I can't believe I'm about to say this, but...

Peggy Noonan is 100% right. OK, not 100% (there's still a slander of the New York Times in there for no apparent reason). But she's right about how network news can revitalize itself. Sadly, it's not likely to happen anytime soon.

Network news is simply not valued as a profit center anymore. Since the networks have been gobbled up by giant conglomerates, profit margin and the bottom line are 2000% more important that delivering quality, factual reporting. Risk is minimized (like the risk that you spend a few million putting a correspondent in Nigeria and they end up having nothing to say), the lowest common denominator is maximized. Noonan's claim that the millions of dollars given to anchors should be re-appropriated to overseas news division is fine, but they're a drop in the bucket. Having a viable, working news division in bureaus across the globe is FAR more expensive that what they give to anchors, and what's more, the anchors get more face time.

I agree that network news is still important and viable (not that I watch it regularly; in fact, I'm not even usually home by the time it starts). But I don't think it's anything more than a legacy project for these conglomerates. Either they've foisted their news divisions off to cable (MSNBC, Fox) or they've put more energy into their primetime strip shows (20/20, 60 Minutes), where they might actually be able to see a decent ratings point. That's my opinion of the mentality out there.

We do need a vigilant, determined, scrappy news network that goes after the big story. But the only ones that exist now are international (CNNI, the BBC).