NEWS

In the 1990s, on prime time - when TV's largest viewing audiences gathered - newsmagazines were the hot ticket. By mid-1993, over one-tenth of the series in network prime-time were newsmagazines. 'The Los Angeles Times' observed, "For now, though, what is driving the newsmagazine engine is a combustible combination of relatively low budgets and high ratings." 

Andrew Heyward reminded, "When the networks began putting on a number of new newsmagazines several years ago ('48 Hours' premiered in 1988), the economics of the shows was a key force in their gaining slots in the prime-time schedules. The conventional wisdom was that, in a time slot where the network was likely to be second or third to the competition, a newsmagazine was attractive programming. What's interesting about the current TV season (1992-93) is that not only are these shows financially attractive to the networks, they're among the highest-rated shows in prime time."

CBS's '60 Minutes', which 'The Washington Post' noted, had "a sterling journalistic reputation" gave birth to the genre in 1968. Speaking to 'The Christian Science Monitor' in 1998, Don Hewitt remarked, "For years, '60 Minutes' has been making great soup. And then somebody comes along and says, 'You know, if you put some water in that soup, you could get two bowls for one.'" 

Shepard Smith told 'Chicago Tribune' in 2002, "What's interesting is newsmagazines really got on the map because of the summer months … The idea is to get people to come to the table, and then stay and eat for as long as possible. That's the goal behind the fancy set and the great graphics and the music and the fog machine. I think the steak is going to be there. A menu is going to get you to the table, but if you don't like the dinner, you're not coming back." 

'The New York Times' made the comment, "Network newsmagazines, like the mass-circulation print magazines America had to make do with in the drear days before television, occupy that large territory between the higher, somewhat sedate reaches of journalism and the pulps. The ingredients have not changed much. But the proportions are different. Straight reporting on nonsexy issues is less common." 

Don Hewitt insisted, "The success of '60 Minutes' is four words that every child in the world knows: Tell me a story. And that's what we do - we tell stories. I'm convinced of one thing, and I don't know why every television producer doesn't know this. I'm convinced it's your ear more than your eye that keeps you at your television set. It's what you hear more than what you see. I will go into a screening room and I'll see some spectacular pieces of tape and turn to the producers and say, 'OK, what's the story, what are you trying to tell me?'" 

'Newsweek' reported, "Today's (in 1993) TV newsmagazines live in a killing field of competition, often within the same network. Among the victims are the three major evening news broadcasts, which have seen many of their best resources diverted to the magazines ... With 'hot' stories in short supply, these shows increasingly rely on investigative reporting, most of it picked up from small newspapers, dramatized for television, then passed off as original."

Morley Safer told 'The Washington Post' in 1995, "We should not be inviting 'The Washington Post' or 'The New York Times' or anyone else into our newsroom and our process. The chicken-(expletive) that goes on in any newsroom, it's gossip. Personalities within this shop ('60 Minutes') have become the subject of journalists-turned-gossip columnists … Every jerk who has no idea about the process can get his two cents in. If all these breast-beating advocates of the First Amendment are so wild about it, why haven't they gone after the story, if they're so ballsy? What's happened to journalism?" 

Victor Neufeld maintained, "The network newsmagazines, particularly the ABC newsmagazines, have a history and are committed to long-term, in-depth journalism. The major distinction (between network and cable) is that we spend tremendous amounts of time and effort on each story, and generally only go after stories that are, hopefully, distinctive. And we don't have the need to fill 24 hours a day." 

In conclusion, 'The New York Times' acknowledged, "All in all, these programs live up to the standards of popular journalism, although you might wish at times that those standards were higher: the subject matter more varied, the point of view less predictable, the reporting deeper and fairer, the editing less jumpy, the close-ups of villains less harsh, the treatment of victims less soppy, the language of the reporters fresher and more businesslike. 

"But even with their excesses and shortcomings, the television magazines perform much the same service that mass magazines performed in the old days, as they draw attention to abuses of the weak or the trusting by the strong or the crooked, and shape other information coherently and engagingly. That is what the best mainstream journalism has always tried to do, along with making money, and is probably as much as anyone can reasonably ask of it."

However Joan Konner, publisher of the 'Columbia Journalism Review' argued, "The dramatization of personal-hardship stories, which have no larger significance in society, is not useful journalism. It's pure exploitation. It serves no public interest, other than entertainment."

'Newsweek' made the point, "The biggest thing wrong with these shows is that they are structured to convey drama and narrative more than information. But this problem is not just about tabloidism; it's inherent in the medium itself. TV is often maligned for being geared to those with short attention spans. Actually it requires a longer (though more languid) gaze to watch one of these shows than to skim a newspaper. How many articles take 15 minutes to read?" 

Hugh Downs begged to differ, "Two generations ago (in 1978), stories didn't make the evening news unless they involved geopolitics or the military. As a result, an awful lot of important information went unreported, especially stories about family issues, consumer scams, and health. Lowell Thomas just wouldn't do those types of stories. But now (in 1998) Peter Jennings does, and so do we on '20/20'." 

'Newsweek' concluded, "But if TV newsmagazines are an inefficient means of conveying information, they certainly convey more of it than the alternative - which is entertainment programming. When this fad for news-tabloid and otherwise-passes, TV audiences will know less about their world than they do today (in 1994). It sounds depressing, but a few years from now the early 1990s may look like the true golden era of television news."