»» Columnists

What the Sunday Morning Shows Need Is A New Media Makeover


“Since Sunday shows never really appealed to 20-year-olds, Thompson thinks that trying to skew younger or add new technology and graphics isn’t likely to work. “Even before cable and the Internet, you wouldn’t have gotten younger viewers,” Thompson said.”
— from “Will the Sunday shows ever change?” Politico, January 9, 2010.

A debate has been raging online about the Sunday morning political talk shows, one of the venerated old institutions in American political discourse. It was started by Jay Rosen of NYU, who tweeted that maybe Sunday talk shows should fact check everything their guests say on Sundays and run it online every Wednesday.

Today, Politico’s Michael Calderone ran a thoughtful piece on whether Sunday shows will ever change, including commentary from several media personalities. They all agreed on one thing: the Sunday show format has changed very little over the years, and has done almost nothing to adapt to the new media age that we now live in.  And as such, their audience is shrinking.  Their guests are largely older white males and Washington insiders, their show formats haven’t changed since they were first started, and they rarely focus on issues that most Americans care about.  They’re Beltway shows that appeal only to Beltway audiences.

What troubled me the most was a quote in Calderone’s piece from Robert Thompson, a professor at Syracuse, who argued that the case for modernizing Sunday shows wasn’t that relevant because young people wouldn’t care enough to watch the shows anyway.

I stopped reading right there. I am 21 years old and have been watching Sunday talk shows for as long as I can remember, thanks to a very politically active father. And yeah, that puts me in that tiny category of political junkies who will watch Sunday shows no matter what.  But as a 21-year-old I resent having my entire generation casually brushed off as uninterested in Sunday morning talk shows.  Perhaps my cohorts would tune in every Sunday if they felt like these shows catered to them and spoke on the issues they care about. We are a very politically active generation, and we proved that in the 2008 election.  So it’s not that we’re not interested – the problem is that the networks are failing to adapt and provide programming that appeals to and informs the masses.

I fully believe that the Sunday morning talk shows need a new media makeover, and I have a handful of ideas for how they can do so.  I admit that I know absolutely nothing about what goes into the making of a political talk show. But what I do know  is that my generation wants transparency, participation, and engagement in their political process – and their news.  So here are my suggestions on how the Sunday shows might undertake a new media makeover that could finally usher them into the year 2010:

Take Questions From Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube

We may be living in the YouTube age, but from the look of most Sunday shows you’d never know it. Remember the 2008 presidential election debates, where CNN and YouTube asked citizens to submit questions to ask of the candidates, and then featured selected video questions during the debate? Would it kill us to allow citizens to submit questions to the newsmakers and politicians on Meet The Press, Face The Nation, and This Week? Whether it’s via Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube videos, allowing citizens to ask questions would give them a connection to the shows, engage them, and allow them to play a role in setting the news agenda. And talk show hosts like David Gregory and Bob Schieffer should help facilitate that citizen-politician connection. Although David Gregory, Bob Schieffer, and George Stephanopoulos all have Twitter accounts, their level of engagement with fans is very low. Schieffer and Stephanopoulos’s Twitter accounts aren’t even really them, but are merely RSS feeds of updates from their websites.

And while we’re on the subject, the only Sunday show with a Facebook page and Twitter account is Meet The Press. And even then, their Facebook and Twitter are both used as one-way, broadcast mediums only. The MTP Facebook page is used solely to push out promotional content for each week’s show, and they receive little response from Facebook users.  But what if instead they posted a status update asking citizens: what do you want to ask Janet Napolitano on Meet The Press next Sunday? What if there was a chance David Gregory would actually ask your question to Napolitano on air? I guarantee you citizens of all ages and all backgrounds would start paying more attention if they felt like the networks were paying attention to them.

Create Twitter Hashtags and Highlight Commentary On The Show

Every Sunday I like to tweet a few observations from the morning talk shows, as do many of the other politicos on Twitter. And yet, none of the networks have designated Twitter hashtags for citizens who want to discuss their shows. Designating a hashtag for discussion of their shows — #mtp, for example, for Meet The Press – would encourage citizens to participate in actively discussing their opinions of the shows online.  And then, networks could take it a step further by displaying selected tweet-comments in a crawl at the bottom of the screen, allowing us to see viewer reactions to the shows in real time, as they unfold on television.

Spotlight Citizen Photos From Flickr

This Week with George Stephanopoulos always takes a few minutes in the second half of the show to highlight the “Sunday funnies.” What if he were to take a few minutes to highlight citizen photos of the week’s news events from Flickr? What if every show had a Flickr pool where they asked citizens to submit their photos of news from their cities and towns, and then the host of the show were to spotlight a few particularly good photos that illustrate what happened each week that was important to ordinary citizens around the country?

Bring Bloggers on Air

The interesting thing about blogging is that anyone can have access to do it. And when hidden behind a computer screen, there are no barriers to access – like race, gender, age, even education level. The best and the brightest can build an audience and rise to the top on their own, and come from a diverse array of backgrounds. Instead of having the usual suspects on Sunday shows every week, the networks should aim to bring more bloggers on air, and more diverse ones too. Instead of John McCain, who’s made hundreds of appearances, or Juan Williams or Mara Liasson, who appear on these shows every week but are barely relevant to most Americans, why not bring in smart, young, diverse bloggers that millions of Americans read every day and identify with?  How about Amanda Terkel, the wicked smart young editor of Think Progress? Nate Silver, the math whiz behind FiveThirtyEight.com? Or Andrew Sullivan, author of one of the most highly-trafficked political blogs in the world? These are the people our generation pays attention to — and they deserve a seat at the table on Sunday talk shows.

Audiences aren’t interested in the typical stale-male-pale panels that Sunday shows are so accustomed to. Bloggers are the new pundits and they’re already setting the news agenda — whether the Sunday shows want to accept it or not.

The Sunday political talk shows used to be an important part of American politics, but as they refuse to get with the new media program, their significance is quickly dwindling. Here’s hoping that 2010 will be the year the networks finally use new media to broaden their audiences beyond the typical Beltway crowd.

Nisha Chittal is a new media strategist and political blogger whose work has been featured in the Washington Post online and NPR.org. She lives in Washington, DC and writes about politics, new media, and women’s issues. You can check out her blog, Politicoholic, or follow her on Twitter here.

EmailTwitterFacebookDiggRedditStumble UponYahoo BuzzLinkedInTumblrDelicious

7 comments

  • michtom michtom says:

    Some excellent suggestions, but I have severe doubts that the shows will adapt until they get completely desperate, and then only within the mainstream, establishment-supporting mode they use today.

    As Glenn Greenwald has pointed out on more than one occasion, the “journalists” that run these shows are unwilling to challenge the party line of their guests, because they are in the same party:

    David Gregory: I think there are a lot of critics who think that . . . . if we did not stand up and say this is bogus, and you’re a liar, and why are you doing this, that we didn’t do our job.  I respectfully disagree.  It’s not our role. http://bit.ly/8HurKB

    George Stephanopolis was not up to the task of pointing out that Rudy Giuliani was, at best, spectacularly mistaken when he claimed there were no terrorist attacks under W.

    Don’t you think that the questions/comments chosen by these fools will continue to feed that establishment line?

  • The Real Royal King The Real Royal King says:

    I hope ABC selects Stephanopolis’ successor, carefully. The show really lost its edge under his time. I hope that replacement is not Koppel, however. He has little to offer these days. Ifill is an interesting concept.

    As for Gregory, I was always impressed with him as a reporter, but as a moderator, he is out of his element. I honestly believe MTP is at its low point now. I never have the sense he is up to speed on the issues. He seems to merely rehash cold media talking points.

  • Tom Carswell Tom Carswell says:

    I’m not sure the networks believe they can attract younger viewers, especially on a Sunday morning. Nisha, I do believe if the nets were serious about younger viewers, they’d hire some young social media people and get the ball rolling. Reliable Sources on CNN was asking for questions from viewers, but that stopped and I know not why.

    In terms of content, I enjoy the talking heads more than the guests because it’s unscripted opinion. Perhaps they should invite bloggers/tweeters onto the shows and ask their opinions.

  • Rachel Sklar Rachel Sklar says:

    I know so many young people who are Sunday morning junkies – but it’s not only to attract viewers that the shows should diversify, it’s that there is a lot going on outside the narrow Beltway sphere and it would make for much more interesting and dynamic discussions. Nisha for MTP!

  • citizenjeff citizenjeff says:

    Misha, you’re talking about rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

    The people who run these shows want to control the debate. They’re not open to persuasion or real democracy.

  • Derek Chan says:

    These are great ideas that can refresh the look and feel of these shows, but I don’t think they address the real issue. The issue is the re-establishment of journalistic integrity. Modernizing these shows through the integration of social media is not to going address that.

    These programs do need to do a better job at fact checking and calling out public officials. This won’t be helped by adding bells and whistles that don’t alleviate the perceived decline in quality. As someone who has fully embraced social media, I recognize that social media and blogging is a young phenomenon that still has limitations. There’s no guarantee that the inclusion of social media will improve the overall quality and balance of content in these shows. For example, the three bloggers that you mention all fall in the left side of the political spectrum (yes, I consider Andrew Sullivan a liberal; I agree with him most of the time). So will social media, which trends young (and perhaps ageist) and progressive, actually make the content quality of Sunday morning talk worse? I don’t know, but I fear that as a possibility.

    Maybe the news networks can look at NPR, which despite it’s use of social networking, is still fundamentally a a radio network. NPR, in particular Morning Edition and All Things Considered, is widely respected as a source of unbiased and quality news and has been enjoying record ratings. But unlike the networks, NPR can take risks because of it’s unique business model.

    Which leads to the business case for “modernizing” Sunday morning talk. As we all know, these programs are not a public service and are advertisement driven. Maybe the reason why the networks are slow to change is because they don’t feel a need to change because they’re are satisfied with the ad revenue they take in from these shows. After all, the current target demographic that you cited (middle aged, white males) is a high income demographic which attracts a certain kind of advertiser. The cost of 30 seconds ad time is probably reasonable due to the time of the week and the relative inexpense of producing This Week or State of the Union. So unless the networks are hemorrhaging ad revenue, they don’t have a lot of incentive to change. And frankly, there’s nothing wrong with the concept of these shows being a niche product if that’s what the networks want them as. Change for the sake of change is a rarely a persuasive argument.

  • disgusted disgusted says:

    REMEMBER! The THREE most IMPORTANT buttons on your remote:
    MUTE! , “Prev Channel”! , and OFF!

  • If you would like to comment, please login or register:

    » Login » Register

    » Or connect with your Facebook account:

    Bret Baier Keeps Pres. Obama On Track In Combative Fox News Exclusive Interview

    video

    The first part of the much-anticipated Fox News exclusive interview between Bret Baier and Pres. Barack Obama took place at the top of Special Report, and although it couldn't be viewed as contentious, there was so much interrupting it caused Baier to acknowledge the tactic at the end of the interview. Here's a breakdown, and video:

    Bret Baier Part II: Obama Opines On Iran, Israel And Tiger Woods

    video

    After serving over a year in office, Barack Obama finally sat down for an interview with Fox News today, when chatted in a for roughly 17 minutes in a pre-taped segment with Bret Baier. The sometimes combative tone of the interview stands in stark contrast to the "walk and talk" segment between Baier and Obama, likely recorded in advance of the actual sit-down taping. While walking in the halls of the White House, Obama addressed foreign policy issues like Israel and Iran, and even gave a rather forgiving opinion on Tiger Woods.



    © 2010 Mediaite, LLC | About Us | Advertise | Newsletter | Privacy | User Agreement | Disclaimer | Power Grid FAQ | Contact | Archives | Dan Abrams, Founder | Hosting by Datagram | RSS