Casting off TV anchors, Scripps hits the anti-AI nerve

Are anchors necessary for a television news show? In Baltimore, WMAR-TV made history as the first station to go on the air, in 1947. This month it became the first station to launch an anchorless broadcast, streaming news reports without the traditional introductions by a well-dressed man or woman.

I made reference to this in my weekly column for Baltimore Fishbowl.

The station laid off more than a dozen producers, anchors and photographers, according to The Baltimore Banner, and  WMAR’s owner, E.W. Scripps, plans to repeat the move to automation and artificial intelligence across the country. Scripps owns and operates 61 TV stations.

The company has plans to drop 270 employees, according to the trades, and it had a rough second quarter, with a revenue decline of nearly $50 million compared to the same period last year.

“We’re in the midst of transforming Scripps through fundamental changes in how we operate,” said President and CEO Adam Symson, a reference to the use of technology to reduce human costs.

Back to the question: Are anchors necessary for a newscast?

Assuming you still get your news from local television — an assumption that applies to fewer and fewer Americans — I think the answer is still yes. 

Anchors serve as a news operation’s most familiar faces; they present as the editors of the newscast. Though in reality few anchors are involved in the day’s gathering and assessment of news, they are the ones who say to the viewer: Here’s what’s important. When that face and voice is absent, the news reports seem random, unedited, and based solely on the judgement of the reporters who remain on staff.

Is that a bad thing? With all due respect to TV reporters, I note that most professional news operations — print or broadcast — are group efforts, involving reporters, managers, editors, producers and directors. It’s the considered judgement of those professionals that channels through an anchor in a credible TV newscast.

The other night, when I tuned into WMAR to see the new anchorless format, the first report was about a criminal trial, the second about a man who had exposed himself in a suburban shopping center. The first report seemed legit, but the second one stopped me: Was the arrest of a flasher the most important news story from that reporter’s beat? Was it really worth a full report, including sound bites from an outraged citizen (not the victim) and a law enforcement official?

The next segment was a weather report, and I had seen enough.

Going anchorless is more than just weird. It offends by hitting the anti-AI nerve.

It will be obvious to everyone that WMAR — and apparently all the Scripps TV stations — are struggling and trying to hold on. We can sympathize with that, but not with casting so many human beings overboard in an effort to survive. With that goes the considered, professional judgement about the most important news of the day, along with the most familiar voices and faces that viewers came to trust.