bk1808 said:
As a former program director and someone who can only recall one other place that I've been in my 20 year career that employs this many people in their news department, I'd be curious to know what your solution to this perceived inadequacy would be.
Traffic reports are like sausage; best not to look to closely about how they are made and what goes into them.
Traffic reports are a total waste but the industry has sold the public on them. Mostly they are of little value. They miss a lot. They get the information too late even more (with the result they are not talking about a problem while it occurs and are talking about a problem after it's gone). They tell you about traffic jams and you get there and there is none. They tell you about traffic jams when you are already in it. And, more than anything, they do not tell you about jams when you can avoid them (assuming you can avoid them). But they give listeners the illusion of control, the illusion you can "do something" about traffic jams (even if it's never worked out that way).
Weather is better. You can predict the weather and you can take some action in response. And when weather report is wrong people know it.
People say traffic reporters do a good job: How do they know? Fact is: You don't. If they miss or are late reporting the accident South of town and you are coming from the North, there is no way you will know they screwed up. Any listener sees very little (if any) of the whole picture. I have done all sides of traffic: Road reporting, producing, editing and announcing. I have monitored the competing services at the same time. They miss a lot. They miss a lot because there is a lot to miss. They miss a lot because road reporters can only be in so many places, because a lot does not come across on scanners, because cameras go down and because road sensors are notoriously unreliable and coverage is spotty.
More resources do increase accuracy but a couple of guys driving around, trying to listen to scanners and report "live" is not only totally inadequate, it's a safety hazard. At least one of the major traffic services took scanners out of their road units because drivers/road reporters were having too many accidents. Radio runs PSAs reminding people of the hazards of cell phone use while driving; scanners and push-to-talk broadcasting while driving is even worse.
Some of you assume the reports are accurate. They are supposed to sound accurate. But radio traffic, like radio news, is more about the illusion of coverage than actual coverage (hence "live from the roads ...). There is really no way for listeners to tell how accurate traffic reports are.
So, to answer the original question: You mentioned news but I assume your question was about traffic. Outsource. Only major traffic providers serving multiple stations, TV, Internet and GPS systems have the resources to do anything close to a competent job. But, what the heck, "live from the roads" sounds impressive. These traffic SUVs with call letters in big bright letters are only really useful as promotional devices (sort of like "there's that news van again").
