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.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Some people continue to pretend that anchor people are reporters.
To win respect, the networks seem to feel they have to keep absurdly overstating their anchors' reporting cred.
There is a long-standing tradition in the mainstream press of middle-of-the-road journalism that is objective and fair. I would hate to see that fall victim to a panic about the Fox effect.
By the same token, I think news has more and more of a pro bono aspect to all the networks. When we do our election coverages throughout this coming year, it's not a money-maker for us. It is more of a public service situation.
If MSNBC went off the air tomorrow, what difference would it make? If the 'Huffington Post' went out of business tomorrow, what difference would it make?
The news anchor is exactly that - an anchor, a center, a focus.
I don't think the news department will have to lie down and play dead like it has in the past. By and large the network has been understanding, but then so have I.
If there is a silver lining in the action of MSNBC against Keith Olbermann, it is that people will now pay more attention to the political role of corporate media in America.
Cable news is more titillating to talk about who's up and who's down and all that nonsense as opposed to what's actually done.
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.