Internet, or watch quality programs. In particular, ABC for its rotten coverage of the debates last week.

I got rid of my TV a few years ago, because I could not stand to look at Bush.