A Failure to Communicate

I don’t know why but I am always amazed when media executives feel the need to tinker with a program or a format that is doing well and has a loyal audience. I have heard all the excuses: the audience is too old, we need to grow the audience, and my favorite, and the worst of all reasons, the show needed to change, it was looking rather tired.

The truth is there are no good reasons to make wholesale changes in any program that is holding its own other than money. If the costs rise above what the budget allows a producer has no choice but to deal with the financial realities. But when change comes via the whim of an exec it is time to change the exec, not the program.

There are countless examples on both sides of this equation. CBC Radio 2 is one of my favorite examples. Take a national channel that has a large and devoutly loyal audience, that in most of the country is the only provider of serious classical music and change it so that classical is moved away from the highest listening periods and replace it with a mishmash that is impossible to describe or to explain and watch the ratings go down the drain.

In an age where everyone is desperate for a niche that guarantees audience, CBC Radio threw the niche they had away. It is beyond stupid. The biggest winners in this one were the NPR border stations and classical music stations in Buffalo, Seattle and Detroit.

The same kind of story took place at CBC TV’s The National. Wholesale change for what appears to be no strong reason. The result: the ratings are in the toilet and not a single viewer I have spoken to or heard from likes the new newscast.

For me the most egregious and radical change comes from a network that doesn’t usually make these kinds of mistakes, CTV. Canada AM is a show that is close to my heart. I worked on the show for six years, including close to five years running the place. In the day, with hosts like Norm Perry, Helen Hutchinson, Keith Morrison, Valerie Pringle and Carole Taylor Canada AM was one of the most important news programs in Canada. Every day the top politicians and newsmakers involved in the biggest news stories of the day felt they had to appear and explain their role in whatever was going on. Not a week went by when the daily newspapers across the country didn’t quote from an interview seen on Canada’s first morning news and current affairs program. Most weeks the AM crew actually broke stories.

Yes, there were entertainers and quirky stories, but these were reserved for the final 30 minutes and only if there wasn’t a breaking news story that needed more coverage.

For those of you who love the celebrity gossip and interviews this may sound dreary, but in fact it was exciting TV. Every interview was live and every issue discussed totally current. The proof was the huge and loyal audience. On average the show had 750,000 viewers in homes. On many days it was over a million. All of this without counting audience members in hotel rooms, restaurants and offices.

Today few people are watching what can only be described as a long version of E-Talk. Celebrity after celebrity spit out the same hackneyed tripe that they spouted two days ago on the endless celebrity gossip shows that dominate early evening TV fare. The interviews are mostly on tape so there is no real excitement generated. The news is mostly relegated to the newscast. And to make matters worse, almost all the personality on the show comes from the weatherman, Jeff Hutcheson. Canada AM has become a great advertisement for morning radio.

Today Canada AM still calls itself the highest rated morning show in Canada. Big whoop. With an audience that hovers around 250,000 viewers it barely makes a dent. When was the last time a Canada AM interview was quoted in The Globe and Mail? I suspect many of you were too young to read The Globe when that happened. I know what you are going to say, there’s a lot more channels and competition today. You’d be right. But other morning shows have held their own in the ratings and more important, there are few new morning current affairs shows that didn’t exist during the heyday of AM. The competition is no more fierce.

Nobody I have talked to knows why Canada AM changed. It took a few years so there is no one person to point a finger at. There is no corporate memory of the great show that Canada AM was. There is only this impostor that has stolen the name and fills the time slot.

Here’s where the lesson comes in. If you are going to change a program or a format there is actually a secret to doing it successfully. You must find a way to keep your loyal viewers happy while attracting new viewers. Therefore the answer is evolution not revolution. The changes have to be imperceptible. The best example here is CTV News. If you were to poll the audience they would tell you the show hasn’t changed at all in decades. In fact that isn’t true. Look at old tapes and you would not recognize the program. There have been lots of changes. They have been brought in slowly. The folks at CTV News seem to understand that they cannot upset their loyal viewers in order to grow their ratings.

There are other examples: 60 Minutes and Law and Order stand out because they both lasted more than 20 years and they both have large and loyal audiences all these years later. I know Law and Order was canceled recently, but it tied Gunsmoke for the longest running TV drama in the U.S. television history.

The problems go deeper of course. If the people running the networks don’t get it, how can the folks they hire understand what to do? Every time I speak to a network boss I am amazed at the level of incompetence and the lack of understanding. Money is everything and creativity is ignored.

Maybe it’s just me but from my perch it sure looks like the folks who run television today don’t come close to understanding how to make shows the audiences love. When I was selling shows to networks all I ever heard was: I want a show just like… If a forensics show is a winner, in three years there will be ten on the air. The CBC buys formats like Dragon’s Den rather than take a chance on coming up with something new and unique. Thankfully there are some very smart producers and writers selling shows to the bozos who run the networks. These smart, creative people somehow manage to get the odd show by the buyers who have no understanding of the history and the craft of television making. Usually it is pure luck. Modern Family and Corner Gas are the exceptions. Sure, the nets take credit for their successes, but ask them to explain how the shows got on and you will get a lot of ums and ers. There was a time when men like Don Cameron was running CTV News and John Kennedy was buying drama at CBC that quality and creativity ruled. These men were masters of their profession. They were not followers, they were leaders and we were all better off for their leadership.

Filed under: Media Commentary, 60 Minutes, Canada AM, Carol Taylor, CBC Radio 2, Corner Gas, CTV News, Dragon's Den, Gunsmoke, Jeff Hutcheson, Law and Order, Modern Family, Norm Perry, NPR, The Globe and Mail, The National, Valerie Pringle

Disconnect with Mark Kelley

After far too many wasted hours in front of my television I can say, without any doubts, that Connect with Mark Kelley is the worst new current affairs show on TV. This program is two hours of non-news, old news, inane filler and just plain nonsense. Worse still, the attempts at humor are juvenile at best and completely flat most of the time.

Whose idea was it to do two hours every week night on the detritus left aside by every news program on CBCNN? What were they thinking? If the material is not strong enough for any newscast or current affairs program covering the other twenty-two hours of the day why take two hours of prime time and my time and fill it with this garbage?

One night in December they actually wasted our valuable time on such stories as the 25 worst Christmas album covers of all time. I know the only reason I buy CDs, or in the day, albums, is because of the cover art. On the same night they started a new segment with a doctor. One could call or email questions. What did they choose to talk about? The H1N1 panic that ended a full month before this night. There is even a segment called “Off the Radar.” On a show that’s off the radar they choose stories that are even more out in left field. Maybe they think two negatives will make a positive. That’s math not television production.

Look, I understand that current affairs producing is not easy. On a newscast a large percentage of the stories are obvious. They are newsy. They happened today. We argue about the line-up and the quality of the reporting but the choice of stories is seldom an issue. On a current affairs program it is not so obvious. The choices are the same but you only get to choose a few of the stories for discussion or reporting. Great current affairs shows have the ability to understand and even exploit the mood of the public. 60 Minutes, Nightline (when it was hosted by Ted Koppel), Newshour on PBS; all these shows choose important, interesting or engaging stories, stories that the audience is likely to be interested in. None of them go out of their way to choose stories that few people, if any, care about in the least. Duh!

More important still is the fact that the most successful shows on television are programs that the viewing audience has a feel for. When you tune in to 60 Minutes you know the kind of stories and reporting you are going to get: a celebrity profile, a look behind a major news story, a scam that is cheating either the government or a lot of viewers. When you tune to Newshour you know you will hear about the latest goings on in Washington, important economic news and major stories that affect the United States.
It’s easy for me, as a viewer to choose to watch or not because I know what to expect. Oh, and as a TV producer  or researcher, it is easy for me to find stories because I know what I’m looking for. I know the kinds of stories my bosses and the audience want and expect.

So how does it work at Connect? Do the producers sit around and wait to see what nobody else uses? Do they choose only stories they themselves do not care about? How do you fill two hours when you can’t pick up interesting and important stories?

From what I hear from inside the CBC it is no joke. The staff of Connect with Mark Kelley are seriously unhappy and looking for ways off the show. They don’t feel like they understand the program and they are not certain what Mark Kelley wants or is even trying to do with his show. Yes there are even grumbles coming from management, but so far, like all the other bad decisions at the CBC they are being swept under the rug. There is so much under that rug at CBC headquarters that it must be getting very difficult to walk the halls.

The whole thing is an exercise in bad programming and poor management. I’m told Connect is based on an idea that Mark Kelley came up with. Didn’t anyone running CBCNN look at his idea? Did anyone question the content? CBCNN is, after all, supposed to be a news channel.

Connect is not the only bad show on CBCNN but it is so awful it makes the other offerings look good by comparison. The time has come for CBC brass to put an end to this fiasco. Mark Kelley will survive. He’s an engaging host with a bad idea. Come up with a better idea. Produce him. Don’t throw away two hours of prime air time. Don’t make the audience pine for the good old days of Antiques Road Show.

Filed under: Media Commentary, 60 Minutes, CBCNN, Connect with Mark Kelley, Mark Kelley, Newshour, Nightline, Ted Koppel

No News is Bad News

At the end of the year it’s traditional to look back at what occurred during the past twelve months and pick out the highs and lows. Most years there are a few examples of each. 2009, however, has proved to be one of the most dismal years for news and current affairs in Canada ever. I can’t think of a worse period in my lifetime.

Everybody has already noted the disaster that is the new National at CBC: thin gruel masquerading as news, the worst reporting staff in CBC Television history, the inability to fill sixty minutes with relevant stories, and this doesn’t even refer to the ludicrous and totally unmotivated standing around to read the news and do interviews. The good news is that the audience numbers are way down. Perhaps this will induce the CBC bosses to see the error of their ways. I’m not holding my breath.

The CBC’s last great journalism show has also been diminished. The Fifth Estate has been moved to the dead zone of Friday night where it is almost impossible to garner decent ratings. The reason for the move: a better night to run Being Erica. Now I’m all for Canadian drama but why do the schedulers at CBC need to promote Canadian drama at the expense of their flagship current affairs program?

CBC fell further under the leadership and thrall of the evil emperor, Richard (Darth) Stursberg. He and his hand-picked minions of “yes” people seem to be doing the best they can to wreck CBC News and Current Affairs. Under his rule we have seen the degradation of national news, the moving of The Fifth and local news to dead zones, the virtual disappearance of the once popular program Market Place (it finally reappears after New Years), the now almost non-existent documentary, and I haven’t mentioned the terminally unwatchable CBCNN. There are those within the network, the cynics I guess, who believe Stursberg wants to see news and current affairs fail miserably so he can take the money and spend it on new drama, comedy and reality. If that’s the case the man has not looked at the history of television. News has been, and still is, one of the best ways to build an audience for your entire schedule. Hello, Dick, is the CBC still the CBC without Little Mosque on the Prairie and Being Erica? Is the CBC still the CBC without The National and The Fifth Estate?

CBC Radio has fared a little better but those in charge there believe it is purely a case of benign neglect and they fear that neglect is coming to an end. One producer of a flagship current affairs program on radio told me that Stursberg and company are beginning to look at radio. Scary. Ratings are good, but they can better if the shows are “dumbed –down” like over in CBC-TV land, at least that’s the idea the radio producers are getting from their bosses.

Over at CTV and Global the news is not much better. The bulwarks of “Capitalist Broadcasting” are coming to the government cap-in-hand begging for money in the form of cable and satellite fees. Their hook: they want to save local TV. Local TV, isn’t that the part of their empire they have abused and chopped going way back before they had a small financial dilemma? To prove how much they care about local TV they have been closing local stations even before they find out whether the CRTC will grant them their millions in unearned cash and they have steadfastly refused to guarantee that the dollars they squeeze out of cable and satellite subscribers will go to local TV. Save our shareholders! I guess that doesn’t sound so good in a television ad.

In the meantime CTV still runs W5 but buries it by running it against hockey on Saturday evening and if and when they invest in a documentary, it always airs in the W5 timeslot.

Over at Global, they bury their current affairs in their schedule too. Hands up anyone who has seen or heard about a Global documentary. I saw one on the rise of religion in Canada but that was only because a friend produced it and was kind enough to let me know when it was going to air.

CTV and Global news do a much better job of appealing to Canadians than CBC News does. For proof of this I only have to point out that both get over a million viewers regularly while CBC has trouble reaching half-a-million. Both are better produced and slicker than CBC’s effort but there is little room for celebration. Neither makes any attempt at depth or context. In a world where ABC, NBC and CBS have long understood that fewer stories told more completely is the best way to compete with all-news TV; CTV and Global are still doing newscasts the same way they were done pre-CNN and the internet. Here too CBC News’ failure may be a key. CTV and Global have always done a better job when they were pushed by excellent coverage at CBC. Now that the “Corpse” news has sunk below CTV and Global’s level there is no need for the privates to try harder.

In the U.S. we have witnessed the disintegration of the CNN audience with the odious Fox News being the main recipient of new viewers. Serious stories go unreported south of the border while the balloon boys, disappearing politicians and “birthers” dominate the airwaves. Sensationalism is winning and stories like Copenhagen are losing. Worse still the all news folks are challenging each other to see who can distort or get the facts more wrong. Any coverage of the health care debate by Fox or MSNBC is sure to make a Canadian’s eyes roll.

The good news? Well 60 Minutes somehow continues to tell excellent stories and surprise, surprise, gets a big audience too. The Fifth Estate still has the ability to do the best research and find the best stories. PBS’ new Newshour format is even better than it was before. CTV’s reporters, as a group, are as strong as any reporting team I can remember; perhaps that’s because they took their best and added some of CBC’s best to create a kind of dream team of news reporting. The Agenda with Steve Paikin gets better every year and deals with the kind of topics that only PBS and TVO tackle; oh, and surprise, surprise, they get pretty good numbers doing it in the middle of prime time against the toughest competition. CBC Radio has so far stayed the mostly fine course (we can only pray that lasts). And finally, Lou Dobbs is gone from CNN, this alone could be reason to celebrate the New Year.

Filed under: Media Commentary, 60 Minutes, ABC, Being Erica, CBCNN, CBS, CNN, CTV, Fox News, Global, Lou Dobbs, Market Place, MSNBC, NBC, PBS, Richard Stursberg, The Agenda, The Fifth Estate, The National, TVO, W5

Where is the new Ted Koppel?

Every once in a while you know you are going to say or write something that will get you into trouble. I’m afraid this is one of those instances. Some of you will disagree with me. Some of you may even be mad at me for what I’m about to write about.

After 40 years of paying close attention to television news and current affairs I’m afraid I have to report that the art of the great interview is dying.

I am amazed at the lack of interviewing talent that exists on network TV and radio in both Canada and the United States. In fact, I will go further. I am astounded at the lousy interviewers that inhabit our airwaves today.

Pretty much everyone agrees that Ted Koppel was a great interviewer when he hosted Nightline at ABC. In my mind he was the best interviewer I have ever seen or heard. His interviews were always focused. He asked the questions the audience wanted answered. He never competed with his guests. He was fearless, never backing away from asking the tough questions. He always did his homework. He was an even better listener than he was a talker. He never failed to follow up when a guest said something that needed follow up. In short, he was an interviewing god. Every television and radio host should be forced to watch a thousand hours of Ted’s work so they can see how it should be done.

There have been other great interviewers. Edward R. Murrow was a pioneer on television. The hosts of 60 Minutes have distinguished themselves. I am sure I am missing many, many great broadcasters from the golden ages of TV and radio. But who stands out today? Name somebody? When I asked friends and colleagues this question most were stumped. One said Charlie Rose. Are you kidding? He never asks a tough question. He spends most of his time trying to look smart and in the process talks about things no audience member knows or cares about. His interviews are about Charlie Rose, not his guests. Another mentioned Bill Moyers. Still another friend said Farid Zakaria; interesting names, but not a real interview “star” among them. More interesting still is that not a single Canadian broadcaster came up on anyone’s list.

Heck, Canada is the country that produced Barbara Frum and Patrick Watson. They were both icons of the interview, fearless questioners who put the audience first in their attempts to get to the heart of a story. So what is happening here in the great white north?

For most of my lifetime the CBC, especially CBC radio has distinguished itself with excellent hosts and interviewers. I already mentioned Barbara Frum but Michael Enright, Marylou Finley and Linden MacIntyre stand out as broadcasters. They dominated the national radio scene when they were on Sunday Morning and As It Happens. Many people loved Peter Gzowski. I didn’t. I thought his interviews were about Peter. I would call him a great radio personality not an especially good interviewer. I once heard him compare himself to Nobel Laureate I.B. Singer when he was interviewing him. I also heard him tell Annie Lennox that he had never heard of her and then ask her why she was a guest on his show.

Michael Enright is still doing a fine job hosting on Sunday mornings. Linden MacIntyre is still doing great work on The Fifth Estate but where is the new crop of talent? The CBC claims they want younger viewers but most of their young talent is not up to the task. For sure George Stroumboulopoulos is glib and personable but does anyone expect great insight or fierce journalism from George? I think not. Jian Ghomeshi always sounds like he is reading his questions from a script. He doesn’t listen to his guests. I know this because there is seldom follow up when a guest says something surprising. As far as the journalists are concerned, Peter Mansbridge is obviously a news reader when he interviews. There is seldom the feeling of a discussion and far too often he goes into Charlie Rose mode, trying to show how smart he is and forgetting that there’s an audience watching. The only time Anna Maria Tremonti surprises is when she asks another inane question that is far off topic. The Current is everything that’s wrong with CBC radio today, simplistic stories, bad guests, poor questions, I can’t think of anything that’s good about the show.

So who do I like? I think Steve Paikin at TV Ontario is the best interviewer in Canada today. I think he could be a little tougher; it upsets me when he starts a tough question with “some people say” or “some people think” as if it is not his question, but on the whole he is more engaged and more informed than anyone I see or hear today. He also brings one more big plus to his interviews: he seems genuinely excited to be there. You can be both entertained and informed by a Steve Paikin interview, a rare combination these days.

While I’ve got your attention I want to mention some former broadcasters who seldom get their due and one radio host who deserves to be lauded for his fine work. Norm Perry was the real deal when he hosted Canada AM. He was always prepared and the story always came first. He never got the attention he deserved.

I worked for two years with Larry Solway. Most of you don’t know who he is but let me assure you, I never worked with a better interviewer. He was tough, honest, smart and always thoroughly prepared.

I was lucky enough to do work with Valerie Pringle on a show for Vision TV. She was amazing. Her depth of knowledge and understanding of the issues was almost superhuman given the circumstances. She never failed to make a bad interview work and a good interview better.

Finally I want to give kudos to Bob McCown. He is hidden away on sports radio and television but he is the consummate broadcaster. He knows how to get to the nub of a story as well as anyone in the business and perhaps more important he understands that his job is to both entertain and inform.

Interviewing is a fine art. I hope the folks who run TV and radio in this country appreciate the difficulty and complexity it entails and look more critically at what they have and as important what they don’t have. If they do we may yet see more Ted Koppels and Barbara Frums on our airwaves in the future.

Filed under: Media Commentary, 60 Minutes, Anna Maria Tremonti, Barbara Frum, Bill Moyers, Bob McCown, Charlie Rose, Edward R. Murrow, Farid Zakaria, George Stroumboulopoulos, Jian Ghomeshi, Linden MacIntyre, Michael Enright, Patrick Watson, Peter Mansbridge, Steve Paikin, Ted Koppel

Hewitt’s Law

I just returned from over a week in the U.S. Pacific Northwest. The weather was great. The scenery was beautiful. The company was amazing. The only negative was trying to watch TV. The current coverage of Obama’s healthcare reforms is enough to drive even the most hardened news junkie away from the television. American networks are dropping the ball big time. They are not delivering the facts. They are allowing falsehood after falsehood to make it to air with little or no comment. If I worked for news at CBS, NBC, ABC, or CNN I would be hanging my head in shame and telling the people I met that I was an accountant.

But that’s not what I want to talk about: the poor coverage of healthcare reform is just a jumping off point to talk about Don Hewitt. Hewitt was one of the creators of television news and current affairs. We all know him for 60 Minutes but he goes back a long way before that. He produced Walter Cronkite on CBS Evening News and Edward R. Murrow before that. He wrote the very vocabulary that television journalism uses and he did it from scratch. There was no TV news before Hewitt.

Lucky for all of us who have followed in his footsteps in broadcast journalism, he set the standards.

I wonder what he would say if he watched tonight’s evening newscasts in the U.S.? I think I know. He would wonder what happened to the story telling. Why are the reporters dealing with issues and not telling stories about people. What about the story of a working class family that can’t afford health insurance? Where’s the story about the middle class dad who’s afraid of losing his company-paid-for insurance? How about the couple on Medicare or Medicaid, government programs, telling us how well or how poorly these programs work for them? Those are just a few of the possibilities.

You see, the true genius of Don Hewitt was his understanding of three small things that every broadcast journalist should know without thinking. They should be automatic – like breathing. They were the backbone of all Don Hewitt accomplished and stood for and they are deceptively simple.

The first is to “tell me a story.” It was his mantra. When you wanted to get something on the air he demanded this simple act from you, the ability to tell an interesting story. What is more basic in broadcasting? Nothing. If you are not a story teller you should not be a journalist. In fact, if you are not a story teller you should not work in TV, radio or film. The ability to weave a tale that will grab the viewer’s attention and hold it is the singular most important craft that we have to perfect to do our jobs. When the powers that be are weeding out applicants for jobs that’s all they should look for. We can teach the rest. Cameras, edit suites, microphones…these are just the tools we use. We can learn how to use them in one year of community college. Story telling…that’s innate, something you are born with.
Don Hewitt’s second rule is even more abused by modern broadcast journalists than his first. He demanded that every story be entertaining. He realized immediately upon joining CBS TV in the late 1940’s that television is an entertainment medium. People don’t turn on their TV to watch the news, they turn it on to see House, CSI and Family Guy. Go ahead, ask your neighbors what their favorite TV show is. None will say it is the news, I guarantee it. Even though this is more important today in the 200 channel universe it appears to be less understood.

When I worked at CBC News they were upset with me for telling my staff to make their stories entertaining. I had to come up with a new description the bosses would accept. I called for “engaging” stories. Today’s newscasts are anything but entertaining. The CBC is the worst offender and the changes they are talking about threaten to squeeze the last bits of entertainment from their newscasts. They don’t seem to understand that their competition is not CTV News and CBS News, it is CSI Miami and Law and Order. Even the 6:30 U.S. newscasts are going up against reruns of NCIS and 2 ½ Men. To Don Hewitt this was obvious.

Finally, Hewitt understood that people do not relate to issues, they relate to people. He demanded that his reporters and producers put a human face on every story. It seems simple and obvious to me as it did to Don Hewitt but I still see story after story on the news that deals with the issues of the healthcare debate without telling me how they affect a single human being. Why should I care about the deficit? Why do we have to help the banks stay afloat? There are real people, Americans, who are affected by what government does. Who is telling their stories?

Don Hewitt’s three simple rules should be the first thing we teach journalism students. They should be automatically understood by everyone who works in TV and radio news. Sadly they are not. In fact we are losing our acceptance of these basic rules. Just watch the news and you will see.

Like all great artists Don Hewitt’s genius was his understanding of the simple truths, the basics, and he never strayed from that. Even though I never met the man I am sad that he is gone. We need his wisdom more than ever. I’m afraid we will miss him more than we will ever know.

Filed under: Uncategorized, 60 Minutes, ABC, CBC News, CBS, CNN, CSI, CTV News, Don Hewitt, Edward R. Murrow, healthcare, House, NBC, NCIS, Walter Cronkite