• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

13 WHAM NEWS THIS MORNING

B

Baldecki

Guest
Just wondering what you all think of the new 13 WHAM NEWS THIS MORNING -EXTENDED. Personally, I will hold my opinion for another couple of weeks. It looked to me they still have a few bugs to work out. But I do have one question for channel 13. Why are they messing with a product that is already getting high ratings? I thought it was said dont fix something if it aint broke.
 
Baldecki said:
Just wondering what you all think of the new 13 WHAM NEWS THIS MORNING -EXTENDED. Personally, I will hold my opinion for another couple of weeks. It looked to me they still have a few bugs to work out. But I do have one question for channel 13. Why are they messing with a product that is already getting high ratings? I thought it was said dont fix something if it aint broke.

What I fail to understand is that most working people have left the house between 7 and 8 during the weekday morning. So why then did 13 expand this program? If they are going after younger demographics, those people are not watching. Any audience would be made up of either retired people, or those working a second and third shift; and I would think they would be fast asleep.
 
I think there is a valid argument for local news after 7AM. As you said, "most working people" -- not all -- are out of the house by 7. If I don't need to be at work until 8, 9, or 10... I'm not going to get up at 6:30 just to see the news. But when I get up, I would rather see local news instead of the network gabfests (where local news is reduced to 2-3 minutes every 1/2 hour).

There's definitely an audience for 7-9AM local news. But since an ABC, NBC or CBS affiliate can't put them directly on their own air... it's a matter of making sure the audience can find the show on the CW, Fox, MyTV, Pax or wherever else they're putting it.

All kidding aside, it would be interesting to see if any CBS affiliates would get better numbers by extending their own local news instead of taking The Early Show. Wouldn't work in every market, but it could be interesting in markets where the CBS affiliate generally has strong local news numbers.
 
It wasn't that long ago that there were just the 6 and 11 pm newscasts. Then someone came up with early mornings, noon and five o'clock news.

I personally think the addition of WHAM-TV's early morning show is just another experiment to see how many local viewers the station can keep while the other stations go to network or syndicated programming.

Whether this idea will work remains to be seen. Only time and ratings will tell.

Another thing to consider, how many viewers know where, or what the CW network is? Add to that how many people do not have cable TV, thus do not get CW?

What I am waiting for is to see if Channel 13 goes ahead a tries to put a 10pm newscast on CW to compete with R-News and FOX-31. The CW network is geared towards a younger audience, and I'm sure the sales department over there on Henrietta Road has considered the thought of targeting the demographics most ad agencies are pushing. Yet I remind everyone that most young people do not watch TV news. They would rather see more of their teen-based soap operas than hear about the latest murder in Rochester, or some school board controversy in a suburban town.
 
I just wonder how long it will be til one of the locals uses one of their side and make a 24-hour local news. Iam guessing WHAM 13 would be the first to do it, since on weekdays they produce 6 1/2 hours of news programming a day now.
 
ericNY said:
I just wonder how long it will be til one of the locals uses one of their side and make a 24-hour local news. Iam guessing WHAM 13 would be the first to do it, since on weekdays they produce 6 1/2 hours of news programming a day now.

If you mean something like R-News currently does, I highly doubt that Clear Channel, or if 13 is sold, another media company will spend the money it takes to air a 24 hour news operation.
That will cost money to hire more reporters, anchors and support staff. Even R-News has trimmed back from what they originally did when they went on the air back in 1990.

The trend today is less local production and more syndicated and network programming. And I am sorry but I don't consider morning shows real news. Yes there are news stories within the hour, but most of that hour consists of fluff pieces and interviews. (Sorry I come from the old school where news is news, and fluff is fluff) Because of financial costs I am skeptical that 13 will add a 10:00 newscast on the CW network.
 
I still think 7-9AM is a good option, as long as WHAM can get viewers to find the CW. Under Time Warner, it was a cable-only station. Under WHAM, it's now on digital TV, so anyone with DTV reception can get it.

As for news at 10PM... it's debateable. The "teen-based soap operas" are not an option at 10PM, because the CW network signs off at 10PM. So stations that don't do news are just back to the usual mix of syndicated fare and/or reruns that make up so much of the lineup for Fox, CW and MyTV affiliates. In many cases, you're going to have mediocre ratings whether it's local news or a 70's Show rerun. But the local news gives the station 100% of the ad revenue and complete control of how long the commercial breaks are. The 70's Show rerun likely comes with some of its own ads, and the local stations have a hard limit on how much time they can sell for themselves.

I don't know if doing a 10PM news would really bring many "financial costs" to WHAM (or any station that already does 11PM news). The way things are in most stations, you'd only need to hire one additional producer. The reporters, shooters, anchors and control room staff are usually the same people who also do the 11, so there's only one body to be hired, and that body's usually a lot cheaper than an anchor salary. If the ratings are going to be about the same either way, many stations will opt for the more profitable newscast. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Mark, just as you said for the 7-9AM show, it's something they'd just have to try, and time will tell.
 
After watching the 7-9AM newscast for a couple of days now, I actually kinda like it. The first day was a little rough but I think they got the kinks worked out. It is actually a good idea if there is breaking news, so we can keep up to date. For instance during the ice storm on monday and the train derailment, It was nice to get updates and live reports after 7:00 AM. I think WHAM knows what they are doing, they are experienced enough to know when something will or will not work. I am sure they thought about the 7-9AM newscast for awhile, so it would be a good product.
 
People who watch the CW aren't looking for local news.

13 WHAM fills the CW with local news because it is still cheaper than paying for syndicated programming.

I tuned in one day at about 8:20. The audio level was way low. The 20-something reporter and the cookie-cutter dirty blonde were doing the same old morning schtick: they had an animal expert on, with some exotic animal, and everyone was talking over everyone else, the female laughing like a giggly teenager, which overmodulated the mic. I sighed, and turned it off. More of the same.
 
oldschooler1 said:
People who watch the CW aren't looking for local news.

13 WHAM fills the CW with local news because it is still cheaper than paying for syndicated programming.

I tuned in one day at about 8:20. The audio level was way low. The 20-something reporter and the cookie-cutter dirty blonde were doing the same old morning schtick: they had an animal expert on, with some exotic animal, and everyone was talking over everyone else, the female laughing like a giggly teenager, which overmodulated the mic. I sighed, and turned it off. More of the same.

That appears to be the trend in local TV news these days, which is one reason why I don't envision WHAM or any other station going with a 24 hour news operation, as someone suggested on here.
Pure journalism died years ago and was replaced with an "Entertainment Tonight" format.
If it wasn't for the numerous murders, sensational trials, occasional late-breaking weather stories, and the staged news conferences held by politicians, viewers will continue to end up with such insightful segments that include dancing with the news anchors, the tee-shirt of the week contest, and a story about a 100 year old lady in a nursing home blowing out the candles on her cake. In the meantime the "real" news stories are never reported because that would take a knowledgeable assignment editor who actually knows the market and not some recent college graduate who got the job because that person is willing to work for $20k a year. As for this new generation of reporters, I am amazed that some of them actually graduated from high school let alone received degrees in journalism from college.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom