A modest proposal: Local news pool coverage for severe weather.

[clichemoth]

As anyone who lives in an area prone to severe weather knows, it significantly interferes with normal local television viewing. The endless quest for bragging rights among weather departments leads to marathon sessions of continuous weather coverage, much of which is inessential, redundant, or absolute filler (such as WVTM-13's recap of Hurricane Dennis footage yesterday afternoon when they had nothing else to show except for some unnecessary programming called the last 10 laps of the NASCAR race.) Coverage begins long before the weather event affects anyone within the market area and continues in some cases long after it has already passed.

Since stations aren't even running spots during this weather orgy normally, it clearly isn't making them any money. I propose a solution to this problem: Pool coverage.

Each station alternates coverage for each such event. For example, if station A covers one week's tornado and a hurricane is headed in the next week, station B would then cover it. Station C winds up covering a severe thunderstorm a couple of weeks later and the cycle starts all over again.

If it's not a station's turn, they can issue hourly updates, but cannot do any long-form coverage outside of scheduled local news slots. If the event would interfere with the broadcast of a major event (ie the Super Bowl, BCS Championship Game, the Oscars, etc.), the affected station can trade places with the next one in line, who would then handle coverage.

Any thoughts on this?

 

[ClearThinker]

> As anyone who lives in an area prone to severe weather
> knows, it significantly interferes with normal local
> television viewing. The endless quest for bragging rights
> among weather departments leads to marathon sessions of
> continuous weather coverage, much of which is inessential,
> redundant, or absolute filler (such as WVTM-13's recap of
> Hurricane Dennis footage yesterday afternoon when they had
> nothing else to show except for some unnecessary programming
> called the last 10 laps of the NASCAR race.) Coverage
> begins long before the weather event affects anyone within
> the market area and continues in some cases long after it
> has already passed.
>
> Since stations aren't even running spots during this weather
> orgy normally, it clearly isn't making them any money. I
> propose a solution to this problem: Pool coverage.
>
> Each station alternates coverage for each such event. For
> example, if station A covers one week's tornado and a
> hurricane is headed in the next week, station B would then
> cover it. Station C winds up covering a severe thunderstorm
> a couple of weeks later and the cycle starts all over again.
>
>
> If it's not a station's turn, they can issue hourly updates,
> but cannot do any long-form coverage outside of scheduled
> local news slots. If the event would interfere with the
> broadcast of a major event (ie the Super Bowl, BCS
> Championship Game, the Oscars, etc.), the affected station
> can trade places with the next one in line, who would then
> handle coverage.
>
> Any thoughts on this?
>

While they don't make $$$ directly from storm coverage, they will reap residual benefits. They'll tout their storm coverage during regular programming and build interest in their news/weather. I can't see any cooperation when the weather is the one thing local stations really love to play up.

 

[gr8oldies]

Not a chance that will ever happen. They don't get those super-duper-double-doppler radars without being able to use that to pump ratings, and severe weather is prime time for that. It has gotten a little ridiculous with winter coverage, where all the reporters are waiting for the first flake when a major storm is predicted. (There's really nothing urgent about snow..not much changes minute by minute, unlike a tornado.)<P ID="signature">______________
I'll get back to you when I think of a cute quote</P>

 

[fybush]

> If it's not a station's turn, they can issue hourly updates,
> but cannot do any long-form coverage outside of scheduled
> local news slots. If the event would interfere with the
> broadcast of a major event (ie the Super Bowl, BCS
> Championship Game, the Oscars, etc.), the affected station
> can trade places with the next one in line, who would then
> handle coverage.
>
> Any thoughts on this?

I'm guessing that as DTV multicasting becomes more prevalent, we'll see more stations continuing the network feed on a subchannel while doing weather coverage on the main channel, or vice versa. Cable carriage of the full DTV signal will obviously make a difference as to whether or not this strategy takes off - no point sending viewers to "Channel 12.2" if they can't get 12.2!<P ID="signature">______________
Tower Site Calendar 2005 NOW AVAILABLE! - <a target="_blank" href=http://www.fybush.com/nerw.html#calendar>www.fybush.com</a></P>

 

[bpatrick]

> > If it's not a station's turn, they can issue hourly
> updates,
> > but cannot do any long-form coverage outside of scheduled
> > local news slots. If the event would interfere with the
> > broadcast of a major event (ie the Super Bowl, BCS
> > Championship Game, the Oscars, etc.), the affected station
>
> > can trade places with the next one in line, who would then
>
> > handle coverage.
> >
> > Any thoughts on this?
>
> I'm guessing that as DTV multicasting becomes more
> prevalent, we'll see more stations continuing the network
> feed on a subchannel while doing weather coverage on the
> main channel, or vice versa. Cable carriage of the full DTV
> signal will obviously make a difference as to whether or not
> this strategy takes off - no point sending viewers to
> "Channel 12.2" if they can't get 12.2!
>
Which would have come in handy a couple of years ago when
WXII/12, the NBC affiliate for Greensboro/Winston-Salem/
High Point, pre-empted the Kentucky Derby because the area
was under tornado warning and one had touched down in
Randolph County, about 25 miles south of Greensboro.
Channel 12 showed the race on tape about 7:45 PM, after
weather coverage ended, but not everyone was happy about
missing full coverage of the race and the preliminaries (for
an area which has no legalized gambling, horse races draw
a respectable audience).

Understandably, Channel 12 felt it was covering a story of
more concern to local viewers (it was), but with DTV multicasting,
the race could have been on live on 12-1, the weather coverage
on 12-2 (and 12-1 could switch over if things really got severe).

 

[Joseph_Gallant]

I could see such a proposal being adopted in terms of live shots from reporters out in the storm, but not in studio anchoring.

In a market where affiliates of ABC, CBS and NBC might present extensive storm coverage, pooling field reports could mean that there would be available live shots from three times as many locations. Live reports from the field would be simulcast on all the participating stations.

But I think the stations would still want to have their own anchors on-duty to host their own coverage, even if reports from the field atre pooled.

There is one precedence for this: On radio during D-Day in 1944, each of the four national radio networks (Blue--later ABC, CBS, Mutual and NBC) had their own studio anchors, but the reports from correspondents at the invasion front, transmitted from overseas via shortwave radio relays, were pooled and usually simulcast on all four networks.

Radio needs this idea much more than television does. In many markets outside the top 50 or 60, there is no local radio programming whatsoever. In many other markets, there is less local radio programming than there used to be. In both cases, this translates into fewer people available to cover severe weather, which has resulted in many radio stations in the "hurricane belt" merely simulcasting the audio portion of a local TV station's storm coverage.

In some markets where there is still is some local radio programming (even if there isn't too much), local broadcasters could pool their limited resources to produce live storm coverage that could be simulcast on all the stations in the market (or at least those stations participating in the pooled coverage).

 

[jegrant]

Indiana already uses subchannels

Here in Central Indiana, each Big 3 affiliate already has at least one subchannel, and WISH (CBS) & WTHR (NBC) specifically focus theirs on weather.

WRTV (ABC)'s subchannel, NewsChannel64, despite not being focused on weather, nevertheless manages to constantly promote its radio-style "Weather on the 6's" approach. NC64 has been known to cut the "wheel" format in favor of non-stop Doppler Radar with NWS audio in case of severe weather. From what I've seen, staff only appear when a special break is simulcast from the main station.

WISH (CBS) partners with WeatherBug to offer the "LWS - Local Weather Station" as a subchannel - nothing but weather stats & radar in a rotating "wheel" format. An extra (lower bitrate) subchannel offers nothing but full-screen Doppler Radar.

WTHR (NBC) offers what I believe is the most complete weather-oriented subchannel - it is also simulcast on a Class A TV station. The SkyTrak Weather Network not only offers a "wheel" format, but complete live coverage of virtually all weather events in the area with staff that stay on the air for hours at a time if need be, and special breaks from the main station are simulcast. This channel also now houses the WTHR 10 PM News, which moved from PAX Indianapolis (after moving there from UPN Indiana). It also has its share of WTHR News reruns throughout the day - Noon news at 1 PM - 6 PM News at 7 PM, etc. The channel also airs "Early Today" twice in the morning so that the main station can carry local news product right up till the Today show.
The only real criticism I have of the station is its tendency to carry a fair number of infomercials, as well as Shop At Home overnights. However - they always dump the ads in favor of coverage if a severe weather situation arises, and weather information remains available during the infomercials because an "L" shape of weather stats along the left and bottom of the screen remains visible. So I don't think the ads detract as much as they do on other stations.

I think these sorts of channels are definitely the solution for weather coverage. Weather nuts like myself can stay with the story as long as desired/needed, but regular programming needn't be subject to lengthy interruptions - only brief cut-ins and reminders to tune to the secondary channel for more.

FWIW, I would say that all 3 subchannels have decent cable carriage in Marion County (Indianapolis) proper, but only NewsChannel64 and SkyTrak Weather are seen in most of the outlying cable systems in the DMA.

 

[w9wi]

> I'm guessing that as DTV multicasting becomes more
> prevalent, we'll see more stations continuing the network
> feed on a subchannel while doing weather coverage on the
> main channel, or vice versa. Cable carriage of the full DTV
> signal will obviously make a difference as to whether or not
> this strategy takes off - no point sending viewers to
> "Channel 12.2" if they can't get 12.2!

('course, you *could* send them to 12.2, then tell the ones who complain they can't get 12.2 to complain to their cable operators...)

===============================

WRT the pool idea, it'll never happen.

90+% of the channels you get on your TV are exactly the same whether you're watching in San Diego or Bangor or Barneveld. Local weather and news are the two places where a local station can stand out, can do something the other 98 channels can't. They're not going to give that up.

It's a bit of a dilemna. A severe storm warning for Rutherford County is of absolutely no concern to the viewer in Montgomery County 70 miles away. It's of *critical* concern to the viewer in Rutherford County. *Someone* is going to be disappointed...