From: http://www.tvweek.com/article.cms?articleId=31382

Tom Shales

January 22, 2007

What Will the Morning Bring?

We don't care what something is; we care what it will become. And then when it becomes something else, we want to know what it will become next. The moving finger writes and having writ, moves on; so does television morph and having morphed, morphs more.

Morning television especially is in a pretty perpetual state of amorphous morphing. For decades it's been a bountiful font of free-flowing gossip-dueling divas (of both sexes), feuds and jealousies, egos and clashes and of course Machiavellian maneuvers. Now NBC has brought the subject back to the water cooler with the announcement that in September, the "Today" show, ratings leader of the group, will grow from three hours daily to four, and then maybe five, and-who knows?-maybe NBC daytime will turn into talk radio, blabbering on all day with fluff and piffle until the affiliates' local news and then "Nightly News" take over.

"Today" would be less a program than a service-maybe a little like "Monitor," which dominated the NBC radio network when there was an NBC radio network. Remember? "You're on the Monitor beacon, boop-beep-boop." It sounded so cool and futuristic.

NBC is, of course, on a cost-cutting bender that is becoming embarrassing (case in point: "Grease: You're the One That I Want," with less impressive production values than "The Jerry Springer Show" but minus its scintillating content). The network has little to lose by dumping some, much or all of its daytime lineup for a "Today" supercast (possible slogan: "All day, suckers!"); the daytime roost has long been ruled by CBS soaps and its "Price is Right." Naturally NBC's costs would decline, especially since "Today" lends itself so readily to product placement, promotional tie-ins, 800-number crapola and "You can buy Meredith Vieira's dress" or "You can have a mirror like the one Matt Lauer loves." Morning means money.

A State of Flux

These shows always seem to be in play, or at least in flux, and now, with fairly recent major cast changes at both "Today" and "Good Morning, America," sands are shifting again. "GMA" looked like it had a real shot at equaling and maybe bettering "Today's" ratings, but Charlie Gibson was needed elsewhere (even if it took ABC News executives a while to realize it) and now its once-gallant surge has fizzled.

"Today's" numbers have declined, too, from glory days of the past. TV blogs are saying that, among other demographical unpleasantries, "Today" is down 16 percent in women 25 to 54 from a year ago, and at least one blogger blames it on Vieira, the classy and accomplished co-anchor who replaced Katie Couric. This seems unthinkable because Vieira, though different in style from Couric, can do anything "Today" calls upon her to do.

If viewers haven't hugely warmed up to Vieira, then part of the reason may be misbehavior by her hammy co-host. Repeatedly and perhaps vindictively, Matt has seemed intent on tripping Vieira up on the air-interrupting, hogging the spotlight, cold-shouldering her, subtly putting her down. Matt perhaps doesn't want to be outshone by a woman once again.

When "Today" celebrated Lauer's 10th anniversary on the show recently, a tape of congratulations from Couric was part of the party. Lauer, with Vieira at his side, made a big deal about how much he missed Katie as if to say he was unhappy with his new partner.

Meredith and Matt are a dream team, however, compared with "GMA's" incompatible duo Diane Sawyer and Robin Roberts. To a greater degree than Lauer, Roberts appears intent on embarrassing the co-anchor-mocking Sawyer, stranding her when she needs assistance and butting in when not needed. After a recent piece on soccer-boy David Beckham, Roberts made some coy crack about Sawyer being able to "bend it" pretty well herself. One morning she greeted Sawyer by saying she just wanted to gaze upon her for a moment in silent adoration-smarmy, snide, painfully obvious.

Supergal Sawyer can do gritty reports from trouble spots or chat sassily with stars-an outstanding series on North Korea or a solid session with anti-Semite Mel Gibson. The trouble is, Sawyer now seems too big for any of the jobs in television that are available or opening up-or is she? Larry King is still the biggest attraction at CNN-he's CNN's panda-but we must face the fact that he's starting to make Andy Rooney look like Errol Flynn (the dashing young one or the bloated and besotted geezer, no matter). Those suspenders are sinking into his skin.

King's contract with CNN reportedly does not guarantee him the 9 p.m. (Eastern) time slot. He could be moved to 2 a.m. or 4 p.m.-so that none other than Diane Sawyer could take over that prime-time hour and give it spectacular new life. It's not a bad idea, no it's not.

Revitalizing `GMA'

Let's say, though, that Sawyer stays at "GMA" (though her agreement allows her to leave before summer). The show will never have a shot at No. 1 with those two at the helm, so what could be done to rejuvenate it? Sawyer needs a partner worthy of her-a male partner to give the show variety and sexual tension. How about this: Anderson Cooper. Languishing and almost vanishing within the stuffy confines of CNN, super Cooper needs and deserves a much better showcase. Imagine Cooper and Sawyer side-by-side at 7 a.m. They'd be the most gorgeous and telegenic couple in the history of the morning news.

Oops! At press time we learned that Cooper has just re-upped with CNN and signed a new multimillion-dollar contract. Maybe he'll be the next Larry King, but obviously he isn't headed to "GMA."

Sawyer still manages to be buoyant and vivacious on the air, but I sense a subtle undercurrent of unhappiness. Who wants to sit next to Lady Macbeth and try to be charming? ABC News President David Westin has to ride in on a white horse and rescue her-somehow-or lose her, which would be disastrous for ABC News, especially with the legendary Barbara Walters cutting back on her Herculean work load.

Change seems virtually inevitable at both "GMA" and "Today." Morning television promises to remain lucrative and important at the networks; urbanites will need something to watch on their video iPods, or whatever gadget succeeds it, on the bus or subway, and there's no reason to think that kitchen-viewing on actual TV sets, with big pictures you can really see, will erode. Or-wait. Is it eroding already? Are the numbers going to trend down further? Is network morning TV going to have to become something else in order to survive? We're a nation of futurphiliacs. We don't care what's here; we want to know what's coming.

I wish to hell I knew.

All these articles about the impending collapse of daytime soaps are not helping at all...

The network has little to lose by dumping some, much or all of its daytime lineup for a "Today" supercast (possible slogan: "All day, suckers!"); the daytime roost has long been ruled by CBS soaps and its "Price is Right." Naturally NBC's costs would decline, especially since "Today" lends itself so readily to product placement, promotional tie-ins, 800-number crapola and "You can buy Meredith Vieira's dress" or "You can have a mirror like the one Matt Lauer loves." Morning means money.

Vomit.

Money really does rule the world.

The network has little to lose by dumping some, much or all of its daytime lineup for a "Today" supercast (possible slogan: "All day, suckers!"); the daytime roost has long been ruled by CBS soaps and its "Price is Right." Naturally NBC's costs would decline, especially since "Today" lends itself so readily to product placement, promotional tie-ins, 800-number crapola and "You can buy Meredith Vieira's dress" or "You can have a mirror like the one Matt Lauer loves." Morning means money.

Vomit.

Money really does rule the world.

Money makes the world go round.

Tell me this, who watches 3-4 hours of morning news???? Its just ridiculous, the only time I find myself watching those shows is if a music artist or actor is on I like and that usually only adds up to 30 minutes or less.

Money really does rule the world.

Which is of course going to be the disgusting excuse these scum network heads use as they eliminate our soaps one by one...

Tell me this, who watches 3-4 hours of morning news???? Its just ridiculous, the only time I find myself watching those shows is if a music artist or actor is on I like and that usually only adds up to 30 minutes or less.

Exactly....especially with all the 24-hour cable news networks.

It's just disgusting to me how these and other people seem to have no remorse. There's no sadness. There's no consideration for the daytime fans... they're not even PRETENDING to be torn on the issue. It's just, "Soaps suck, they bring us no money. Buh-bye!" We soap fans are being completely shat upon. I mean, even if they decided to do away with every soap airing, it would be easier to swallow if they didn't seem to jubilant and carefree about it. There's no consideration for the fans of the shows at all.

What other entertainment medium allows for a program to air for one hour a day, five days a week, 52 weeks per year? The possibilities for amazing character development and issue exploration is staggering... BRILLIANCE can happen in this medium. And there's just no respect for it or the fans whatsoever.

I'm not so upset about them wanting to cancel the shows... I understand, from a business point of view. More than anything, I'm upset by the fact that they're doing it so disrespectfully with no care or sympathies being given to the shows OR the viewers. It's revolting.

Edited January 23, 200718 yr by Kenny

Yep, cancel 40+ year old shows, and to hell with the viewers. I HATE that attitude.

Now that the "news" is television's new form of serialized drama (tune in tomorrow to see what stupid [!@#$%^&*] Bush does next! Are we going to be bombed... will the terror alert rise? TUNE IN TOMORROW! Is Lindsay Lohan going to snort herself to death? TUNE IN TOMORROW... only on... THE NEWS!) they're wanting the news to air all day long. They don't want creative programming on the networks... they want the news all day long. Because in today's world, the news IS the new form of entertainment. They'll turn any national tragedy into a ratings blockbuster.

In a couple years, when it's news 24 hours a day, just think of the money I'll save each month when I cancel my cable!

Seriously, do these TV people actually think this is creative programming? Do they think people will actually tune in for this crap? I cannot understand the reasoning behind this. I mean, this is supposed to be intelligent, educated, businessmen running these networks. And to treat the soap fans so callously is ridiculous. Don't they realize we watch other stuff, too? Why do they want to alienate us this way? I'm so frustrated and upset by all this. And non soap fans should be concerned as well, because this crappy programming is bleeding into prime time. ESPECIALLY on NBC. They have Heroes and the Thursday night comedies--that's it. Everything else is stupid reality TV and dumbed down game shows that take no intelligence whatsoever. It's absolutely maddening!!!!!

All this talk about soaps not making money and about to die is making me sick.

Why don't the networks realize they put soaps in this mess with their poor decision-making and emphasis on the young demos and such. They are the ones that caused the ratings decline so why should the fans and cast and crew of these soaps have to suffer because of the blunders of the networks? I know it would never happen but it would be nice if the networks and higher-ups took at least some blame for how everything has turned out.

All this talk about soaps not making money and about to die is making me sick.

Same here, Phoenix. It's really pissing me off.

And non soap fans should be concerned as well, because this crappy programming is bleeding into prime time. ESPECIALLY on NBC. They have Heroes and the Thursday night comedies--that's it. Everything else is stupid reality TV and dumbed down game shows that take no intelligence whatsoever. It's absolutely maddening!!!!!

Well keep in mind, this *IS* NBC, which is totally gonna be DuMont in the next 5 years. On the verge of collapse. BRING IT ON CW. BRING. IT. ONNNN!

We will see our soaps cut down to a substantially paltry budget on SOAPnet when daytime TV dies(yeah, because without soaps, there is no daytime!).

And OT: GMA can totally take over TODAY in the ratings. It just needs a different strategy and NOT to be a 3 hour morning program!

Without a daypart, NBC is going to start looking like FOX, CW, and MyNetworkTV stations. The affiliates in the midwest that don't have the financial resources will start airing crap like 9infomercials, 700 CLUB, and JACK VAN IMPE PRESENTS during the 11-2PM timeslots.

NBC has already screwed themselves by not developing quality shows to fall back on after FRIENDS, FRASIER and even as far back as SEINFELD. NBC is not looking good to any advertiser right now.

I used to ask the same questions as others have asked in this thread about who in the world watches the news all the time. I just couldn't even see the purpose for 24 hour news channels. But recently in the Civitan Club which I am a member of we had a dinner meeting and got to really talk amongst ourselves. It amazed me to learn that there were many of them who can't wait for the 4 hour Today show. They currently keep their TV's on one of the news channels all the time, and can't wait for more news to be on the regular channels and then they can cancel their cable.

I myself find the news depressing. And I hate politicians. There are not any of them that I want to hear anything about anymore and so many of the celebrities that constantly hog the headlines are sickening too. I am so tired of Rosie O'Donnell and her celebrity feuds, tired of Tom Cruise, Lindsay Lohan, Jessica Simpson, tired of Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, George Bush, Jesse JAckson, and on and on. And I definitely don't want to watch shows that cater to news about them.

All this talk reminds me of being a kid and only having 3 channels to choose from - ABC, NBC, and CBS - and sometimes we might be able to get PBS to come in. And on nights that the President spoke you were screwed. Sadly that is what the networks are trying to make it for many. Now the news is going to be on every channel and we are screwed once again.

So glad I have my DVD player and plenty of movies.

Edited January 23, 200718 yr by SteveFrame