Fox O&O's to replace syndicated shows at late night for Late Night news

[LKellerIII]

My point, of course, is that no one will be watching.

Well, obviously a few people will be watching, or they wouldn't be doing this. I don't know the economics of TV news, but it's clear that at least in major markets, news can make money with small audiences. Look at those 3 hours morning news blocks starting at 4:00 AM. Very few people are up at 4:00. They're just recycling reports from the previous day, with maybe a live report if there is breaking news - so I imagine the cost is just for the anchors to sit there and talk, and they don't make the kind of money they used to.

Another example is KRON4's (Bay Area) new block of prime-time news. KRON's ratings for news are generally in the basement, yet they keep adding news to the schedule.

 

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

Fox17 has the most news of any of the locals they go from 4:30AM to 9AM then it's the Morning Mix at 9AM then at Midday News at 11AM, then 3 hours of news from 4PM to 7PM then 10PM to 11:30PM. Does Fox O&O's have a 6PM newscast on weekend or do they put syndie shows or paid programming.

Fox 2 News San Francisco has a 6pm Newscast but that started when Cox owned KTVU Fox 2. Currently KTVU Fox 2 under Fox Ownership has a 4am news that they started and it was in response to go after KRON4 News 4am.

 

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

A centrally produced Fox program might make sense in such a slot. This won't be free, as the union members will have to be paid.

I'm sure FNC could throw together a half hour show combining a rundown of Top National Stories and then commentary from Carlson, Hannity, Cavuto and 'The Five'. This would be better than adding another half hour to the local newscast.

I think Shepard Smith or Chris Wallace might be more palatable for Fox Owned stations that's if they want to go there though.

 

[TheBigA]

I think Shepard Smith or Chris Wallace might be more palatable for Fox Owned stations that's if they want to go there though.

The story linked in the OP was very clear that this would be LOCAL news, not Fox News Channel:

"So, executives at Fox Television Stations Group, which comprises 28 stations that reach 37% of U.S. homes, intend to stop running the syndicated fare in favor of late-night shows crafted by their local-news operations."

A lot of these stations already do a 10PM local news cast. This idea would simply extend it or repeat it into late night hours. It's local programming, so there's no loss of revenue.

 

[landtuna]

Well, obviously a few people will be watching, or they wouldn't be doing this. I don't know the economics of TV news, but it's clear that at least in major markets, news can make money with small audiences. Look at those 3 hours morning news blocks starting at 4:00 AM. Very few people are up at 4:00. They're just recycling reports from the previous day, with maybe a live report if there is breaking news - so I imagine the cost is just for the anchors to sit there and talk, and they don't make the kind of money they used to.

Another example is KRON4's (Bay Area) new block of prime-time news. KRON's ratings for news are generally in the basement, yet they keep adding news to the schedule.

I no longer get up at the crack of dawn to go to work but I will bet a cold, frosty one that the people who do are more interested in the weather forecast or traffic reports than "news". This being the Age of the Smartphone though it is just as easy for me to punch one button and get this same up to date information on my little screen without waiting for the correct segment or a flurry of commercials.

As I have said before these multiple "news" shows just seem to be a way to justify showing more commercials (the same old commercials day after boring day). They bring nothing to an informed public - at least in my town. A larger metropolis like S.F. may be able to generate significantly more "news" than Phoenix but here it is a waste of time. And with every prime station doing virtually the same thing it is a monumental waste of time.

 

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

The story linked in the OP was very clear that this would be LOCAL news, not Fox News Channel:

"So, executives at Fox Television Stations Group, which comprises 28 stations that reach 37% of U.S. homes, intend to stop running the syndicated fare in favor of late-night shows crafted by their local-news operations."

A lot of these stations already do a 10PM local news cast. This idea would simply extend it or repeat it into late night hours. It's local programming, so there's no loss of revenue.

In the case of KTVU plus that's already happened where Fox put repeats of their newscast at 11:30 pm.

 

[Mr Tony]

Does Fox O&O's have a 6PM newscast on weekend or do they put syndie shows or paid programming.

Here in Minneapolis on Saturdays (non sports time) its the weekend run of TMZ
Sundays its FOX National programming

KMSP has a boat load of news here
4:30-10a
11-noon
5-6:30
9-10:35 (theyve had a 9pm newscast since they were Independent waaaaaaaaay back in the day...around the early 80s)

plus Monday they start a 7pm (1/2 hour) newscast on sister station WFTC (My29 now FOX9+)

Saturdays its 7-9a then 5-6p then 9-10:30p
Sundays its 7-8a, then 9-11a then 5-6 and finally 9-10:35p
But now weekends not so much due to sports

 

[Megatron]

Here in Minneapolis on Saturdays (non sports time) its the weekend run of TMZ
Sundays its FOX National programming

KMSP has a boat load of news here
4:30-10a
11-noon
5-6:30
9-10:35 (theyve had a 9pm newscast since they were Independent waaaaaaaaay back in the day...around the early 80s)

plus Monday they start a 7pm (1/2 hour) newscast on sister station WFTC (My29 now FOX9+)

Saturdays its 7-9a then 5-6p then 9-10:30p
Sundays its 7-8a, then 9-11a then 5-6 and finally 9-10:35p
But now weekends not so much due to sports

Thanks for the info.

 

[TheBigA]

As I have said before these multiple "news" shows just seem to be a way to justify showing more commercials (the same old commercials day after boring day). They bring nothing to an informed public.

This may come as a shock to you, but an "informed public" is not the goal. Making money is. In that way, they are successful.

You may not watch, but lots of people do.

 

[landtuna]

This may come as a shock to you, but an "informed public" is not the goal.

So much for "in the public interest".

 

[TheBigA]

So much for "in the public interest".

There's nothing in the rules that precludes TV stations from making money while also reporting the news. Unless you prefer it all to be paid for by the government.

 

[itsTheRolyPoly]

Here in Minneapolis on Saturdays (non sports time) its the weekend run of TMZ
Sundays its FOX National programming

KMSP has a boat load of news here
4:30-10a
11-noon
5-6:30
9-10:35 (theyve had a 9pm newscast since they were Independent waaaaaaaaay back in the day...around the early 80s)

plus Monday they start a 7pm (1/2 hour) newscast on sister station WFTC (My29 now FOX9+)

Saturdays its 7-9a then 5-6p then 9-10:30p
Sundays its 7-8a, then 9-11a then 5-6 and finally 9-10:35p
But now weekends not so much due to sports

I thought they don't have 10pm need on Saturdays.

 

[landtuna]

There's nothing in the rules that precludes TV stations from making money while also reporting the news. Unless you prefer it all to be paid for by the government.

As you may have noticed I am not a big fan of TV "news". They tend to grind headlines into the dirt all the while providing no real information (example: ABC's network news last week on hurricane coverage - redundant and idiotic). And I haven't measured but it seems fully half the stories on local TV tend to be either human interest or fluff stories (example: the coverage of Apple's latest iPhone). There is an abundance of car crashes, building fires and shooting stories where there is either a lack of information ("MORE AT 10 PM!!!") or the story is inconsequential to the average viewer. And that doesn't count the overlap between network and local news programs where the story is covered by one and again by the other. And have you noticed that the further the shows go in time the more frequent the commercial interruptions get? Even the networks are playing this game now - towards the end of the show the commercials take up more time than the stories.

I am old enough to remember when the stories presented actually made sense and were not just "if it bleeds, it leads". My old journalist professor must be turning in his grave these days.

 

[TheBigA]

I am old enough to remember when the stories presented actually made sense and were not just "if it bleeds, it leads". My old journalist professor must be turning in his grave these days.

It all reflects the changing interests of TV viewers. Back when you went to school, TV was brand new, and most folks read newspapers for "real news." That option still exists, although it's getting killed by the marketplace. People at newspapers are working harder to stay relevant in a world where no one cares about things that matter. What people really want is the latest dirt or gossip. Ask your kids what matters most to them. It's what drives all media, regardless of platform. And since our media is supported by advertising, not the federal government, it means that whatever attracts the most eyes is what leads the news. As for your old professor, either he would have to adapt to the new reality, or he'd be looking for a new gig. So yes, Dorothy, we're not in Kansas anymore.

 

[davideduardo]

And I haven't measured but it seems fully half the stories on local TV tend to be either human interest or fluff stories (example: the coverage of Apple's latest iPhone).

BigA already commented the broader picture of what attracts eyes to the screen. But denying the newsworthiness of the new iPhone is unrealistic.

43% of persons 13 and over have an iPhone, and are interested in news about new models and the regular enhancements to the operating system.

I think a safe bet is that there are more people interested in the iPhone than in Brexit or the status of the Paris Climate Accord.

 

[landtuna]

It all reflects the changing interests of TV viewers. Back when you went to school, TV was brand new, and most folks read newspapers for "real news." That option still exists, although it's getting killed by the marketplace. People at newspapers are working harder to stay relevant in a world where no one cares about things that matter. What people really want is the latest dirt or gossip. Ask your kids what matters most to them. It's what drives all media, regardless of platform. And since our media is supported by advertising, not the federal government, it means that whatever attracts the most eyes is what leads the news. As for your old professor, either he would have to adapt to the new reality, or he'd be looking for a new gig. So yes, Dorothy, we're not in Kansas anymore.

"Newspapers", including the online kind, remain the go-to place for in-depth coverage of most stories. Places where "kids" don't go because to them the news doesn't affect them. When they have aged another 10, 20, or 30 years they will raise the same complaint as I have and for the identical reasons.

Not too long ago responsible companies used to present news and entertainment based upon its importance and effectiveness of communication and not on the number of eyeballs it drew to the broadcast. Very little of that still exists and in large part it is the dumbing down of this nation as well as the number of recent immigrants whose interests lie elsewhere.

TV, as an industry, used to present programming to educate, inform and entertain the people. In Dorothy's new world it has discarded the first two almost completely and given the number of pointless 'reality' shows is well on the way to discarding the latter as well. The number of people disconnecting from TVland after generations of adornment tells the story. TV people are killing their own careers.

 

[TheBigA]

TV, as an industry, used to present programming to educate, inform and entertain the people.

They also did a lot of the most mindless crap imaginable. Don't talk yourself into thinking TV was once all NBC Theater and See It Now. There was also the Munsters and Batman. There was a lot of fluff in the 50s, and there is a lot of serious stuff now, if you look for it. Most people don't, and that's why TV is the way it is.

Reality shows get incredible numbers. Those numbers stay consistent even when the episodes get repeated numerous times. A lot of MTV fans complain about replacing music shows with reality shows, and the reason simply has to do with the number of viewers a reality show can get. Both A&E and Bravo were supposed to put PBS out of business. Now both A&E and Bravo are non-stop reality TV. It's all about attracting eyeballs. Broadcasters are not in the education business. That's not their job.

You keep ignoring the most important fact: You pay taxes for teacher salaries. Advertising pays broadcasters salaries. You want TV to be educational? Demand more tax money for TV. As long as more eyeballs equals money for programs, you'll have dumb programs on TV.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

"Newspapers", including the online kind, remain the go-to place for in-depth coverage of most stories. Places where "kids" don't go because to them the news doesn't affect them. When they have aged another 10, 20, or 30 years they will raise the same complaint as I have and for the identical reasons.

Not too long ago responsible companies used to present news and entertainment based upon its importance and effectiveness of communication and not on the number of eyeballs it drew to the broadcast. Very little of that still exists and in large part it is the dumbing down of this nation as well as the number of recent immigrants whose interests lie elsewhere.

TV, as an industry, used to present programming to educate, inform and entertain the people. In Dorothy's new world it has discarded the first two almost completely and given the number of pointless 'reality' shows is well on the way to discarding the latter as well. The number of people disconnecting from TVland after generations of adornment tells the story. TV people are killing their own careers.

TV, as an industry, still does that. What entertains, informs and educates YOU may well not be what entertains me. Some of that entertainment also includes reality. Such was true since the first flickers of the small screen. While busily yelling at those darned whippersnappers to get off your lawn, you overlook that there are more choices than ever, and that's a good thing. People can choose what they want from among dozens or hundreds of options, not a number that could be counted on one hand.

Newspapers and TV have always been different animals--and that is not to either's detriment. I have consumed both since I was but a youngster myself. They serve different purposes. The morning TV news (local) gives me a good sense of what I need to know heading out the door--will the weather be a problem, will I need to contemplate a different route to work, and what are the basic headlines of the day. The newspaper I read digitally while at the gym gives me more in depth information about the topics i choose to learn more about. Both have their strengths, their weaknesses and their challenges and opportunities.

 

[tested]

Read the story carefully. This does not mean all the Fox O&O stations are going to add LOCAL news shows. Some will, but many will run things like TMZ and Page Six. They've tried this out in some markets with success. Other markets have added local shows that work. You'll see a mix of these depending on the market and station.

 

[TheBigA]

Read the story carefully. This does not mean all the Fox O&O stations are going to add LOCAL news shows.

Actually, the title of the article says exactly that.

Then it says this:

"So, executives at Fox Television Stations Group, which comprises 28 stations that reach 37% of U.S. homes, intend to stop running the syndicated fare in favor of late-night shows crafted by their local-news operations."

Yes, most of the article talks about syndicated comedies, so you might imply that they'd carry syndicated informational shows like the ones you mentioned, but then there's THIS line:

"Stations typically share advertising revenue from such shows with the syndicators. Running another news program would allow the Fox stations to keep all the advertising they sell."

So there's the financial advantage of keeping all the money, rather than buying or bartering syndication.