Kim Godwin is out as president of ABC News. The not-so-stunning news came down Sunday evening. The Wall Street Journal’s Joe Flint and Isabella Simonetti broke the story, but there have been reports for days that Godwin’s job might be in jeopardy.
CNN media reporter Oliver Darcy was on top of this last week, writing, “ABC News President Kim Godwin is skating on thinner and thinner ice.”
Godwin was named president of ABC News in 2021, becoming the first Black woman to be named president of a broadcast news network. But after some Disney restructuring in February, Debra OConnell was brought in to oversee the news division. OConnell — whose title is president, news group and networks, Disney Entertainment — became Godwin’s boss and held the real power in the news division. Darcy had reported last week that OConnell had been conducting a review of Godwin’s performance.
Darcy wrote last week, “OConnell, according to people familiar with the matter, has been astonished by Godwin’s management — or lack thereof — at the network. In private conversations, OConnell has pointed to a slew of problems that have materialized on Godwin’s watch, faulting the embattled ABC News chief for her hands-off leadership style, which she believes has allowed problems to fester.”
Well, on Sunday, Godwin sent an email to staff, writing, “I have decided to retire from broadcast journalism. Anyone who’s passionate about what we do knows there’s no other business like it, so this was not an easy or quick decision. But after considerable reflection, I’m certain it’s the right one for me as I look to the future and prioritize what’s most important for me and my family.”
The Journal wrote, “When Godwin joined ABC News from CBS, she had her work cut out for her. Though the news division was a ratings leader, many in the news division said it was suffering from a cutthroat and toxic culture. She instead became a polarizing figure inside the network. Detractors say she and her inner circle stifled discussion and dissent while failing to rise up to challenges facing the unit — including a decline in ratings at ‘Good Morning America.’”
Darcy wrote Sunday, “Godwin, staffers had complained, made several profound errors, including employing a hands-off approach to managing, not developing a strategic vision for the newsroom, eliminating the heads of the talent-relations division and appointing an inner-circle that alienated staffers, among a stream of other complaints.”
And those complaints eventually made their way to OConnell, Darcy reported.
No successor has been named. OConnell sent a memo to staff Sunday thanking Godwin for her work. Then she wrote, “For the time being, I will oversee ABC News and I’m looking forward to working with the leadership team as we forge a new path forward together. Thank you for your patience and understanding through this period of transition. Since assuming this role in February, my goal has been – and will continue to be – to provide this team with the means necessary to build on our success and carry on the proud tradition of ABC News into a future full of opportunity and innovation.”
I’ll have more on this in the days ahead.
Now onto what I had originally planned to lead today’s newsletter …
Sunday morning shows go off rails when guests refuse to answer
Each week, I’ll get a bunch of emails from readers frustrated by something they’ve seen on the Sunday morning news shows. Typically, it’s criticism of the moderators, whether it be NBC’s Kristen Welker (a common target of complainers, as was her “Meet the Press” predecessor Chuck Todd) or one of the other Sunday hosts.
But, often, what is actually exasperating the viewers isn’t the moderators, but the guests who don’t sufficiently answer the moderators’ questions. Yet viewers direct their grievances at the moderators.
I understand why viewers are annoyed by the unsatisfying interviews. But instead of questioning the moderators, perhaps we should be analyzing the format of these shows.
It used to be that the Sunday morning shows had guests who were interested in honest political discussions, directly answering even tough questions. That occasionally still happens.
But, far too often, these shows are dominated by politicians who are there to further their own agendas, while ducking hard pushbacks — or any pushback at all. They then later blame the “mainstream media” because someone actually had the chops to not let them get away with lies, half-truths and outright refusals to give answers to the questions they were asked.
Take Sunday, and two examples of politicians — two potential vice presidential candidates for Donald Trump — who followed that script.
First, on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Welker asked South Carolina Republican Sen. Tim Scott if he would accept the results of the 2024 election. Scott refused to give a direct answer.
Six times!
Welker asked Scott six times if he would accept the results, and Scott kept saying over and over some version of, “I look forward to President Trump being the 47th president.” At one point, he said, “That is my statement.”
Scott also managed to work in a shot at NBC, saying, “This is why so many Americans believe that NBC is an extension of the Democrat Party. At the end of the day, I’ve said what I’ve said, and I know that the American people, their voices will be heard. And I believe that President Trump will be our next president.”
Welker tried once more, asking, “The hallmark of our democracy is that both candidates agree to a peaceful transfer of power. So I’m asking you, as a potential VP nominee, will you accept to commit to the election results in this election cycle, no matter who wins? Just simply yes or no.”
Scott said, “I expect President Trump to win the next election. Listen, I’m not going to answer your hypothetical question.”
Hypothetical? What’s hypothetical about that?
Now, perhaps the exchange helped some viewers understand more about Scott, but more likely than not, viewers were left frustrated that Scott never answered the question despite Welker’s repeated attempts.
Something similar happened on CBS’s “Face the Nation” as moderator Margaret Brennan interviewed Republican South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem. Brennan asked Noem about her soon-to-be-released book in which Noem claims to have met North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. There are reports that it never happened, and even Noem’s office admitted that part of the book needed to be revised.
When asked by Brennan, Noem said, “As soon as this was brought to my attention, I certainly made some changes and looked at this passage. I’ve met with many, many world leaders. I’ve traveled around the world. As soon as it was brought to my attention, we went forward and made some edits.”
As you notice, Noem didn’t directly answer if she had met Kim. So Brennan asked again. And Noem deflected again, saying she had met with “many world leaders.”
Then Noem, following the blueprint of politicians who had awful Sunday morning interviews, went on the attack, putting out this tweet later in the day: “This morning in our 15-minute interview, Margaret Brennan interrupted me 36 times — once every 25 seconds on average. But when liberals like @gretchenwhitmer and @SpeakerPelosi are on @FaceTheNation, they aren’t interrupted once. In the fake news media, there are two sets of rules, and conservative are always treated differently. That's why Americans don't trust the Fake News.”
Veteran media journalist Brian Stelter had a pretty good comeback, tweeting, “If a ‘liberal’ wrote about meeting Kim Jong Un in her book, then backtracked, THEN said she'd met ‘many’ world leaders, but wouldn't get into specifics (about her own book!) — that ‘liberal’ would be interrupted a lot, too.”
Again, like the Welker interview with Scott, Brennan did her job, asking questions that Noem was never going to answer. And that likely had viewers unfulfilled, especially because at some point, the moderators have to move on to other topics in the limited amount of time they have with a guest.
In the end, I’m not sure of the solution. No longer have guests who behave this way? Cut off interviews that head down this path? Turn the show into panel discussions?
Or leave it as is, knowing that moderators can only do so much? They can ask the right questions, over and over again in fact, but they can’t answer them, too.
Oh, one more thing
