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

[landtuna]

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

I did not deny the interest (it really isn't "newsworthiness") in the iPhone but (1) those people most likely get their "news" from online sources as opposed to TV news shows and (2) the iPhone stories I saw in my market were headline stuff (not really) and went on and on and on about the new (or lack of) features and the cost.

I will agree that particular story bears a mention but not headline nor feature.

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.

And I am willing to bet those same people have already received emails and flyers.

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.

I hate to say it but there are probably more people interested in porn than any of the above. But your comment raises a good point. The local and network news, AFAIK, has never done a detailed story on either Brexit or the Paris Climate Accords other than to give the president's opinion (which is in itself a tragedy). It might be a nice change of pace for the "news" to explain just how both of those issues will affect the average American. It doesn't need to be a feature story but one that gives the highlights.

 

[TheBigA]

The local and network news, AFAIK, has never done a detailed story on either Brexit or the Paris Climate Accords other than to give the president's opinion (which is in itself a tragedy). It might be a nice change of pace for the "news" to explain just how both of those issues will affect the average American. It doesn't need to be a feature story but one that gives the highlights.

That demonstrates just how little of the news programming you actually see. Because they HAVE gone into great detail in the nightly newscasts (by that I mean the network news), they have done in-depth pieces in shows like CBS Sunday Morning and 60 Minutes, and then there are the in-depth interviews on shows like Meet The Press and Face The Nation. Every night PBS has an entire hour dedicated to in-depth discussion of issues like Brexit and climate change. And that's just over-the-air broadcasting, excluding cable news. How much of that have you even watched? A whole lot of things happen that the average person doesn't see. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

 

[landtuna]

They also

There was a lot of fluff in the 50s...

It is a bit unfair to compare the "mature" TV broadcast industry we supposedly have now with the very early days of TV broadcasting. The suits should have gotten smarter but it seems they just continue selling to the highest bidder. It can be done in a much more beneficial way - just look at the British example for instance.

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.

You've gone way off subject here. We were discussing news programming and not programming in general. News, from the earliest days of TV and radio broadcasting, was supposed to be primarily educational in nature. It was not supposed to focus on fluff and nonsense. I was there when WABC morphed into the "happy news" genre. I always thought we would, at some point, revert to the original purpose of a news segment. It hasn't happened....at least not nationally. In my many travels around the country (and across national boundaries) I saw much the same format everywhere I went.

Here is a perfect example: A few hours ago there was a collision between a motorcycle and a car on the west side of town. A few minutes ago it reached "breaking news" status on a local morning show news segment. The video shows the bike, upside down and in pieces, but nothing else. The accompanying VO telling us three people were involved and were taken to the hospital. DUH! It did mention the location but no mention of how traffic might be affected - the most important thing affecting the most people (even on a Sunday morning). Another example of news that pretends to be important but is actually presented as nothing but shock value. The station could have interrupted itself with a screen crawl or a brief account of the location and suggested alternate routes but it didn't. It took the time to send out a crew to obtain video of the crashed bike which is not news to most people.

 

[TheBigA]

News, from the earliest days of TV and radio broadcasting, was supposed to be primarily educational in nature. It was not supposed to focus on fluff and nonsense. I was there when WABC morphed into the "happy news" genre. I always thought we would, at some point, revert to the original purpose of a news segment. It hasn't happened....at least not nationally. In my many travels around the country (and across national boundaries) I saw much the same format everywhere I went.

Once again, it sounds like your experience with news on TV is very limited. You turn it on, see something you don't like, and turn it off. Rather than seek out things you might want. Everything you want is there, but maybe not when you watch. You want TV to be educational. When was the last time you watched PBS? Every night, they have PBS NewsHour, and usually half of the show is foreign news like Brexit. If that isn't serious enough for you, they carry the BBC News every night, so you can see Brexit from the people who are in the middle of it. Tonight, PBS begins the Ken Burns film on Vietnam. You want educational? You want serious? Sounds like that's perfect for you.

 

[landtuna]

Once again, it sounds like your experience with news on TV is very limited. You turn it on, see something you don't like, and turn it off.

Incorrect. In the past several months I have sampled all three national networks and all but one local news TV outlet (one is just too painful to watch) and PBS. In years past I traveled a lot across the country as well as more than a few European countries. Since 1962 I have lived in many locations around the USA. PBS comes closest to the type of news reporting except that it does not report local news. My original post was directed primarily at local news so I did not include PBS as a competitor in my posts.

And again, I am not campaigning for TV to be "educational" but I do think news programs should be. We are a democracy (in theory anyway) and to have a fully functional population requires an informed population. TV news, at both national and local levels, is not providing that. Instead they focus on presidential tweets, prolonged coverage on weather events not impacting the national as a whole, fluff and nonsense like "person of the week" and so forth.

You mention BBC. Believe it or not I get most of my national news from the BBC even though it is a foreign newscast. What isn't covered there in enough detail I can get via online sources.

As far as Ken Burns' Vietnam....I am a Vietnam Veteran and a history buff to boot so I will be watching - but again, we are not talking about programs outside news reporting.

 

[TheBigA]

And again, I am not campaigning for TV to be "educational" but I do think news programs should be. We are a democracy (in theory anyway) and to have a fully functional population requires an informed population. TV news, at both national and local levels, is not providing that.

Nice theory, but in reality, the framers didn't care about an "informed population." They actually had great disdain for the population. So informing them wasn't seen as important. There are no rules or laws that require TV news to be educational, informational, or even factually correct. If they did it that way at one time, it was because no one cared what they did. But that's changed.

Back to the OP, the reason Fox is adding news in late night isn't to be educational, or to inform the public, but to save the money it spends on syndication. Contrary to what you believe, a lot of people will watch it. As I've said, you probably won't. But that doesn't matter, nor does it affect their decision.

 

[tested]

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.

Actually, the article is about getting rid of sitcoms and adding either local news or shows that are fresh only once, like TMZ, Page Six, etc. Many Fox O&Os already have the late news, but some don't. Those that don't will add newscasts, ditch Modern Family, Seinfeld or Big Bang reruns and add those other shows like TMZ. You're just not going to see exclusively local shows added as a result of this move.

Take KDFW in Dallas, for example. They already have a 10pm newscast. (which for folks accustomed to East Coast programming schedules is the same as having an 11pm newscast) It's followed by Modern Family, then TMZ and Page Six. When the Modern Family contract is up (which could be a while) they'll probably just shift TMZ and Page Six earlier. Other Fox O&Os didn't have the 10pm newscast, but they're adding them now. KTBC in Austin and KRIV in Houston just added 10pm newscasts. They had been airing sitcoms or other syndicated programming at 10pm. KRIV has had a special news program called The Isiah Factor for a while. They just shifted that to 10:30pm.

 

[TheBigA]

Actually, the article is about getting rid of sitcoms and adding either local news or shows that are fresh only once, like TMZ, Page Six, etc.

It doesn't say they will be adding those shows. It says they will be doing "late night shows crafted by their local-news operations." So that might mean a local version of TMZ or a local gossip show.

It's very clear that this change is to keep money with the stations. If they carry TMZ, they have to pay the syndicator. They don't want to do that any more.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

They also

It is a bit unfair to compare the "mature" TV broadcast industry we supposedly have now with the very early days of TV broadcasting. The suits should have gotten smarter but it seems they just continue selling to the highest bidder. It can be done in a much more beneficial way - just look at the British example for instance.

So....when being used to back your arguments, comparisons to the early days of broadcasting are valid, yet not when others do the same thing? That's a rather intellectually dishonest standard.

Realistically, it comes down to what the audience wants. Rather than ranting about the business people doing their best to live up to their obligation to run profitable businesses, perhaps the more relevant question is why people choose what they do (without being judgmental out of the gate about said choices).

 

[landtuna]

That demonstrates just how little of the news programming you actually see. Because they HAVE gone into great detail in the nightly newscasts (by that I mean the network news), they have done in-depth pieces in shows like CBS Sunday Morning and 60 Minutes, and then there are the in-depth interviews on shows like Meet The Press and Face The Nation. Every night PBS has an entire hour dedicated to in-depth discussion of issues like Brexit and climate change. And that's just over-the-air broadcasting, excluding cable news. How much of that have you even watched? A whole lot of things happen that the average person doesn't see. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

My topic of discussion is OTA network only and by network I mean CBS, ABC and NBC and my local affiliates. PBS is unique and does not share a major portion of the viewing public. I cut the cable years ago and pay no attention to faux news outlets such as Fox. I do watch selected shows from MSNBC and HBO but these are not news shows but rather opinion and/or satire.

I consider Sunday Morning and 60 Minutes newsmagazines which do not usually go into immediate news stories. Sunday Morning was not relocated when the rest of the nation went on DST so comes on way too early on a Sunday morning here in Phoenix. It is a good show but not worth recording or getting up that early to watch - and it is full of human interest stories which I do not consider news. I don't consider 60 Minutes a news show either and for much the same reasons even though it does have the occasional news segment.

Face the Nation and Meet the Press are exclusively political opinion. I haven't watched either of these shows in years because I can't stand people who squabble with each other and talk all at once about things which will never change. A discussion of Brexit or Climate Change by a group of politicians isn't logical, informative or news - especially if that group includes the president or his laughable minions.

 

[landtuna]

Nice theory, but in reality, the framers didn't care about an "informed population." They actually had great disdain for the population. So informing them wasn't seen as important. There are no rules or laws that require TV news to be educational, informational, or even factually correct. If they did it that way at one time, it was because no one cared what they did. But that's changed.

The framers had nothing to do with broadcasting or even news dissemination as it was way back then. But, if memory serves, there is a byline in the FCC charter somewhere that broadcasters operate in the public interest. That public interest has long been assumed to include the accurate and timely dissemination of information important to the democratic society. Tabloids and yellow journalism have existed but not primarily within the recognized broadcast industry and are usually considered within the "entertainment" category.

Back to the OP, the reason Fox is adding news in late night isn't to be educational, or to inform the public, but to save the money it spends on syndication. Contrary to what you believe, a lot of people will watch it. As I've said, you probably won't. But that doesn't matter, nor does it affect their decision.

If you had been reading my posts you would already know that I not only share your opinion above but said virtually the same thing in my original post. In my market several such shows have already failed and I have no doubt these will as well. The only people who watch will be sound asleep on their couches at that time of night - either that or too drunk to care.

The more repetitious filler the stations put on the air will have a direct consequence of loss of viewership.

 

[TheBigA]

But, if memory serves, there is a byline in the FCC charter somewhere that broadcasters operate in the public interest. That public interest has long been assumed to include the accurate and timely dissemination of information important to the democratic society.

You know what they say about "assume?" The reference to "public interest" can mean whatever they want it to mean. It's never been defined. However, all broadcasters give "accurate and timely" information. You don't happen to think weather and traffic information is important. What you think is important information is subjective. Other people have different opinions. Those are the people who are likely to watch this late night local news broadcast.

 

[landtuna]

You know what they say about "assume?" The reference to "public interest" can mean whatever they want it to mean. It's never been defined. However, all broadcasters give "accurate and timely" information. You don't happen to think weather and traffic information is important. What you think is important information is subjective. Other people have different opinions. Those are the people who are likely to watch this late night local news broadcast.

I think "the public interest" can be defined by the application of common sense. The "Gong Show" would not qualify. "See It Now" would.

And, I did not say traffic and weather were not important. I said a lot of people watch morning shows for just this information. Here in Phoenix weather is no biggie. What was it yesterday? That's what it will be today. No floods, hurricanes, typhoons, snow, hail etc. We worry about wind and the very occasional heavy rain - that's about it. Traffic is more important if you commute to work but that information is available up-to-the-minute on your smartphone - you don't have to wait for it to come around sandwiched between numerous commercials.

When I lived back east all I got from the radio was time and temp. If I wanted to know what the weather was going to be like on my 1-hour drive to work I would just look out the window. If it was snowing I knew the drive would be slow and stay off certain roads. If there was an icicle hanging from my roof I knew there would be ice. Likewise rain. Since everything broadcast in those days was NYC centric you could not depend upon radio or TV to give you timely and accurate information outside the city limits and there were very few "neighborhood" radio stations broadcasting school closings and the like. And since the "news" stopped westward at the Hudson River it was pretty much worthless too unless you followed the sexual exploits of the NY mayor or were subject to the next garbage strike.

But I am willing to wait to see what the ratings might be for the late night news. I don't think we will have to wait very long.

 

[mnradiofan]

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.

But there is nothing wrong with repeating the news. These days, everyone has different schedules. Some don't even get off work until 10PM, and they would sure benefit from an 11PM repeat of the 10PM news (and chances are, those people probably cannot afford a DVR, and many may not have internet or smart phones).

I don't see this as a "monumental waste of time" especially considering all the other options available for entertainment. Personally, I fall into the group of people with always-on internet, Netflix, Amazon Prime, and a Tivo. I don't watch local news PERIOD, I get my news from the local newspaper websites, unless there is something that is breaking. But, I am not "everyone" nor would I pretend to be.

 

[LKellerIII]

For what it's worth - back when I used to be a night-owl in the early 80s, I liked NBC News Overnight with Linda Ellerbee and Bill Schechner (sp?) Shechner later worked at KPIX 5 in San Francisco. It wasn't straight news, the 2 anchors were allowed to show their personalities, IIRC - and Ellerbee in particular liked to do commentary. I believe that's where she first gained a lot of attention in the public eye.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Ellerbee

 

[landtuna]

For what it's worth - back when I used to be a night-owl in the early 80s, I liked NBC News Overnight with Linda Ellerbee and Bill Schechner (sp?) Shechner later worked at KPIX 5 in San Francisco. It wasn't straight news, the 2 anchors were allowed to show their personalities, IIRC - and Ellerbee in particular liked to do commentary. I believe that's where she first gained a lot of attention in the public eye.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Ellerbee

Weekend was one of my all time favorite news-type shows. The writing was fantastic. Ellerbee and Dobyns made a great pair.

 

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/112648/fox-stations-expands-news-in-nine-markets

Here is an update on that for Fox O&O's specifically for news expansion New York, Washington, Tampa Bay, Phoenix, Detroit, Minneapolis and Charlotte,

 

[Mr Tony]

bummer. There goes my early TMZ viewing on KMSP (6:30pm)....they have replays at 11:35 and 3:30am on KMSP and 2:30am on WFTC Fox 9+

 

[TheBigA]

Interesting in that this was announced before Fox proposed selling off its syndication division to Disney.

 

[FreddyE1977]

Personally when I watch TV late at night I am looking for a distraction and a few chuckles.
Not more death, destruction, crime, pestilence and Trump bashing.