EyeQ Tech review EyeQ Tech EyeQ Tech tuyển dụng review công ty eyeq tech eyeq tech giờ ra sao EyeQ Tech review EyeQ Tech EyeQ Tech tuyển dụng seafood export seafood export seafood export seafood export seafood export seafood export seafood food soft-shell crab soft-shell crab soft-shell crab soft-shell crab soft-shell crab soft-shell crab soft-shell crab soft-shell crab soft-shell crabs soft-shell crabs soft-shell crabs soft-shell crabs soft-shell crabs double skinned crabs
US News

NO BOLD STROKES, JUST THE SAME OLD FOLKS

THERE are two crucial elements missing from ABC’s plan to fix “Good Morning America”: creativity and guts.

It isn’t particularly creative or gutsy to lure Charlie Gibson back to the morning show and pair him with Diane Sawyer – especially since they’re being billed as “transitional” until a new team is found.

If they’re going to be gone by the time “GMA” moves into its new Times Square home at 1500 Broadway next September, what’s the point?

“Good Morning America” has big problems – the most obvious of which is that viewers are changing the channel.

Turning “GMA” around requires new ideas rendered in bold strokes. ABC has a rare opportunity to reinvent morning TV, to break the mold of the tired old morning-show formula and do something completely different.

So what does the network do? It brings back tired old Charlie Gibson and cons Diane Sawyer into waking up in the wee hours of the morning.

That doesn’t sound very innovative. It sounds like a desperation move aimed at stemming the loss of viewers as quickly as possible in response to intense pressure from network higher-ups and affiliates to fix “GMA” or else.

Whenever a show is in such dire straits, on-air personalities are the first to go. Lisa McRee and Kevin Newman were so bland they made Katie Couric and Matt Lauer seem exotic.

The eventual dumping of McRee and Newman had been in the wind since early in the fall season. The only thing to ask ABC about their removal is: What took you so long? And after waiting until the last week of the year to make your move, why bring in Charlie and Diane?

The thinking at ABC News seems to be that “GMA’s” remaining viewers will stick around to watch the two seasoned veterans, if only because their faces are familiar.

That would seem to be the only reason (and a thin one at that) to tune in at all come Jan.18, since ABC News executives offered little evidence they have any other ideas for putting “GMA” back into contention against NBC’s “Today” show.

Instead of concrete plans, reporters got pompous platitudes. “The key to the success of ‘Good Morning America’ is providing irresistible news and information to viewers as they start their day,” said the show’s newly named executive producer, Shelley Ross.

“It has to be a substantive, smart, intelligent program that speaks to what people are truly interested in. … When you get up in the morning, you want to feel that they’re your family members,” said ABC News President David Westin.

Diane Sawyer and Charlie Gibson as family members? Not in my family, David, or in any families I know.

You’re on the right track, though. “GMA” needs personalities that better reflect the diversity of American families in 1999.

And there’s no better place to showcase that diversity than “GMA’s” soon-to-be new home in Times Square, a destination for millions of Americans every year.

If ABC can find the right mix of personalities and place them in an environment that takes full advantage of “GMA’s” Times Square locale, the ABC morning show may finally be in a position by next September to give the “Today” show a run for its money.

After all, America, wouldn’t you rather go to Times Square than Rockefeller Center?