Brett Davidsen breaks another story yesterday. This time on the Medley Centre and new plans for the mall. Today he does another story on plans to demolish part of the mall. RNews and 8 report it but it was at least a day later. I don't even think 13 reported it. Several weeks ago Brett breaks the story on the Greece Police officer involved in the crash on 390. Again 8, RNews and 13 report it days later. Is it just me or does Brett not break most of the big stories in this market? Wasn't it a couple of years ago that he broke the porn in the library story? Once and a while 13 or 8 will break a story but it seems like Brett does it all the time. I don't think there's a better reporter in this market.
-
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
Breaking Stories
- Thread starter tvfun
- Start date
I don't know if you're right, but thanks for posting, Brett.
N
NosyNewsy
Guest
10 calls every story "breaking" these days. There was no new information in the Medley Centre story. Rachel Barnhart reported it months ago, and everyone else jumped on the bandwagon a day later. I still don't know what "new" information Brett has to get two days out of it.
NosyNewsy said:
OK, great. Thanks for posting Rachel.
He is not a general assignement reporter out in the field every day...he has days to put these things together...any reporter with that much time should be able to break a story or two. That is what he is paid to do.
As far as Rachel is concerned, I don't know if she broke this story or not, but I am sure she will claim she did. Lot of sizzle but no steak in many of her reports.
In general what passes as a big story that so and so broke in Rochester wouldn't even be a 20 second VO in other markets.
As far as Rachel is concerned, I don't know if she broke this story or not, but I am sure she will claim she did. Lot of sizzle but no steak in many of her reports.
In general what passes as a big story that so and so broke in Rochester wouldn't even be a 20 second VO in other markets.
Back in the day, we used to have what was called a "future file". When you first reported a story that would be ongoing (like a new mall, a rookie politico who got elected, some major construction project), you'd throw it in the future file so you could do a follow-up on a slow news day.
"Breaking news" is something that's new. A follow up ain't exactly "breaking".
"Breaking news" is something that's new. A follow up ain't exactly "breaking".
Breaking news....It's more Breaking Wind. All glitter and little substance. If local news organizations put more of an effort and money into reporting real news as they do on flashy graphics and crawl screens, viewers might actually see what is really important in their community versus an Entertainment Tonight style product.
As long as consultants push breaking news, that's what we'll get. Whether it's actually "breaking" or it happened 8 hours ago.
rochnewsman said:
And the result will be a continued decline in the number of people viewing local news.
Maybe if TV stations stopped paying consultants and instead let local managers and programmers, who know their market, do their jobs we might see the return of real news to the airwaves.
Unfortunately that won't happen as long as a few companies own numerous broadcasting operations throughout the country. Those people are not broadcasters, they are bean counters, and thus could care less about the quality of news, but the quantity of commercials. If it wasn't for car dealers, lawyers, and ads for Viagra, many commercial television operations would have to shut off the power to their transmitter.
What we are witnessing is the theory of playing to the lowest common denominator.
tvfun said:
1.) Rachel B. DID break the story months ago.
2.) Rachel B. breaks most of the big stories in Rochester and has been doing so for years, since she was with 8 and has continued to do so nicely with 13
3.) I'd hardly consider the library porn "breaking a story" . Good god, who DIDN'T know you could look at porn on the computers at the library? (Probably only those who never go to a library).
The only difference here was that Maggie Brooks decided it was the perfect opportunity to make political hay out of a situation and ran with it, even faster I dare say, than Channel 10 did.
All that said, I will agree with you on one thing you posted.
Brett may indeed be the best reporter in the market, and certainly one I'd hire in a second.
If some of his former co-workers such as Emily Smith can make it to WABC New York, and Anthony,...uh...oh geez he was so stupid I forget his name..., who went to Cleveland...can crack major markets, than what does that say about Brett?
They were LIGHTWEIGHTS compared to him, so it tells me (if he wanted to) Brett could have gone to the networks.
Just look at that dipsh*t Jenna Wolfe (nee Wolfeld) who was one of the "not yet ready for primetime players" who made up the original staff at Fox 31. She's hosting the freakin' Today Show on weekends! (and she still sucks!)
She didn't have one tenth of the talent and ability that Brett did or does.
'nuff said!
Kohoutek said:
Sounds like you and Rachel are BFFs, hmmm. There's no need to call anybody a dipsh*t... Who's the dipsh*t anyway, she's working for NBC and Today and you're here slamming her on this board. Jealous?
Jeesh! I'm off of these boards for a while and it looks like the sandbox is a rough place to hang out these days 
Anyway, I think anyone on this blog can agree that both Rachel and Brett are diggers who do a very good job at what they do. Each brings their own experience and expertise to their respective stations and I think they're both assets. What they both have that not many reporters in this market have, is a vested interest in this community. Rachel's born, raised, and lives in the city. Brett's a hometown guy who's spent most of his career here and has a wife and kids who all live and go to school here. Almost anyone else is planning on moving on and could care less about how to pronounce Avon, Charlotte, Ganandagon, LeRoy, etc. As one of the former "Not Ready for Prime Time Players" at the old Fox 31, I worked with Jenna and found her to be quite likable. She was a bit goofy and rarely took things seriously, but she was great fun to hang around with and wasn't afraid to try different things. Her style wasn't necessarily my style, but as I've seen countless times, people who were perceived to "suck" or be a "dips*&t" have gone on to great careers in top 10 markets and networks. The list of former Rochester media people who've done that is actually quite impressive. Whether they weren't that good or not is debatable, the fact that they've gotten to where they are now is, in my opinion, commendable.
As for the "Breaking News" thing, it's lost its meaning. Breaking news is the Ginna Nuclear Power Plant having a meltdown. It's a Level 3 HazMat in the middle of downtown. It's Columbine, Virginia Tech, the Olympic bombing. It's the start of the Gulf War and September 11th. What it isn't is, "traffic is tied up due to a breakdown in the left lane". "the government says we can eat tomatoes again". "so and so was found guilty today...blah blah blah". Unless you're OJ Simpson in a white bronco being chased by cops in the middle of neighborhood streets, I don't care. Why is it when I wake up in the morning and see that a shooting that took place on Ave D at 11:30pm the night before warrants a "Breaking News" banner at 6am? Ummm, that's like what? 6 1/2 hrs ago!
Anyway, just my thoughts before I head out for the weekend. Have a good one
Anyway, I think anyone on this blog can agree that both Rachel and Brett are diggers who do a very good job at what they do. Each brings their own experience and expertise to their respective stations and I think they're both assets. What they both have that not many reporters in this market have, is a vested interest in this community. Rachel's born, raised, and lives in the city. Brett's a hometown guy who's spent most of his career here and has a wife and kids who all live and go to school here. Almost anyone else is planning on moving on and could care less about how to pronounce Avon, Charlotte, Ganandagon, LeRoy, etc. As one of the former "Not Ready for Prime Time Players" at the old Fox 31, I worked with Jenna and found her to be quite likable. She was a bit goofy and rarely took things seriously, but she was great fun to hang around with and wasn't afraid to try different things. Her style wasn't necessarily my style, but as I've seen countless times, people who were perceived to "suck" or be a "dips*&t" have gone on to great careers in top 10 markets and networks. The list of former Rochester media people who've done that is actually quite impressive. Whether they weren't that good or not is debatable, the fact that they've gotten to where they are now is, in my opinion, commendable.As for the "Breaking News" thing, it's lost its meaning. Breaking news is the Ginna Nuclear Power Plant having a meltdown. It's a Level 3 HazMat in the middle of downtown. It's Columbine, Virginia Tech, the Olympic bombing. It's the start of the Gulf War and September 11th. What it isn't is, "traffic is tied up due to a breakdown in the left lane". "the government says we can eat tomatoes again". "so and so was found guilty today...blah blah blah". Unless you're OJ Simpson in a white bronco being chased by cops in the middle of neighborhood streets, I don't care. Why is it when I wake up in the morning and see that a shooting that took place on Ave D at 11:30pm the night before warrants a "Breaking News" banner at 6am? Ummm, that's like what? 6 1/2 hrs ago!
Anyway, just my thoughts before I head out for the weekend. Have a good one
Kohoutek said:
You know I wondered why that woman on Saturday's Today Show looked familiar. So she formally worked at Channel 31 years ago. She left such an impression with me that I forgot all about her. But despite your opinion of her work, she is making more money than you or I will ever see in our lifetime.
Speaking of former Rochester anchors who ended up at the networks, what ever happened to Melissa Long? She was anchoring CNN Headline News for a while but I haven't seen her on CNN for a long time.
SerpicoOne said:
I must confess I have no idea what a "BFF" is so I really can't comment on that.
As for Jenna Wolfeld,...or however you spell her real name, she can still be a dipsh*t and be working for the network... and as far as my slamming her on this board, don't take my word for it.
Just go to the TVSpy watercoolers and you can find hundreds of similar opinions expressed about her.
Jealous? ...uh,...no. Believe me,..no! (nice try, though)
- Status