I noticed in Slate’s current magazine roundup that apparently the cover story for the New York Times Magazine’s May 19th edition is about network news and the fact that it’s “not dead,” particularly now in post 9/11 America. Sayeth the Slate blurb: “Viewers returned to the networks because they trusted Tom, Peter, and Dan more than the screaming heads on cable.” An anchor in that other sense of the word.
Contrast this to a piece that appears in the May 20th (print) edition of The New Republic by Slate columnist Rob Walker: “Anchor Steam: Why the Evening News is Worse than ‘O’Reilly'”. While Walker acknowledges that all three networks did a good job in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 (not sure I agree, see my comments here), he makes the point that “the network news, which defends itself against detractors by invoking the earnest sobriety of its broadcasts, contains as much hype and fake populism as any of its cable competitors.” In the end, Walker wonders why they even bother.
Elsewhere, veteran journo David Halberstam weighs in with his opinion.