It's Not Really Katie's Fault; Put The Evening News Out of its Misery

[bpatrick]

I also think that at this
point it's pointless to argue that the
network evening news should be put out
of its misery; try me again in a couple of
years, when digital is all we have.

Are you The Decider on this question? :

I have reported this posting. I have every right
to disagree with you, especially when the network
evening news isn't going anywhere in the near
future, and I could ask you the same thing because
you're so convinced that it is. Likewise, you are
perfectly free to disagree with me; I would appreciate
your doing so without the sarcasm, however.

 

[fred flintstone]

I have reported this posting. I have every right
to disagree with you, especially when the network
evening news isn't going anywhere in the near
future, and I could ask you the same thing because
you're so convinced that it is. Likewise, you are
perfectly free to disagree with me; I would appreciate
your doing so without the sarcasm, however.

Disagree all you want. Please don't make judgements about what issues can or should be discussed.

You declared the topic "pointless to argue" (and we could get back to you when analog shuts down).

Now you say, you can disagree BECAUSE the evening news is not going anywhere.
Whether or not the evening news will go anywhere is an opinion, and the whole point of this discussion.

Sorry, I don't know what IS going to happen. (Do you?)
I (and others) do have opinions about what should happen (and why).

You didn't make it clear whether you think network evening newscasts SHOULD stay on terrestrial TV.
You said you think they WILL stay but gave no reasons for that conclusions. You just declared this is what will happen (by fiat?) and therefore we should stop talking about it.
Someone saying what others can or can't talk about here pushes my sarcasm button.

 

[bpatrick]

OK, let me sum it up:

1. Not everyone can afford cable or satellite
and thus don't have access to CNN, Fox News
Channel, or MSNBC.

2. The network news is still a prestige part
of the ABC, CBS, and NBC schedules.

3. Until the technology changes, I THINK the
network news is going to stay put.

4. If you want to continue this discussion, fine.
I'm telling you what I THINK, not that what I say
is, or should be taken as, the last word. I don't
have the ability to predict what the television world
will be in two years or five years, and I will concede
I should have made that clearer.

5. However, I am convinced that you have an
attitude. I would not be so angry about this if you
had asked me WHY I feel this discussion is pointless,
to clarify my position, to begin with, rather than using
the remark you did. I would then have been happy to
give you points 1-3 above. I am not the moderator;
I can't stop you or anybody else from continuing this
thread. But I can say what I think, and if you or anyone
else wants to question me about it, they can do so in
a more professional manner.

I suggest you count to ten before you answer any more
of my posts. I will not hesitate to report you again, nor
will I apologize for the post that started this. And if the
moderator wants to kick me off this board, at this point
I could not care less.

 

[Jul]

Don't forget old (up to 2 hours delayed) when aired in the Mountain and Pacific time zones.

I don't understand why can't the networks do a live edition of the evening newscasts for the west coast viewers at 6:30 PM PT/7:30 PM MT and a live edition of the network morning news shows GMA, Early show and Today live in the PT/MT zones?

 

[bpatrick]

Thank you, Julius, for diverting the subject in a
different direction. ABC tried a live feed to the
West Coast (and I believe the Mountain time zone
as well); remember back in January when we were
all trying to figure out why ABC was doing a live
broadcast at 5:30 Pacific, then another at 6:30
just for Los Angeles? Hasn't all that been discontinued?

But that doesn't make the idea any less logical. Since
I get LA stations on DirecTV I can see the West Coast
feeds of the morning shows and the evening news, and
things do happen after they go off the air in the East
that don't make the West Coast feeds. If Pacific viewers
feel they're getting more information from their local news,
it's not hard to understand why.

 

[fred flintstone]

I don't understand why can't the networks do a live edition of the evening newscasts for the west coast viewers at 6:30 PM PT/7:30 PM MT and a live edition of the network morning news shows GMA, Early show and Today live in the PT/MT zones?

Money.

Think about how much it would cost to keep everybody - EVERYBODY - readers, writers, producers, technical people, camera operators - EVERYBODY - in place for three hours.

Back in the days of network radio, EVERYBODY used to repair to the corner bar to kill time waiting to do another show for the coast. Some of those shows on the Pacific Network could be very interesting. ;D

 

[argytunes]

:

Rather than go into a tirade about "who's right and who's wrong"...I think the major problem with NETWORK NEWS is trying to distinguish an important story from a feature piece that you'd see on 60 MINUTES (or a similar program)?

There's also too much teasing ("coming up next") for stories that really have very little information or substance. Many of the NEWS anchors seem to be in competition with ENTERTAINMENT TONIGHT...a show that used to be informative, but now is tired tabloid trite!

I find most of the primetime network newscasts VERY BORING! Simply because the anchors are trying to reach a certain audience demographic...instead of researching and reporting ACTUAL NEWS.

Trust me...I'm not looking for "the good old days" of news broadcasting (ala Walter Cronkite or Huntley/Brinkley)...but the moment I feel "I'm being set up by a news anchor"---the network newscast gets turned off!

Usually I'll replace it with a dvd or a video. This is a better option (for me) than watching a cluster of stupid commercials just to find out what's going on in the rest of the world!

argytunes

 

[fred flintstone]

Who Watches

I was thinking as I read the posts in this thread whether people who want the network dinner hour news to continue (and those who don't - or don't care) regularly watch any of these shows (once a week, 2-3-4-5 times a week)? Some of the posts sound like people think a network nightly newscast is a nice thing or a good thing to have - something that SHOULD be done, but not something those people make a point to watch themselves.

Truth is: I haven't watched in quite a while. I've seen Brian Williams a few times. I checked out Bob Schieffer a few times and he brought back some of Walter's comfortable authority but the rest of the show was the same dumbed down fluff and hype with too much graphics. I don't watch local news either. But it's not that I don't watch. I just don't see any point to it - local people now have equal access to the news material and videos as the network people. I don't see the point to a one-size fits all national newscast giving the New York perspective to the rest of us. Not all stories are interesting to whole country. And some stories have local and regional involvement and deserve special attention a network newscast can not and won't give. And I don't see the point to having local people do national stories and then some network newsreader comes and does them again.

I don't think people would want their local paper to abdicate on national and world news and just take some boiler plate package from a national service to insert in the paper. Newspapers pick national stories most important to local readers and look for ways these stories affect local readers. Network newscasts can not and will not do that.

In any case, are any of you regularly watching these programs? Why?

 

[KeithE4]

Re: Who Watches

In any case, are any of you regularly watching these programs? Why?

Nope, not since I moved to Arizona.

Why? The obvious: It's two hours old when we get them at 5:30 (NBC & ABC) and 6:00 (CBS). Sometimes the local stations 5 PM newscasts have more recent news than the (delayed) network shows a half-hour later.

I watch Sheperd Smith on FNC at 4 PM PDT/MST (5 PM after the time change), which is live and up to date. If there is breaking news after that, the cable networks will interrupt their respective (but not respectable) bloviators for it. There will also be updates during the local newscasts that won't appear on the network show because that particular event hadn't happened yet.

And, with at least one local Phoenix newscast opposite the network news, the local shows are more up to date if anything national does break.

 

[formeraa]

Well, another issue for Arizonans and most West Coast cities is the extreme traffic. If you work an 8am to 5pm job, it is difficult to get home by 5:30pm to see a stale version of the network news. I watched Katie once (left work at exactly 5pm) and wasn't impressed enough to rush home every night.

I would kill to see a LIVE national/world news broadcast at 7pm Mountain Standard Time. I hate watching East Coast reruns.

 

[fred flintstone]

Maybe the audience for the evening news is geriatric because of the timing more than the content.
Even in the Eastern Time Zone it's on too early (6:30 almost everywhere). Elsewhere it's on WAY too early.

Who is NOT on their way home, still settling down or having dinner when the evening news is on?
Who goes out to dinner BEFORE 5pm to get the "early bird" special?

Originally, CNN and MSNBC made a point of doing - and promoting - their major live news package in prime-time, and making a big deal of the more convenient time. Now, like a lot of radio stations, talk has replaced news (and sometimes passes for news). CNN always has had a talk show in the evening (before Larry King - Mike Douglas even did it at one point) but originally they did a newscast for TBS while the talk show was on, so you always had news.

And many broadcast stations have taken the time slot when the news used to run and now it for news of a sort (A Current Affair, Inside Edition, Access Hollywood, Entertainment Tonight, Extra, The Insider). Apparently this is what most people want.

Except for a handful of all news stations in a few major markets, news departments and news longer than headlines have mostly disappeared from commercial radio.

 

[Jul]

I don't understand why can't the networks do a live edition of the evening newscasts for the west coast viewers at 6:30 PM PT/7:30 PM MT and a live edition of the network morning news shows GMA, Early show and Today live in the PT/MT zones?
[/quote] I would contact the networks and request that they start doing this from now on.

 

[FightingIrish]

I don't understand why can't the networks do a live edition of the evening newscasts for the west coast viewers at 6:30 PM PT/7:30 PM MT and a live edition of the network morning news shows GMA, Early show and Today live in the PT/MT zones?

I would contact the networks and request that they start doing this from now on.

Lazy anchors?

It would make sense for the evening newscasts (I've heard that they already do two different ones).

For mornings, it would be tough to do a whole 2-3 hour show all over again, but they could design it so news breaks could be done live for the west coast and inserted, like local weather is (though I'm sure the networks could do this more seemlessly).

I think FOX has the right idea by turning mornings over to their affiliates. Local all-news morning shows do very well in markets. I've heard that FOX was thinking about starting up their own national morning show but this is just stupid. Who needs yet another show with cooking tips, frivilous interviews and live concerts?

 

[fred flintstone]

I don't understand why can't the networks do a live edition of the evening newscasts for the west coast viewers at 6:30 PM PT/7:30 PM MT and a live edition of the network morning news shows GMA, Early show and Today live in the PT/MT zones?
I would contact the networks and request that they start doing this from now on.

Julius, maybe you would understand if you had bothered to read the answers you received the first time you asked this same question in this same thread. More evidence, if any were needed, that you don't read the replies people give you, you just post and then post again - and again.

Now that every local station in town has blocked your phone number, you're going to start calling the networks?

I think FOX has the right idea by turning mornings over to their affiliates. Local all-news morning shows do very well in markets. I've heard that FOX was thinking about starting up their own national morning show but this is just stupid. Who needs yet another show with cooking tips, frivilous interviews and live concerts?

Actually, CBS stations were getting better numbers in the mornings when they were doing mostly local morning shows (with network cut-aways for national stories or interviews). The stations did not want to go back to another Today Show clone but the ego of network suits won out. Sounds like the same thing may be happening at Fox.

 

[rch66]

Fox's intended morning show is not to replace the local morning shows on its affiliates. It's to follow them, and compete against Regis, The View, 3rd hour of Today, etc.

 

[rch66]

And many broadcast stations have taken the time slot when the news used to run and now it for news of a sort (A Current Affair, Inside Edition, Access Hollywood, Entertainment Tonight, Extra, The Insider). Apparently this is what most people want.

But daytime ratings [combined of all daytime programs] diminish more and more every year, and the reruns of those shows are more like filler programming. So, it's not necessarily what people want. I'm of the opinion if the daytime hours are just filler anyways, one of the networks should add a network news program with more international news content. Maybe it could be a talk/news program, and ran before Price is Right or whatever.

The morning hours are strong, and late night isn't so bad. 'Nightline' has shown improved numbers [ without Ted Koppel, a change from DC to NY, and a more headline news format].

 

[PTBoardOp94]

fred flintstone: I'm not sure that affiliates are required to run The Early Show in its entirety: WISH-TV in Indianapolis runs its local Daybreak program from 5a to 8a, with a cut-in or two to The Early Show in the 7a hour. The suits may have won out by deciding to produce a morning show, but it doesn't seem that all of their affiliates make use of it. I can't believe that WISH is the only affiliate that does this.

I don't see the 6:30 eastern time for the evening network news changing. What would the affiliates do with their "ET" or "Jeopardy!"? Air it at 5PM, then start their 90 minute local news at 6? That puts the evening news really close to the 9pm local newscasts that appear in several markets.

 

[bhayes1016]

fred flintstone: I'm not sure that affiliates are required to run The Early Show in its entirety: WISH-TV in Indianapolis runs its local Daybreak program from 5a to 8a, with a cut-in or two to The Early Show in the 7a hour. The suits may have won out by deciding to produce a morning show, but it doesn't seem that all of their affiliates make use of it. I can't believe that WISH is the only affiliate that does this.

KHOU in Houston also airs only the 8am hour of The Early Show.

 

[fred flintstone]

The stations CBS OWNS have to run it (and many of them didn't want to give the time back to the network).
The fact that some affiliates opt out of all of part of the program is telling.
CBS has always had a problem with clearances for its morning programs (except for Captain), even more back when it only owned five stations. It may be just as well that much of the country doesn't remember Walter Cronkite doing cigarette commercials and talking with a lion puppet on an early version of the morning show.
I still miss the CBS Morning News with Hughes Rudd, probably the best regular network news broadcast ever (possibly excepting NBC's Overnight news show with Linda Ellerbee and Lloyd Dobbins). Of course, most of the country also got to miss the train wreak CBS created when the brought a completely inexperienced Sally Quinn on as co-anchor (to promptly fall flat on her face).
But the current Morning Show will likely not sleep with the fishes as long as one of the girls on the show sleeps with Les Moonves.

Here is CBS' current station portfolio.
New York, NY | WCBS
Los Angeles, CA | KCBS
Chicago, IL | WBBM
Philadelphia, PA | KYW
San Francisco, CA | KPIX
Boston, MA | WBZ4
Dallas, TX | KTVT
Detroit, MI | WWJ
Minneapolis, MN | WCCO
Miami/Ft. Lauderdale, FL | WFOR
Denver, CO | KCNC
Sacramento, CA | KOVR
Pittsburgh, PA | KDKA
Baltimore, MD | WJZ
Salt Lake City, UT | KUTV /St. George, UT | KUSG
Austin, TX | KEYE
Green Bay/Appleton, WI | WFRV/Escanaba, MI | WJMN

 

[Morgan Wick]

Actually, CBS stations were getting better numbers in the mornings when they were doing mostly local morning shows (with network cut-aways for national stories or interviews).

This is actually something Fox should consider doing; break into its affiliates' morning shows. It helps spread the brand. That way we're not quite so reminded every morning that Fox is far newer than the rest of the Big 4.

Well, I think it's a good idea...