Australian journalist George Negus told Prue MacSween back in 1984, "I went to work for '60 Minutes' because I thought it had the potential for being a very important journalistic outlet and that's what it's turned out to be. One of the good things we learned with '60 Minutes' is if it's going to be really good, if it’s going to be quality, then you can't throw it together like a television meal."
In those days, Gerald Stone observed, "Basically 1 in 3 Australians watch '60 Minutes'. To me it's got all the excitement, all the ingredients of everything we saw on Sunday nights – it's got a 'Starsky & Hutch' adventure quality, it's a kind of travel program, it's got every element, it's got pathos (Greek: suffering). The only problem is making sure that you use the format well." Jana Wendt pointed out, "We are a very slick format but we do force people to concentrate on what is being said … That's a deliberate editing technique."
George conceded, "I consider I have the best job in the country – possibly in the world. That’s going to be a hard act to follow. I seriously expect to have to take less money, not more, after '60 Minutes.'" In the United States by 1968, "TV has become the chief instrument of journalism". About two-thirds of Americans reportedly relied totally on television news to learn about events of the world. Insisting "what we’re doing in Australia is as worthwhile as what is being done anywhere in the English-speaking world and that makes me confident that we can keep doing new things," George believed at the time there should be a 5-night-a-week current affairs program on television.
"I can see that at the moment there's a need for a daily current affairs program," George told Patrice Fidgeon in 1982. "'Nationwide' doesn’t count because that’s preaching to the converted. I’m not knocking 'Nationwide'. It has its role to play, but they’re not really getting to the people who need to be told." George maintained, "What I will say is that to regard what is being done on 'Willesee', 'Today', '60 Minutes', 'Nationwide' and 'Four Corners' as the be-all and end-all of television journalism in this country is ridiculous. Therefore, we must be getting to the point where we have to break totally new ground and if there’s any new ground to be broken I want to be in on it."
For 10 months in 2011, George Negus joined the channel Ten "news evolution" when he hosted an "Australian first", the '6PM' show which sought to explore the big issues by running fewer stories but offering viewers more in depth coverage. In April of that year, the network moved '6PM' to '6.30'. The Australian 'Daily Telegraph' informed viewers, "Negus' ratings are a concern to new stakeholders James Packer and Lachlan Murdoch, who feel the international content is a turn-off for viewers - and told execs so. 'Basically (an) email sent to Ten bosses said the predominance of overseas stories was unwise and indulgent and not calculated to build ratings,' a well-placed source told the 'Daily Telegraph's' Confidential."
Jana Wendt had said, "I certainly do enjoy studio work and if someone said, here, why don't you work in a studio for the rest of your life, I would take it seriously. What I particularly like is studio work and we don’t get a chance to do that on '60 Minutes' apart from our pre-recorded links. For me there's something exciting about doing studio interviews. I think people rise to the occasion of a studio interview and for me that's very pleasant because we work completely differently when we work on film for '60 Minutes.'"
On reflection, George Negus remarked, "To me, radio is something you do when you’re not capable of doing anything else. And to go against Derryn Hinch (back in 1982) would be like competing with an automaton. I don’t know how he does it. I’ve talked to radio people but nobody has been able to convince me there are benefits to be had from talking to yourself in a padded cell for up to 3 hours a day. I prefer talking to people in a TV studio where you have eyeball-to-eyeball contact. Yes, I have had talks with (radio station) 3DB (in Melbourne), but put it this way: Why would anyone want to give up a perfectly healthy job like the one I have in '60 Minutes' to go and work in radio?"
One lecturer in sociology made the comment, "Being informed is only a secondary motive for most viewers. Most people watch TV news to be amused and diverted, or to make sure that their homes and families are safe and secure … Even better educated viewers look to TV news for entertainment and reassurance." Emmy Award winner Lou Cioffi argued, "There is no such thing as a totally objective reporter. And there's no doubt in my mind that even the network anchors lend weight to certain stories that are close to their hearts.
"Objectivity can only be approximated. But the greatest editorial judgment made by newsmen everywhere in television is their choice of stories and, most importantly, what they choose to omit. News was always a losing financial proposition in television. And now (1983) that has all changed as ratings on news shows increase. News has become a money-maker."
Harry Reasoner offered, "Let’s call the 'lowest common denominator' the largest possible audience – that’s the name of the mass communications business … For the most important factor at the start of any news program is: How many people are watching when you come on? The second most important is: Do they want to watch what follows? What this means is that frequently, whether profitable or not, networks will turn down programs which don't seem likely to get a mass audience because it affects what comes after it."
It was said TV news viewers "tend to be comfortable with the familiar and initially always resist change". Harry theorized, "I say that TV news has been instinctively objective, simply because as opposed to newspapers it has much greater influence and as opposed to radio much less chance for diversity … I think TV news ought to present a professional reaction to a story, rather than the journalism of involvement or activism on either the left or right…"
One Harvard professor made the observation, "Television news is like newspaper news in that both mobilize public attention to public affairs and disseminate information – but there the similarities end. For television news is all mobilization: it seems utterly to lack the liberal, privatizing characteristics of print journalism – the discontinuities, the randomness, the ambiguities and the diversity which give the ideal of individualism real substance.
"The television news emphasis on spectacle, its reliance on the single omniscient to the notion of a unified, thematic depiction of events, all make TV an extraordinarily powerful mobilizer of public attention and public opinion." Kirsty Cockburn told Prue MacSween in 1987, "We’ve come to realise that one of the most important ways to influence future generations and influence the sort of things you disagree with in society is to have a child."
Jana Wendt had said, "I certainly do enjoy studio work and if someone said, here, why don't you work in a studio for the rest of your life, I would take it seriously. What I particularly like is studio work and we don’t get a chance to do that on '60 Minutes' apart from our pre-recorded links. For me there's something exciting about doing studio interviews. I think people rise to the occasion of a studio interview and for me that's very pleasant because we work completely differently when we work on film for '60 Minutes.'"
On reflection, George Negus remarked, "To me, radio is something you do when you’re not capable of doing anything else. And to go against Derryn Hinch (back in 1982) would be like competing with an automaton. I don’t know how he does it. I’ve talked to radio people but nobody has been able to convince me there are benefits to be had from talking to yourself in a padded cell for up to 3 hours a day. I prefer talking to people in a TV studio where you have eyeball-to-eyeball contact. Yes, I have had talks with (radio station) 3DB (in Melbourne), but put it this way: Why would anyone want to give up a perfectly healthy job like the one I have in '60 Minutes' to go and work in radio?"
One lecturer in sociology made the comment, "Being informed is only a secondary motive for most viewers. Most people watch TV news to be amused and diverted, or to make sure that their homes and families are safe and secure … Even better educated viewers look to TV news for entertainment and reassurance." Emmy Award winner Lou Cioffi argued, "There is no such thing as a totally objective reporter. And there's no doubt in my mind that even the network anchors lend weight to certain stories that are close to their hearts.
"Objectivity can only be approximated. But the greatest editorial judgment made by newsmen everywhere in television is their choice of stories and, most importantly, what they choose to omit. News was always a losing financial proposition in television. And now (1983) that has all changed as ratings on news shows increase. News has become a money-maker."
Harry Reasoner offered, "Let’s call the 'lowest common denominator' the largest possible audience – that’s the name of the mass communications business … For the most important factor at the start of any news program is: How many people are watching when you come on? The second most important is: Do they want to watch what follows? What this means is that frequently, whether profitable or not, networks will turn down programs which don't seem likely to get a mass audience because it affects what comes after it."
It was said TV news viewers "tend to be comfortable with the familiar and initially always resist change". Harry theorized, "I say that TV news has been instinctively objective, simply because as opposed to newspapers it has much greater influence and as opposed to radio much less chance for diversity … I think TV news ought to present a professional reaction to a story, rather than the journalism of involvement or activism on either the left or right…"
One Harvard professor made the observation, "Television news is like newspaper news in that both mobilize public attention to public affairs and disseminate information – but there the similarities end. For television news is all mobilization: it seems utterly to lack the liberal, privatizing characteristics of print journalism – the discontinuities, the randomness, the ambiguities and the diversity which give the ideal of individualism real substance.
"The television news emphasis on spectacle, its reliance on the single omniscient to the notion of a unified, thematic depiction of events, all make TV an extraordinarily powerful mobilizer of public attention and public opinion." Kirsty Cockburn told Prue MacSween in 1987, "We’ve come to realise that one of the most important ways to influence future generations and influence the sort of things you disagree with in society is to have a child."
