Subscribe | UPI Odd Newsletter Subscribe LOS ANGELES, March 6 (UPI) -- Whatever the outcome of the Walt Disney Co.'s clumsy attempt to replace the long-running "Nightline" on ABC with the comedy stylings of David Letterman, the incident provides further evidence that idealism is a lost art among American broadcasters. An argument can, however, be constructed that the pursuit of profit is as idealistic as the promotion of an informed public in a free society. Advertisement Federal law may cede ownership of the airwaves to the public, but broadcasting companies are, for the most part, privately owned. To the extent that broadcasters still accept any obligation to serve some notion of the public interest -- one of the main ideals that broadcast license holders have traditionally been held to -- commercial considerations largely inform any useful definition of what constitutes the public interest. Advertisement It was fine for CBS boss William S. Paley to operate the news division as a prestige-enhancing loss leader in his day. The competitive environment was brutal, but with just three networks, no cable and no home video, broadcasters enjoyed the relative luxury of being able to combine an almost philanthropic approach to news programming with a cutthroat style of entertainment programming -- all designed to achieve maximum gratification for viewers and stockholders. Those days are gone. In 2002, an unidentified ABC executive feels justified in alleging that "Nightline" has lost its relevancy -- but fails to say what the program is supposed to be relevant to. An informed electorate? A healthy corporate bottom line? The network's long-term strategic goals and objectives? And if the implication is that Letterman is more relevant than "Nightline," the same question must be asked of Dave: Relevant, as compared to what? Anyway, if "Nightline" has lost its relevancy, why is the U.S. media community even having this conversation about the wisdom of swapping out Koppel for Letterman? Broadcast journalism -- "Nightline" included -- has made many concessions to the cold imperatives of the marketplace. Heck, Ted Koppel's old boss, Roone Arledge, was a pioneer and a master in the field of gussying up news shows to make them more commercially competitive. Advertisement In an op-ed piece in Wednesday's Washington Post, two veteran journalists make the case that "Nightline" is actually turning in a highly competitive commercial performance for the network. Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, and Bill Kovach, chairman of the Committee of Concerned Journalists, point out that while the audience for Koppel's show is down 8 percent over the past five years, ABC entertainment programs leading into the late local news have lost 18 percent of their audience during that time. Rosenstiel and Kovach also report that while "Nightline" is projected to make $13 million this year, the topical comedy show that follows it -- "Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher" -- is a money loser. "Nightline" -- which began in 1980 in response to an international crisis, the taking of hostages at the U.S. embassy in Teheran -- has managed to thrive in the marketplace and still collect an impressive amount of acclaim from journalistic purists. The show has six Peabody Awards, 10 duPont-Columbia Awards and scores of Emmys in its trophy case. Survey the cable news landscape to get an idea how tough it is inform and entertain at the same time. Most news presentation is either bland as cafeteria food or overcome by spectacle. Advertisement Bill O'Reilly on Fox is immensely watchable, but not terribly informative -- unless you can't decide what to think until you've heard the host's opinion expressed repeatedly. Larry King on CNN affords his guests a more gracious and respectful hearing than they get from O'Reilly, but very frequently allows his interview subjects to exploit the opportunity for the most blatant kind of self-promotion. "Nightline's" ability to harmonize its mission to inform with the competitive requirement to be also watchable is the broadcast journalism equivalent of alchemy. None of this argues that ABC is obliged to keep "Nightline" where it is. Public interest advocates argue that Disney and ABC have an obligation to inform the electorate, but it is also true that responsible citizens have an obligation to keep themselves informed. They can do so, and do it well, with or without "Nightline." News consumers surely have other channels to tune to for the information they want. It is not that far off the point to suggest that Letterman's shtick actually promotes news consumption -- since viewers are generally more likely to enjoy his humor if they are up to date on their current events. Advertisement Fiercely loyal "Nightline" viewers may persuade Disney to scuttle the Letterman-for-Koppel deal. But not even "Gunsmoke" or "The Ed Sullivan Show" lasted forever, and the day is surely coming when Koppel's show will sign off for good. Disney, ABC, Koppel, "Nightline" viewers -- everyone with an interest what happens to the show -- needs to prepare for that day.
