Local TV News Changes

[mock3]

My first posting from my new pad in Richmond, VA...

Channels 8 and 23 will give their local news production over to channel 6 in Jan. Read it all here:
http://www.tribune-democrat.com/local/local_story_332113055.html

 

[shilton]

My first posting from my new pad in Richmond, VA...

Channels 8 and 23 will give their local news production over to channel 6 in Jan. Read it all here:
http://www.tribune-democrat.com/local/local_story_332113055.html

Certainly can't hurt them. 8 and 23's newscasts have been horrid ever since the channels first launched. Despite reinventing themselves a few times over (or trying to) I doubt any of us turned their news shows on unless it was solely by accident. Won't be missed a bit.

 

[mock3]

Certainly can't hurt them. 8 and 23's newscasts have been horrid ever since the channels first launched. Despite reinventing themselves a few times over (or trying to) I doubt any of us turned their news shows on unless it was solely by accident. Won't be missed a bit.

I thought that David Price did a really good job. I enjoyed watching when David Price or Marisa Ferger were on the air.

 

[shilton]

Certainly can't hurt them. 8 and 23's newscasts have been horrid ever since the channels first launched. Despite reinventing themselves a few times over (or trying to) I doubt any of us turned their news shows on unless it was solely by accident. Won't be missed a bit.

I thought that David Price did a really good job. I enjoyed watching when David Price or Marisa Ferger were on the air.

Let me rephrase myself. You are correct that David was a good host. Sorry, I don't remember Marisa to say much about her. What I meant by my statement is that overall the content was always horrible. They could cover the same story as the other 2 networks and it just always seemed like "it was missing something". Then when they started this deal of beginning the newscast with "Good News"...I mean, I am sorry but special interest pieces just don't draw ratings. People want to know who got arrested and why, who shot whom in Altoona this time, who wrecked their car, etc. Heck for most of their pieces, the reporter had to double as their own camerman. That alone tells me of their lack of devotion to giving their staff the resources to succeed. I feel bad for the people who are losing their jobs but aside from that like I said, no one will miss their newscasts very much at all.

 

[gargoyles]

It's true they don't do a very good job. But that's still better than no job at all. If they were keeping a news operation going, there's always the chance that someone would come along and straighten them out. Their excuse for cutting is something like "we sunk a lot of money into this thing and we can't recoup our losses." Of course they can't. You can't Just throw money at a problem. You have to throw it intelligently. Here's where today's "I can manage anything" managers fail. You have to know how to hire and how to get and use equipment, and you can't know that if you're merely a bean counter.

The true losers in this situation are the people working there (Ch 6 says it will hire something like three people. That leaves 14 or 15 out of work) and the viewers -- such as there are of them.

There were all kinds of things channels 8 & 23 could have done to distinguish themselves from the rest of the pack. They must have realized they needed to (hence the "good news" fiasco. Everyone says they want that stuff, but no one really does.)

You don't have to send a reporter and a crew to every fire and one car auto crash. But a little imagination, and people begin to notice. And you can't teach that. Or curiosity. It comes with the people you hire.

As the news operations shrivel and die, who steps in to fill the void? People with agendas: politicians of every stripe, clergy, business people (both the honest and the not so honest.)

Competitive media are necessary in a functioning democracy.

 

[2MANYHATS]

Heck, they should just bring back the old crew....Jeff (If it bleeds it leads) Allen, Dr. Dave the Meteorologist, and that bevy of babe reporters ! That'll make peoplw watch and businesses want to sponsor!

 

[dustintv]

As the news operations shrivel and die, who steps in to fill the void? People with agendas: politicians of every stripe, clergy, business people (both the honest and the not so honest.)

I see Bud Shuster is still haunting Altoona...

 

[Snafu]

8 & 23 just don't have the money for local programming of that nature. They have been shoestring operations for years and don't begin to have the history that 6 does. Cox is using the news deparment at 6 as sort of a minor league team for its other outlets so they are willing/able to spend a few more pennies on their news product. This will add revenue to their bottom line and should keep the product solid for the market size.

 

[gargoyles]

Broadcast licensees, as you are well aware, are mandated to operate in the public convenience and necessity. That part of the communications act of 1934 was one of the few chunks spared cannibalization in the most recent revisions. This means -- or at least has always meant -- that they have to do what they say their going to do. Since they said in their applications that they are going to do "x" amount of news, they have to do it.

The defense "lots of other people in our area do news, so it's not so important that we do it" hasn't worked when radio and TV stations have tried to worm out of their self-imposed commitments in other communities and it shouldn't here either.

But more basic than that, you (inadvertently?) fell into a trap when you adopted the language of management and referred to a "news product." It's not a product. It's a service, and a necessary one.

They're not making any money? Sell the license to someone who can.

But Cox crying poverty is a bit disingenuous. They're bidding on spectrum, they're making significant grants to the University of Arizona. And while they're forecasting a revenue decline for next year, they're not applying for welfare.

 

[fried man]

Altoona/Johnstown news hasn't been the same since the days of John Swartz, Wes Maley, Dale Smith, and Dick Richards. Of course, who could ever forget Chic whats-his-name and his "weather-in-motion". Somdbody pass the gaspipe...

 

[shilton]

Broadcast licensees, as you are well aware, are mandated to operate in the public convenience and necessity. That part of the communications act of 1934 was one of the few chunks spared cannibalization in the most recent revisions. This means -- or at least has always meant -- that they have to do what they say their going to do. Since they said in their applications that they are going to do "x" amount of news, they have to do it.

The defense "lots of other people in our area do news, so it's not so important that we do it" hasn't worked when radio and TV stations have tried to worm out of their self-imposed commitments in other communities and it shouldn't here either.

But more basic than that, you (inadvertently?) fell into a trap when you adopted the language of management and referred to a "news product." It's not a product. It's a service, and a necessary one.

They're not making any money? Sell the license to someone who can.

But Cox crying poverty is a bit disingenuous. They're bidding on spectrum, they're making significant grants to the University of Arizona. And while they're forecasting a revenue decline for next year, they're not applying for welfare.

But you seem to be missing the point that they may have promised a certain "amount" or block of time devoted to local news. I am sure their applications didn't state the source of that news. They are merely outsourcing their news division which I'd assume still meets the minimum criteria they agreed to. Besides, since when does the FCC even pay attention to that stuff. Are the million "Froggies" that were once stand alone stations and are now only acting as a repeater for the Altoona signal going to lose their licenses because they are not operating in the interests of their community by delivering local content...of course not. And this is done in other markets already. I have seen countless instances where One station does another stations' news although admittedly its normally a case where both stations are owned by the same folks. Still, its not unchartered territory. The ABC and Fox news has suffered for a long time so I'd have to think that rebroadcasting Channel 6's news will give them a leg up from what they used to have. Besides, I really don't care. I only watch 10 news LOL ;D (kidding)...actually the air staff at 10 news leaves little to be desired these days as well.

 

[gargoyles]

Nah, Steve, I'm not missing the point. The point is "do news" and they're not doing it.

 

[clangham]

Wes Maley was probably one of the best anchors Altoona ever had or will ever see. Use to watch him anchor at WHTM and WHP in the 80s in Harrisburg and he was still as good! Often wonder where he is or if he is still alive?

Altoona/Johnstown news hasn't been the same since the days of John Swartz, Wes Maley, Dale Smith, and Dick Richards. Of course, who could ever forget Chic whats-his-name and his "weather-in-motion". Somdbody pass the gaspipe...

 

[Snafu]

The FCC hasn't paid a bit of attention to the public clause since about 1996. With each new commissioner the concept gets farther and farther out of reach. Under Uncle Charlie's present unwritten rules they don't really care if you do all of the news you promised, if someone else does your news for you or if you just stop doing news altogether. Is that wrong? Yes. But Congress would have to press the issue and they are more out of touch on the subject than the commission. Nobody has lost a license over failure to live up to the public clause since way, WAY before the rewrite and in the present climate isn't going to. Period.

Should every radio and TV station in America have a full time news department and be forced to devote time each hour to a real, honest to God newscast? I am an old fashioned radio guy and I say yes. Problem is the NAB and station owners say no and have convinced Congress to look the other way on the matter.

 

[gargoyles]

You and I are right.

 

[radioboss]

Just like the public file requirements that radio stations adhere to... so do TV stations have to follow certain requirements and are also required to have a public file.

ALL television stations (full power, Class A's, and low powers) HAVE to broadcast a MINIMUM of three (3) hours of locally, originated programming. It does not say that it has to be three hours of local news.

It can be a combination of public affairs, local news, local sports, in-house productions, etc.

That's why I don't understand why our local tv stations don't try to do something for themselves (other than news) to be unique, instead of using syndicated programming to fill voids.

Yes, news is expensive (no matter if it's radio or tv). But, at least WWCP 8 and WATM 23 was trying to make a difference. However, tv is becoming like radio with the "big boys" leading the way with better personalities, salaries, etc.

Frank Quitoni, the GM for both stations has a fiduciary responsibility to his stockholders to operate efficiently. I am sure that it was a hard decision for Frank to make; but, this is a business. If the advertising revenues aren't there to support it anymore, then why continue doing it.

 

[gargoyles]

Once again, you're missing the point. Fiduciary responsibilities does not mean "a buck no matter what." If you do a decent news program, you'll attract advertisers and that will boost revenue and that's fulfilling fiduciary responsibilites. Licensed broadcasters have an obligation to serve their audience over their stockholders. Doing a decent news job would do both.

 

[amradioiii]

The point being, they obviously didn't deliver a good enough news product. That was reflected in the lack of advertising revenue, and the lack of viewership to those news products. 8 & 23 didn't do a decent news job. I agree that there should be more diversity in the news departments both radio and television. Not rip and read the same news from either the paper or tv's website. You need to actually cover news events, that requires a great deal of staff and a great deal of salaries to do it right.

 

[gargoyles]

News as profit center is a relatively recent idea, and a dangerous one at every level. Advertising from other programs and other sources should fund or subsidize news. That's how NBC, CBS and ABC started, and that's still how it's done at Bloomberg and Fox.

 

[amradioiii]

So are you saying they should continue to do a lousy job? Profit or no profit. Their viewership was consistently poor compared to 6 & 10. Their production is substandard compared to 6 & 10. How long should 8 & 23 continue to do a poor newscast, and how long should their management fund that poor effort? If they can meet their responsibilities with an arrangement with 6, then fine. If you are saying they should have produced a better product that was either on par or superior to 6 & 10, I agree completely. But they didn't, for far too long.