Still important in the digital age: Sunday morning talk
Even in the digital era, the Sunday morning news shows are an important way for candidates to spread their messages in election years. They or their surrogates make the rounds each week, dropping sound bites they know will be picked up and shared widely on social media. Now that the election is over, the Trump administration continues to use these programs to clear up confusion over policy matters and expand its agenda. The big question is whether ratings for the programs will follow the usual pattern of dipping in an off-electi on year or whether the unique nature of the Trump administration will keep viewership strong. Andrew Tyndall, publisher of The Tyndall Report on all matters of TV news, talks to Media Life about which shows are doing it best, why hosts matter, and how ratings will hold up.
As we enter a new administration, how would you characterize the importance of the Sunday morning news shows? Have they lost an edge in the digital age, or do they still carry the same influence?
In terms of audience numbers, the Sunday morning shows–just like the cable news channels–follow a four-year cycle, peaking every election year. So the ratings for 2017 will presumably indicate a waning interest in their content.
This is misleading, since the first year of a new presidency (2017, 2009, 2001, 1993) always sees a peak in inside-the-Beltway news making.
In terms of the specialist type of content that these shows provide, they are more distinctive and irreplaceable when covering federal policy than they are when covering electoral politics. These shows may have lost their edge to digital rivals during election years (538, The Upshot etc). Less so during policy years.
Which news show produces the most consistently high-quality content? Why?
There has been a major turnover in hosting over the last five years, with the arrival of Chuck Todd, John Dickerson and Jake Tapper. The interviewing skills required in this job are so specialized that it is only now that these hosts are developing the questioning techniques to fit their on-air personalities.
Even [late "Meet the Press" host] Tim Russert took several years, before his methods became dominant in this timeslot. Following Russert, the most consistently high quality involves a focus on interviewing rather than roundtable discussions, and on long-form one-on-one interrogations rather than a rapid rotation of multiple guests.
Dickerson's format is disappointingly choppy because of "Face the Nation's" strange affiliate-dictated legacy division into two half hours. His questioning style is both conversational and probing.
Which gets the best guests and why?
It is in the interests of the powerful politicians inside-the-Beltway to keep these shows viable as outlets for their appearances. So it is unusual for guests to play favorites over the long run.
Does cable figure into the competitive mix at all, or is this still mainly a broadcast phenom?
Chris Wallace has to resort to the Fox broadcast network to bolster his cable numbers, so his show is a hybrid [Editor's note: "Fox News Sunday" airs first on broadcast, then repeats on Fox News Channel]. Chuck Todd boosts his numbers to a lesser extent with an MSNBC rerun on Sunday afternoon. "Face the Nation" is a ratings powerhouse, largely because of Jane Pauley's–formerly Charles Osgood's–fabulously successful lead-in.
These shows are in the competitive mix for ratings, but also in the mix for other bragging rights: For their ability at agenda setting, for acquiring a reputation for asking tough questions, and for developing headline-grabbing sound bites from guests. In that mix, Jake Tapper is definitely a viable competitor.
Which network is ahead in the ratings, and do you think that will stick?
CBS News is a Sunday powerhouse both in the morning, as stated, and in the evenings with "60 Minutes." NBC's attempts to boost "Sunday Today" with a new anchor Willie Geist–and presumably with Megyn Kelly in primetime–demonstrate that it recognizes that winning on Sunday is a valuable prize. I think CBS will ward off that challenge.
Was NBC's decision to replace Gregory on "Meet the Press" a good one? Why or why not?
Gregory treated his role as too much the affable host, and too little the aggressive questioner. Todd clearly has a deeper passion for both politics and policy. His ambition to make "MTP" not only a Sunday morning leader, but an early-evening presence on MSNBC and an online and social media brand, shows a commitment and ambition that was lacking in Gregory, who seemed to treat his arrival in Russert's chair as an ambition achieved rather than the springboard that Todd envisages.
Todd is less plausible than Gregory as a suave TV presence but — as with Russert — these shows need a less charming, more abrasive edge than much other television.
Does the host of a show matter?
Yes. ABC's decision to rotate anchors between George Stephanopoulos, Martha Raddatz and Jonathan Karl demonstrates the problem of not designing a show around the questioning style of a given host.
First, such a style is difficult to hone and takes years of practice: reliance on a single persona is necessary for that development. Second, a choppy, rapid-fire rotation with reliance on roundtable discussions — which necessarily takes the focus away from the skills of the host and lets the format do the work of setting a tone for the hour — undercuts and dilutes the distinctive niche that these shows occupy.
Tags: andrew tyndall, face the nation, meet the press, sunday morning news, sunday news ratings, sunday news shows, this week
Source: www.bing.com