• 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

Double-Dipping

T

The Voice of Reason

This post I guess could have gone into either the radio or TV Board, but I decided to post here since it actually involves radio. The issue that I wanted to raise is this: One would assume that both Doug Emblidge and Pat McGonigle make a decent wage anchoring news on 10 and 13. So why is it these two gentlemen also do news on local radio?
I bring this point up not because of any personal dislike for these guys, but because with the growing number of radio news talent losing their jobs, this "double-dipping" on the part of Emblidge and McGonigle only makes it harder for someone with radio news experience to find suitable employment.
This trend of radio using TV for their news of course saves radio stations money by not having to hire someone and pay health insurance and other benefits. Yet I'm certain Mr Emblidge and McGonigle don't work for free.
In a related topic, have you ever really listened to TV news on the radio, I mean really listened closely? Try it sometime and you will hear how it makes for poor broadcasting.
 
If you're talking about newscast simulcasts that's something that gets arranged on the station-to-station level and you probably don't see any extra $$$ coming into the anchors' hands.

Sometimes even if they're doing special updates for radio stations, that can be either a promotional trade-out, or an actual promotional ad buy on that radio station paid for by the TV station, with little or no additional money going to the individual reporter.
 
Bob1370 said:
If you're talking about newscast simulcasts that's something that gets arranged on the station-to-station level and you probably don't see any extra $$$ coming into the anchors' hands.

Sometimes even if they're doing special updates for radio stations, that can be either a promotional trade-out, or an actual promotional ad buy on that radio station paid for by the TV station, with little or no additional money going to the individual reporter.
Click to expand...

Even if that were the case, which it very well could be, the point I was making is that these TV newscasters are making it even more difficult for out-of-work radio news types to find gainful employment.
I wonder how TV anchors would feel if some radio news people (many of them more informed than the TV news people I've seen lately) were brought in at 8, 10, 13 and R-News and did their jobs? Or better yet, how would you feel if your station's management decided to eliminate your local talk show for one fed on TV from Albany?
 
Bob1370 said:
If you're talking about newscast simulcasts that's something that gets arranged on the station-to-station level and you probably don't see any extra $$$ coming into the anchors' hands.

Sometimes even if they're doing special updates for radio stations, that can be either a promotional trade-out, or an actual promotional ad buy on that radio station paid for by the TV station, with little or no additional money going to the individual reporter.
Click to expand...

Totally correct. In most cases it's just cross promotion - no money changes hands.

The Voice of Reason said:
Even if that were the case, which it very well could be, the point I was making is that these TV newscasters are making it even more difficult for out-of-work radio news types to find gainful employment.
I wonder how TV anchors would feel if some radio news people (many of them more informed than the TV news people I've seen lately) were brought in at 8, 10, 13 and R-News and did their jobs? Or better yet, how would you feel if your station's management decided to eliminate your local talk show for one fed on TV from Albany?
Click to expand...

Don't blame it on the anchors - blame it on the stations looking for ways to cut costs and gain promotional exposure.

Actually in this day and age of tight competition for limited positions, I don't think either radio or TV anchors would give a rat's you-know-what if they were displacing someone else from their job. Sure, they might feel bad about it for a half a minute - then thank their lucky stars they're still working in the industry they love. Yes, that sounds cruel and harsh - but that's the way it is (with apologies to Mr. Cronkite).

As far as eliminating that local talk show for one "fed from Albany" - that's been happening for years now. Replace "Albany" with "national syndication". You can bet AM Buffalo's days are numbered.
 
Using a TV station's anchors for promotional newsbites (spots disguised as news content, in most cases) probably has minimal or no effect on whatever news effort the radio station does or whatever staff it has on hand. A lot of times those bites show up on stations like a WBEN or a WHAM that have their own news staffs and newsrooms open 7 days a week...they're just commercials that bring the radio station a little extra revenue and the TV station a little extra promotional impact, nothing more.
 
The idea of replacing radio news personnel with TV anchors has been around for a long time. It's a way that stations can still claim to offer news, while cutting their budgets.

Even the two remaining radio stations in Rochester with their own news departments, WHAM and WXXI, have reduced their staff over the years as part of a cost-cutting measure.

For many radio stations, local news isn't a priority anymore. Weather and traffic take precedent.

God help them if the local newspaper ever folded in Rochester because then local news would just consist of news conferences, re-written press releases, or AP wire service copy. It's hard to generate original stories when you just don't have the staff.
 
"God help them if the local newspaper ever folded in Rochester because then local news would just consist of news conferences, re-written press releases, or AP wire service copy."

It's starting to look like the local newspaper is indeed doing a slow fade to black.

That's why we've found ourselves depending on our own field interviews and local talk shows to generate news content. I think more stations are doing the same if they remain serious about news content at all--which they should, if they want to continue offering the value-added programming that makes them preferable for listeners to just firing up their own iPods and CD decks.
 
As if you didn't know, hate to say it, but you're looking at the future of newsPAPERS. Much as I personally enjoy flipping through the pages, this is the pipeline of the future. And as to those TV anchors doing radio news: There was this guy named Weinstein back in the day... and it seems most of the FM stations I scan while traveling have jocks reading some kind of "minute news" to varying degrees of acceptability.
 
One more thing to remember is that a lot of those TV guys are likely not making the same money they were a few years ago. The "youth movement" was all about cutting salary, as was the increased reliance on automation. Most anchors who have renegotiated a contract with the station's current owners have likely taken a pay cut. Those who haven't negotiated a contract with the current owners are likely to have a "take it or leave" option thrust at them when they come to the table.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom