Choice of Gibson Leaves Sawyer Facing Questions

At last, all the anchorman jobs have been permanently filled. Everyone may now resume whatever they were previously doing. Diane Sawyer, please stop kicking your chair.

ABC News announced yesterday that Charles Gibson will take over as the solo anchor of "World News Tonight" in June, which leaves a few unanswered questions for Ms. Sawyer, his "Good Morning America" co-anchor.

Why did Mr. Gibson get to leave first? And what's she supposed to do without him? Ms. Sawyer now has to battle for ratings against NBC's new "Today" show team - Meredith Vieira and Matt Lauer - without the familiar and soothing Mr. Gibson. How could she ever have approved this decision? (At least it clears up the widely held theory that she tells ABC News president David Westin what to do.)

But the central question for Ms. Sawyer is: Where can she go now? She has been at "GMA" for six years, and it's impossible to imagine her, now age 60, wanting to stay there long after Mr. Gibson leaves.

And her options are limited. Katie Couric is in place at CBS. Mr. Gibson is at ABC. "Nightline" is taken. Oprah Winfrey still has time on her contract. That leaves "PrimeTime Live" and "GMA." Network news has reached full employment, at least until Anderson Cooper's CNN contract expires next year. Ms. Sawyer has no place to go. I used to think it was checkmate, but now it feels more embarrassing - like losing at checkers.

When it was reported in March that Ms. Sawyer wanted the anchor job at ABC News, the network didn't bother to deny the rumor - as it had in the past. It's hard to deny something when it's true. But then again, Ms. Sawyer may not have truly wanted to be the anchor. She may have only wanted to be asked. That issue dominates most discussions of Ms. Sawyer's recent career moves, of which there have been none.

ABC's decision to give "World News Tonight" to Mr. Gibson was necessary; it was the only move that gave the network a real chance to improve its ratings. Ms. Couric already snapped up the attention (and the cover of Newsweek) for being the first woman anchor. But Ms. Sawyer's anchoring skills are not considered to be as sharp as Mr. Gibson's - or so say the people who measure these things.

The case for Diane Sawyer is mixed, but strong. There's a side of her on television that seems phony beyond belief; fortunately, it alternates with occasional flashes of true intelligence and wit. The network news business depends on star power for success, and she's one of the few big stars left who keeps viewers loyal.

If she grows truly disenchanted with the news business and ends up in some flashy job outside news broadcasting, it means one less marquee attraction for the pharmaceutical companies whose advertising dollars keep this hard-news dinner theater on the air.

The evening newscast still represents a multimillion-dollar profit center to the networks, but only because its executives haven't spent those millions to build a new generation of television-news stars.

Meanwhile, Elizabeth Vargas has gotten a note from her doctor excusing her from all anchor duties, now and forever. In the carefully parsed quote from Ms. Vargas in yesterday's ABC News press release, she didn't explain very much. She disclosed only that her doctors "have asked that I cut back my schedule considerably. What works best for me and my family is to return in the fall to '20/20' as I raise my new baby and young son."

I'm sympathetic to the needs of a mother to put work aside, and admire Ms. Vargas's courageous decision. It's fortunate for ABC News that Ms. Vargas's need to leave dovetailed so conveniently with its own need to replace her.