$10 Million buyout for Ann Curry

[Sultanosurf]

Originally Posted by TVMattNYC

You mean what just about every LOCAL anchor does?

Well, thanks for the "just about every" caveat...

[Lazlo Toth]

Originally Posted by Kace

Jenna? Katie Couric? In that case, it may come down to whether Jenna can pull off the Peter Pan look.

Didn't you mean pull off the Peter Pan costume?

[Kace]

Creepy.

[Mom]

Watching that clip of Ann's goodbye last Thursday was cringe worthy. You know she wanted to let loose on Matt, since he apparently had a lot to do with her getting fired. He should have shut-up and let Al or Natalie do the "Ann is great" eulogy. I didn't like her much on the show but what a deplorable way to let her go. I also heard that Savannah Guthrie was there in the studio waiting to be introduced as the new host but that idea was canned last minute.

[Marty McFly]

Yeah, but Matt was RIGHT.

Ann is NOT anchor or co-host material. I remember when it was announced that she was taking Meredith's spot and I thought, 'well, there goes the Today show.'

[The Mockingbird]

No offense to the on-air people on the forum, but I personally don't understand why people attach so much significance to the affairs of meat puppets.

[missippiphotog]

The woman is getting 10 million to leave the show so you really can't feel sorry for her. There are far worse ways she could have been let go and getting reassigned to do hard news is not a demotion in my book. Again, Ann has class and will do fine in her new role.

[Clever Login Name]

Originally Posted by The Mockingbird

No offense to the on-air people on the forum, but I personally don't understand why people attach so much significance to the affairs of meat puppets.

Or to network "news" in general.

[The Mockingbird]

If anyone knows, can they also explain why people are supposed to care about the Jersey Shore and American Idol? That will save time for everyone.

[FD2BLK]

I would think the people interested in Jersey Shore and American Idol probably would have seen the shows anyway.

[Mom]

I don't know. I don't watch much tv except for re-runs of "The Closer." I haven't watched local news in ... well, I can't remember how long. Funny, I still know what's going on in the world, this country and my town.

[Another OMB]

Originally Posted by Mom

I never cared for Ann Curry and for one reason in particular. Whenever she read a story or did an interview about something that was sad or tragic she'd use this tone of voice that was fake hushed/fake concerned/fake just about everything. I hated it. I thought it was a bad attempt at playing to the crowd in a way that was completely disingenuous. I'm sure she's a lovely woman. And I'm sure she can walk away with her head held high and her bank account bulging.

I hope her replacement is Natale Morales and not Savannah Guthrie. Guthrie looks like a 7th grader who stumbled into NBC one day and someone said, "You're cute enough. Come over here and see if you can read that prompter while looking perky."

Originally Posted by TVMattNYC

You mean what just about every LOCAL anchor does?

I never watch the morning shows so haven't seen what you're talking about, Mom, but I can imagine because, as Matt says, just about every anchor does it.

So I'm curious, and I mean this as a way to learn (not disagreeing with you or criticizing your comment), what SHOULD anchors do when they have to read a tragic/sad story? I'm not an anchor, but I used to fill in at my previous station and I remember consultants telling us that we SHOULD change our voices when we come to a story that's sad or tragic. You certainly don't want to read everything the same way.

[22]

You make a good point. I absolutly hate the "sad voice." However, one of Cronkites finest moments was when he announced the Kennedy assasination. He cried. His voice broke. He was full of emotion. It resonated with all of America.

Perhaps the answer is that the emotion must be genuine. We can see through the fake emotional voice. And it is disgusting.

You know the old saying... The secret to being a good TV news anchor is sincerity. And once you can fake that, you've got it made.

[TVMattNYC]

Originally Posted by Another OMB

I never watch the morning shows so haven't seen what you're talking about, Mom, but I can imagine because, as Matt says, just about every anchor does it.

So I'm curious, and I mean this as a way to learn (not disagreeing with you or criticizing your comment), what SHOULD anchors do when they have to read a tragic/sad story? I'm not an anchor, but I used to fill in at my previous station and I remember consultants telling us that we SHOULD change our voices when we come to a story that's sad or tragic. You certainly don't want to read everything the same way.

No, you shouldn't read the stories the same way, but you don't have to turn your voice into a caricature of itself.

Local anchors are notorious for over-emphasizing the voice changes. There's one in particular here in NYC who sounds like fingernails on a chalkboard, it's so bad. Just from the exaggerated changes in her voice, a blind person who doesn't understand a word of English would understand the stories.

"Hi. I'm turning on my sad, quiet voice because I'm reading a story about Iraq War veterans."
"NOW I'M TELLING YOU ABOUT THE MAYOR SO SIT UP AND PAY ATTENTION!"
"nowI'mreadingstoriesthatareofnorealsignificancewe callthem"pacer"storiestheyarereallyjustfillertoget ustothenextcommercialbreakandyoucantellIdon'treall ygiveacrap."

[Pro]

Originally Posted by 22

You make a good point. I absolutly hate the "sad voice." However, one of Cronkites finest moments was when he announced the Kennedy assasination. He cried. His voice broke. He was full of emotion. It resonated with all of America.

I heard Cronkite say on more than one occasion that he regretted that moment. And he was glad he recovered almost immediately.

I know I'm hopelessly old fashioned, but I still think that emotionalism has no place in reporting.

[The Mockingbird]

Or politics.

[rootboyslim]

Originally Posted by Pro

I heard Cronkite say on more than one occasion that he regretted that moment. And he was glad he recovered almost immediately.

I know I'm hopelessly old fashioned, but I still think that emotionalism has no place in reporting.

Pro and I am in agreement yet again. What I disliked mostly about Ann Curry is that the story was always about her. Those septuplets of whatever amount they were, was a disgusting display of "look at me, look at me" and when it was about the kids, she seemed to pout. I am not a huge fan of the reporter involvement that goes way over the top as Curry did in almost everything she reported. She didn't seem like she had a firm grasp on big issues either. As for eye candy, I find her extraordinarily attractive. No problems in that department.

[22]

I also agree. I hate the emotional newscaster. However, you can see why consultants tell anchors to do it. And you can see why those anchors are liked by the public.

[Sultanosurf]

I can't help it. When management has me at some local sports event, I tend to wear team colors, get the homerisms going, and maybe even pump a fist and shed a tear. (Nah, seriously, managers, please think again before making your news and sports teams homers)

Some stories do get you emotional, especially when it's live. Families meeting servicepeople coming home has been the latest story where it was tough to keep composure. That still doesn't seem to be Curry's problem. She just didn't connect, especially, it seems, with women.

[Pro]

Originally Posted by 22

I also agree. I hate the emotional newscaster. However, you can see why consultants tell anchors to do it. And you can see why those anchors are liked by the public.

The public says they want newspeople to just "give us the facts". But ratings indicate otherwise.

[22]

Originally Posted by Pro

The public says they want newspeople to just "give us the facts". But ratings indicate otherwise.

They do indeed. You can't trust the public for "What is news." Johnny Carson used to say if the public watched what they say they want, PBS would be the most watched network

[Another OMB]

Originally Posted by TVMattNYC

No, you shouldn't read the stories the same way, but you don't have to turn your voice into a caricature of itself.

Local anchors are notorious for over-emphasizing the voice changes. There's one in particular here in NYC who sounds like fingernails on a chalkboard, it's so bad. Just from the exaggerated changes in her voice, a blind person who doesn't understand a word of English would understand the stories.

"Hi. I'm turning on my sad, quiet voice because I'm reading a story about Iraq War veterans."
"NOW I'M TELLING YOU ABOUT THE MAYOR SO SIT UP AND PAY ATTENTION!"
"nowI'mreadingstoriesthatareofnorealsignificancewe callthem"pacer"storiestheyarereallyjustfillertoget ustothenextcommercialbreakandyoucantellIdon'treall ygiveacrap."

Thanks, Matt. That answers my question. I guess the hard part is, in fact, making it sincere. I hardly ever watch any of the morning shows so I haven't seen enough of Ann Curry's reporting to know one way or another.

I guess the trick is to find a balance between Ted Baxter and an over-emphasized anchor.