First they bumped about 50% of the real news off the first World News Tonight broadcast after Jennings died and filled it with a segments about him. Then they included segments about him in just about every subsequent evening broadcast. Judging from the promos, their morning show has been packed with spots about him too.
I thought it would all end last night after they aired their commercial-free two-hour megatribute. But no. Tonight it’s another Jennings-loving segment, with the promise of more love in the morning!
And the kicker that inspired me to write this thread: They still call the nightly news broadcast, World News Tonight With Peter Jennings! That’s not just moronic, it’s creepy.
Yeah, that confuses me. They haven’t announced any plans to change it, but it’s not like when you name a memorial building after someone…
The guy was the public face of the news division for 20 years and a contributor for twice that long, so in that sense it’s hard to blame them, but there’s such a thing as too much.
I agree that there is such a thing as too much. But the man died on August 7th. The fact that his friends and colleagues are still publicly expressing grief and broadcasting tributes on August 11th just doesn’t seem to me like “too much.”
While I thought it was appropriate to devote a large segment of the broadcast on Monday to Jennings, and OK that NightLine did a farewell to him, it is time to move on.
Seems to me the best tribute to Jennings would be to get back to the duty to which he devoted his life–reporting world events.
I think it’s safe to say that, if his passing occurred during the regular TV season, there would’ve been a tribute or two but nowhere near the volume we’re witnessing now. Given the choice between Tribute and Rerun, the former comes across as more “respectful” and more logical.
My favorite moment was on the NBC news when Brian Williams (the new-broadcaster-who’s-not-Brokaw) gave a mini-tribute to him at the end (after devoting half the previous 30 minutes to him) and said (under August 8/ 7 p.m. on this page)
Two thoughts occurred:
1- If I lived near that highway in California (or had a relative who drove a tanker truck), I’d find that accident a whole helluva lot more newsworthy than “Peter Jennings is still dead”.
2- I can see it now: all of the media outlets (including NBC Nightly News) will now become reflective and say “You know what? We have strayed- let’s get back to real journalism!” and this will be the night a whole wonderful new era was born.
Of course the next night the NBC Nightly News had an interview with the Michael Jackson jurors.
Try not to be disrespectful as the world honors the life of a man that touched us all. He changed a lot of things for the better by what he chose to report, and how he reported it. In my opinion he is the last of the really honest reporters. If you can not honor the dead, say nothing. There is a great deal more going on than you suspect. When you get older, maybe you will understand better. They will continue calling it Peter Jennings World News until a replacement is found.
If you do one tenth as well with your life, you will be honored also.
I agree 100% with lekatt. The man isn’t even buried yet.
There are only three people who’ve died while still officially in the anchor chair. Frank McGee (Today Show), Frank Reynolds (ABC 1983) and Jennings. It’s not just that they died, it’s that they died while still on the job.
And consider this. When David Brinkley died, even though he had worked last for ABC, NBC ran more, longer and better tributes to him – giving Brinkley his propers for what he did for ABC. I think ABC is just giving Jennings his due.
And I say this as someone who didn’t care for Peter Jennings.
The world isn’t honoring him. ABC is, and as much as he deserves the praise, it’d be foolish to suggest they don’t have their ratings or brand in mind as they do so.
[quote]
If you can not honor the dead, say nothing.
Nobody’s dishonoring the dead. The issue is the network. There was a very nice tribute thread to Jennings that started the night he died.
What are you, the 2000 Year Old Man? You think everybody who disagrees with you is younger and doesn’t understand.
Once again, ABC is confusing fame with importance. To claim that Peter Jennings touched all of our lives is really a ridiculous statement to make. He read the news for 22 minutes a night and that’s that. He did a fine job of it, but so could many, many other people. The airwaves belong to the pulbic, and the purpose of the network news is to inform the public of the important events going on in the world. The death of Peter Jennings is deemed important only because he was personally known to the people at ABC. That does NOT make his death important or newsworthy to everyone else.
To be fair, the man really was a quality journalist, so I think that’s overstating the case. People may not identify with newscasters as much as they used to, but they do have some kind of impact. And of course, he didn’t just read the news, he had a major role at the news division and spent decades as a reporter before he became anchor.
I agree with Marley here. Network anchors aren’t just pretty talking heads hired to ‘read the news.’ They typically work their way up doing a lot of field work, and most of them continue doing field work even after they become anchor. Plus, the anchor does a lot behind the scenes to direct the news department.
That being said, I don’t really think a network news anchor is someone who has the power to “touch us all.”
I disagree with this too; I know people who do 110% as well with their lives, and aren’t honored like this. He was lucky because he was able to do as well as he did in front of several million people every night.
Honor the man for what he was: a man who was a part of the national-- and international-- lanscape for a very long time; and a respected journalist. But I don’t think journalists becoming the story in such a great quantity as Jennings has become is appropriate.
There are far more important things to report on, but this just seems another example of America’s-- and therefore the media’s-- obsession with celebrity.
