The ink-stained wretches of the Wall Street Journal are being reminded that if they’re called on for an on camera appearance for WSJ Live, that they should not be ink-stained wretches.

“Many of you have embraced our video revolution, and as this tremendous growth continues, we anticipate an ever-larger number of reporters and editors will be called on to deliver news this way, just as we do on other platforms,” a memo to the staff, obtained by Romenekso, begins. “In that light, we want to remind those appearing on camera that you should take into consideration your appearance both in terms of journalistic content and on-air presentation.”

As many of our regular guests already know, neat and professional dress, combed hair and a quick visit to our resident makeup artist on the 6th floor is encouraged before each appearance for both men and women – even for just a quick dash of powder. You want the spotlight focused on your stellar journalism – not shining off your forehead.

(h/t Romenesko)

Network news has shown remarkable consistency over the last few years. Pew’s State of the Media 2013 report highlights that stability in both content and audience, even as the long-term trend continues downward.

Pew looked back to the years 2007-2012, and noted what stayed the same and what changed. While cable news saw some dramatic changes, the network newscasts remain remarkable similar, with roughly the same number of packages, interviews and live segments in 2012 as they had in 2007.

That said, there are some subtle changes.

Read more

2012 was a strange year for cable news. It was an election year, with a slew of political stories, and no shortage of international and domestic stories as well. While viewership as a whole was up, there were also signs that trouble may be looming in the distance for the medium.

Pew’s State of the News Media 2013 report shines a light on the challenges and strengths of cable news, and notes a couple of things that have changed.

First: the content of cable news is evolving. Read more

Jill Abramson, the New York Times‘ executive editor, has been answering reader questions online this week. Abramson has discussed source anonymity and the coverage of the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, as well as answering a series of questions about the Times’ recent investment in video:

Q. Why all the new investment in video? Is The Times on its way to becoming a online TV station?— John Nolan, Morton Grove, IL

A. News stories can now be told across many platforms and the information our journalists collect can be presented in many different forms. The question I often ask as executive editor is: What is the most powerful way to tell a story or deliver information? Video is certainly an increasingly important platform for Times journalism. Our goal is not to become an online TV station, but to create video that enables our readers and audience to “watch The Times” as well as “read The Times.”

Read more

Mr. Jane Pauley, aka Garry Trudeau, had some fun with TV news on Sunday. Here’s his Doonesbury strip, via Slate:

Tonight’s “Rock Center” led off with a two-part Ted Koppel report looking at partisan news media, its rise and why it may be here to stay, whether you like it or not.

The hugely popular and wildly profitable Fox News Channel — in the form of Bill O’Reilly — participated in the NBC report, but MSNBC did not. “The presidents of Fox and our sister network, MSNBC, wanted no part of this conversation,” said Koppel. “And also declined on behalf of their on-air talent.” O’Reilly was the exception. Koppel also talked with Ann Coulter and Bill Maher. Also:

• Koppel posed this hypothetical to O’Reilly: “Diane Sawyer is retiring, they want you to be the next anchor. Money is not going to be a problem. What do you do?” O’Reilly: “I don’t do it. Too boring. It would not be nearly as much fun as teeing the world off every night here and having all the reaction and being able to do all the things I could never do in a hard news broadcast.”
• Koppel, showing his own bias (journalistic, not political), describes Fox News this way: “A partisan news network with the mocking slogan ‘Fair and Balanced.’”
• New York Times media columnist David Carr thinks a partisan outlet as primary news source is, “an existential threat to our perfect union.”

Full segments after the jump…

Read more

Network news veteran Paul Friedman has been keeping a close eye on the three evening newscasts of late and has written about their current state for the Columbia Journalism Review. Friedman’s engrossing 4,000-word dissection of the network newscasts boils down to this:  There’s the lofty one (CBS), the light one (ABC) and the one somewhere in between (NBC).

While NBC and ABC live by research, CBS despises it. Says CBS News Chairman Jeff Fager: “I don’t look at the research. I don’t believe in it. You do what you do well.”

And then there are the anchors: the one with the dramatic delivery (Diane Sawyer), the one with the dry wit (Brian Williams) and the one who rarely smiles (Scott Pelley).

And when added up, the three evening newscasts are watched by 20 million viewers every night.

Friedman knows better than most how these three news operations work, because he’s worked for all three. (Friedman writes how “CBS, like the other networks, has drastically cut back its foreign coverage resources.” In fact it was Friedman, while at CBS, who had to personally oversee many of those cuts.)

As we said, it’s a chock-full piece. But the section about celebrity coverage sticks out, as it’s where the three broadcasts seem to differ the most, something NBC Nightly News anchor Williams is deeply aware of.

[H]e is fully aware that Sawyer’s ratings got closer than ever to his when she began her program one night with a report on the trial of Michael Jackson’s doctor, while NBC was leading with the economy and politics.

“Hasn’t that always been the dirty little secret that we know that third rail is there?,” Williams says. “We all know exactly where it is and sometimes you have to walk real close to it. I happen to think people don’t tune into the Nightly News to see the Michael Jackson story. There’s a lot we won’t do.”

CBS News chairman Jeff Fager goes one further, telling Friedman: “the country is so sick of all the celebrity stuff, which we’re completely drowning in. The same thing with crime; it starts to look the same. If someone said to me, ‘Look Jeff, you have to go downmarket,’ I’d say, ‘Find someone else to do it.’”

(It should be noted CBS News has found success in crime coverage on its “48 Hours Mystery” program.)

But back to the evening newscasts and why one show is successfully and unapologetically forging its own path.

Read more

The AP’s David Bauder wonders who is getting the “gets” since Oprah Winfrey left the daily TV airwaves. The answer, increasingly, is Oprah, for her OWN show, “Oprah’s Next Chapter.” Bauder also says Katie Couric “could be Winfrey’s true heir as an interviewer in daytime.” But also, don’t count out the news organizations, particularly ABC.

While “Today” and CBS’ “60 Minutes” are able to land strong interviews, no television organization has been as aggressive as ABC News in seeking the big “gets.”

“There’s more to ABC’s efforts than filling a void left by Winfrey, said Eric Avram, who runs the network’s interview bookings. Still, he doesn’t miss her. “Oprah obviously had an enormous presence and her iconic show was one of our biggest competitors,” he said.

Bauder talks with ABC News consultant, publicist to the stars Howard Bragman who says NBC News should not be underestimated. “They are both working very hard now,” he said. Just last night on “Rock Center,” Kate Snow, formerly of ABC now with NBC, interviewed an Ohio man who is the first to speak publicly about the sexual abuse he endured under former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky.

“It’s no secret that CNN’s ratings have suffered the most, even though all three are down,” Howard Kurtz said as he discussed falling cable news ratings on “Reliable Sources” Sunday.

“I respect CNN for trying to be a straight news channel at a time when it is certainly easier or cheaper to go the partisan or opinionated route that MSNBC has done following the lead of Fox News,” said Kurtz.

The Washington Post’s Paul Farhi says it’s a good strategy for CNN, only because if the network turned an ideological corner now, that street of viewers would already be taken.

“The cable networks have figured out that you can’t rely on the news cycle, you’ve got to get appointment television. Partisanship by MSNBC and Fox has been the strategy. CNN’s strategy has been to play it down the middle. If it went more partisan, it would be dividing a market that is already occupied.”

Politico’s Dylan Byers thinks last night’s coverage of the Wisconsin recall was, “The worst night on cable news.” That’s his headline anyway.

Really? The worst? Ever?

Seems to me it was exactly the way it was supposed to go. MSNBC’s Ed Schultz rooting for democratic challenger Tom Barrett and Fox News’ Sean Hannity rooting for republican Gov. Scott Walker. With CNN in the middle prepared to break in to Piers Morgan‘s retelling of the Queen’s Jubilee with their call (8 minutes after NBC, 2 minutes after FOX), reporting and analysis.

This is the state of cable news at the moment. No critic or viewer should be surprised at this point by what the cable news channels did last night. But does that make it “the worst?” What do you think?