The reviews of Conan O’Brien’s work hosting the 97th Oscars last night were more generous than expected. Otherwise, the reviews we’ve seen here at TVND headquarters seem to have found the telecast somewhere between “uneven” and “uninspired.” And what was that whole James Bond tribute?

So why would we, ostensibly interested in television news in this space, be interested in the annual awards celebration of Hollywood and the movies? Precisely because the performance of Conan’s debut hosting what is probably the most globally watched television show of a given year (outside of a sports competition) has a parallel in television news. Let’s face it, there was a ton riding on the guy who, at one point, lost the gig hosting NBC’s “Tonight Show” but then went on to have a successful run on cable and is now a staple on streaming and social platforms.

For our purposes, his Oscar hosting and the reaction to it provide another great example to make our point that the people who appear in front of a camera still matter—a great deal, in fact. The misplaced attempts to demote the role of the anchor in television news need to be examined for what they are: more examples of the “let’s throw something against the wall and see if it sticks” thinking that is rampant in the business these days.

Don’t get us wrong, just like in Hollywood, having major stars with top billing doesn’t automatically save a lousy movie (we’re looking at you, “Joker 2”) OR a newscast, but it doesn’t hurt to start with them. And we don’t think there isn’t room for some rethinking of anchors' role in both the newscast and the newsroom. Plus, there will always be the opportunity for an unknown to become a success–both in the movies and on a nightly newscast.

OK, we’ve tortured this analogy long enough. But the point to make here is that people want to watch people on a movie screen or a television. They want to relate to the people that they see and hear. Does this mean we must stick with the long-established pairing of attractive co-anchors on a local newscast or a solo Ron Burgundy-like figure on a national one? Not by any means. YouTube, TikTok, and every other video-centric social media platform should teach us that one can make for interesting and often informative viewing, even if they are using a smartphone and a ring light in their living room.

The key thing that usually doesn’t get much consideration on this topic is that the people in front of the camera actually have to have some aptitude and ability to connect to the viewer. To put it a bit more simply, “the talent has to have some talent.”

While that may seem like the most obvious thing you read today, the fact is that there is no specifically reliable way to determine that talent. Instinct from experienced decision-makers is most typically the way talent decisions get made. A standard “scientific tool” that has been used forever is some kind of qualitative audience research, ranging from target subjects spinning handheld dials while watching audition videos–to doing that same process with online participants. Despite being more rational than trusting individual gut instincts, neither method has proven fool-proof.

More than once, an up-and-coming television anchor has been the subject of research, only to have the test results come back with less-than-enthusiastic results. Somehow, though, the anchor has impressive ratings in their current position. In one such situation, we’ve heard a brilliant voice in the room full of executive types trying to make the big decision put it best: “Well, nobody likes him…except the audience.”

But even with the most vetted selection process possible, the hiring and development of on-camera talent is a process that takes time. No one meets someone new for the first time and decides they want a lifelong relationship with that person, except maybe in a movie. Relationships typically take time, even with people you watch on a screen. The best actors can convince you in short order that they are a character in a story. The best news anchors can convince you quickly that they know the news stories they are presenting and care about you understanding them. It’s why they have been crucial to successful television newscasts since the medium’s early days.

Very few people are born with this ability fully formed. Skills must be developed with any athlete or actor; much repetition and study are usually involved. Just like with athletes, a good coach can genuinely help. Unfortunately, there isn’t a lot of time for those leading newsrooms each day to coach their talent to fully develop their greatness. Plus, it can be challenging to be as sharply critical as good coaching often requires. And we won’t even get into the fact that the best talent frequently has egos as fragile as a pre-pubescent child’s.

Some excellent folks can effectively deliver this kind of talent coaching to those who appear on camera. If you need some recommendations, please do get in touch with us here. We’d be happy to help. In fact, one of our future offerings from TVND will be to provide individual evaluations of on-air work, be it anchoring or reporting, and assist in structuring talent development programs for organizations and individuals. (Apologies for the small commercial message here.)

Returning to the point here, talent in front of a camera truly matters. Think of the most successful movies you have ever seen. Then, think of the best television newscasts you have ever watched. We’d bet the chances are pretty good that you can name the people on the screen the most in each one. Years ago, at a certain growing cable network we were part of, a senior executive once declared “we don’t want any stars here, all on-air talent are interchangeable.” That was a guiding principle there for some time until the realization that a few stars in front of the camera could supercharge the numbers in the ratings, leading to some very profitable numbers on the books.

Fortunately, no one has ever said, “We don’t want to make any money here.”

(Get the latest from TVND delivered to your email inbox! Click the Subscribe button at the top of the page.)