Looking Ahead, Again

Last week's blog on the economics of experience and the benefits of age (scroll down to read it) mentions an Op Ed piece I wrote for the San Diego Union Tribune, nine years ago. In case you were unable to access it I will paste the text to the end of this blog. It is interesting to read it, nine years later. Most of the comments hold up. The only thing I might change is my too harsh appraisal of the CBS morning program. On most days, The Early Show, on CBS, is as good--or bad--as Today and Good Morning America. In the ratings order nothing has changed; CBS is still in third place. But all three old line morning shows are still too similar to distinguish themselves. On many days we find them unwatchable, unless you're interested in an exploration of despicable behavior or freakish heroics masquerading as news. The problem is not that the morning programs cover so many unseemly acts and pathetic stories of human suffering, it is that they do so incessantly. The life of these stories is prolonged beyond their importance or, quite frankly, their interest to viewers. It's not all bad and we still watch until we can't watch anymore. On some days, when there is real news, the morning programs do a fine job. It's just that they could be so much better.

Perhaps the best examples of what could and should be are Sunday Morning on CBS, which continues to be an outstanding program, and 60 Minutes, revitalized and doing some of its best work in years. That nine year old piece, below, addresses the reason why 60 Minutes is better now than it was a few years ago.

So here's my piece from May 23, 2000, as it appeared in the San Diego Union Tribune.

Before we begin, two disclosure items:

1. I love television.

2. Television stations and networks paid my salary for 26 years, first as a news producer and later as an executive.

Quite frankly, I'm disappointed. Despite what some critics have said over the years, television has been a positive force in our country. It has, to paraphrase Edward R. Murrow, informed, entertained and at times, enlightened us. We now have more choices than ever. From infomercials about "ab-rollers" to university produced forums on science, the breadth of offerings is wider than ever. With the advent of digital technology, the possibilities for the future are even more exciting. So why am I disappointed?

The engineers and scientists who develop today's incredible technologies are way ahead of the folks who provide "content" for television. The best and brightest producers follow the money. The folks with the money want more money. Nothing wrong with that. The idea is sound. Invest in good programming. People will watch and the folks with money will make more money. Where it falls apart is that the money folks want to play it so safe they invest in copies of what worked, yesterday.

It's appalling -- that's not too strong a word -- that the three network morning programs are carbon copies of one another. It's also not surprising that the CBS entry is a dismal failure. Do we really need three New York-based broadcasts that feature shots of Manhattan streets outside their studios?

And it's not just the morning shows. When network executives discovered news magazines could be run profitably several times a week, the three old-line networks went nuts. Do we really need three "Datelines," multiple "20/20s," and another "60 Minutes?"

These are all good television programs. That's not the point. When they become assembly line enterprises, they lose their specialness. Eventually, the viewers start finding other programs to watch.

By far the biggest success story of the current TV season is ABC's "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" Viewers love it. Families watch together. Regis does a great job. It's a fun show, for a number of reasons. Again, FOX's "Greed" and NBC's "Twenty One" aren't as entertaining or successful.

Local news, where I labored most of my career, follows the same disappointing pattern. Innovation is rare. The two new entries, in San Diego, look younger than their more established competitors. But, despite overt and obvious stylistic excesses at the FOX affiliate -- which are not always bad -- the content agenda remains predictable and overly dependent on police scanners.

For commercial television to realize the potential of the new technologies, owners will have to break away from the copy-cat mentality of recent years. Owners, these days, are the biggest companies in the world. GE/NBC, Disney/ABC, News Corp./FOX, Viacom/ CBS, all have tremendous resources. For financial enterprises of such great magnitude to take creative chances requires a likelihood of success and profit. Maybe it's time they figured out that we don't need three versions of the same programs.

I still love television. When the good shows work, it's magic. When the news media cover important events in compelling fashion, it brings us together as a community and a nation. In times of crisis, it's even life-saving. And programming that celebrates the best in us serves our common good. In the face of cynical politics and our everyday struggles, these scientific, dramatic, cultural and journalistic diversions remind us to aspire to excellence.

What we need now are leaders in the media world who will encourage creative risk taking. Obviously, good programming is profitable. And in the language of the new world of media ownership, that's not beside the point. It is the point.

(End of May 23, 2000 Op Ed)

My point, then and now, is that whatever the economic pressures, saving money alone will not provide long-term success for the industry. Only by creating a culture of creativity and excellence will television thrive and grow.