A lesson for television news

Here’s the $15 million question: in the rough state of our economy, why are news networks paying their anchors an insane amount of money, despite declining ratings? Some people on television make too much money, for doing too little. Networks must rethink their strategies if they want their programs to survive an era when television news is struggling… to say the least.
Katie Couric and Diane Sawyer (just to name a few) all make a whopping $15 million a year, while Matt Lauer makes $13 million. When Katie Couric became anchor of CBS evening news, CBS employers all over the world felt it. Many were laid off just to compensate for Couric’s salary.
The indifference these on air “talents” have towards the repercussions of their high salaries is part of the key issue here. The other part is that these networks are still willing to negotiate extremely high salaries with these anchors, despite their dropped ratings.
Yes, these people you see reporting on network news are hardworking and talented, but to be quite frank, reading off a teleprompter,and 25 second copy stories about political reports and maybe an "exclusive interview" here and there is hardly worth earning more than $10 million dollars.
As a broadcast journalism major myself I know the inside world of broadcast news, and I will be the first to admit that the salaries these people on network news make is ridiculous. I propose a change be made in the world of news.
Here’s the $10 solution:
First of all the presidents of these networks need to come to terms that the quality of their news programs are declining, because of their limited staff. Many talented on air reporters, producers, writers, and camera crews were laid off after the networks couldn’t afford to pay them, because they decided an anchor was way more important. Many were left without work and the networks were stuck with limitations on their resources.
The solution to this is simple. (Drum roll please…) Pay your anchors less. If they don’t like it, then let them leave. I know for a fact there are tons of people who would gladly take Couric or Sawyer’s job for less money, without complaint. Many of these people are not essential to the news anyways. If they leave because they won’t get paid as much it’s ok. After all, they never did increase ratings from the beginning. Networks have nothing to lose.
Many people within the network news companies may argue that it’s not so simple to fix this dilemma, but they are getting it all wrong. Their theory is, pay a well-known person more to grab more viewers. The sad reality is that this strategy is not working. It may even be a plus if these on- air people leave. Networks need to diversify to grab a larger audience. Most anchors are Caucasians in their fifties to sixties. I highly doubt this will grab the attention of college students or minorities, especially those who don’t have a keen interest in the news. Networks need young minorities reporting the news. They are more relatable, specifically to the minority population of our nation.
Instead of spending their company’s money on high salaries, networks need to use the money on training younger reporters and correspondents around the world. It’s all about investing in the young talent today, so that news networks can have seasoned, diverse reporters for the future; Not just one anchor the network is banking on to draw in viewers.No pun intended. It may also inspire the next generation of broadcast journalists to be less greedy. After all, making the most money shouldn’t be what journalism is all about.