The main job requirement for a network-news anchor is thinking it's the only important job in the world. This is a field where solemn gravitas isn't a drawback; it's the whole point.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I worked in three local news markets and in every single one of them, they said: 'You're a lousy anchor. We would love to renew your contract and have you be our lead reporter here, but we're not going to have you anchor.'
A good journalist is modest; his only job is simple: to decide what counts as news.
If someone says you're a reporter and doesn't want you to anchor then you wonder why you worked so hard at it.
I can't think of any other job in journalism where the newsmakers come to you.
You can be a great reporter and not be such a great talk show host.
My job as a television anchor or television reporter is not to proselytize.
TV journalism is a much more collaborative, horizontal business than print reporting. It has to be, because of the logistics. Anchors are wholly dependent on producers to do all the hustling.
In essence, I see the value of journalism as resting in a twofold mission: informing the public of accurate and vital information, and its unique ability to provide a truly adversarial check on those in power.
I think journalism is important.
The current wisdom now is that if the three networks are covering the news the same way the difference is the anchor people. I think that won't be true in the future.
No opposing quotes found.