Watcher's got it right. In a market like Rochester, you need to retain a core that includes a stable anchor team, a couple of "senior correspondents", and a couple of crabby old producers who know how to shepherd the young talent.
Young talent will come and go. Some will be hits, some will be misses. Some will move up, and some will get out because they'll realize that they'll never make more than $30K in TV.
If you get someone exceptional that has strong ties to the market (via family or marriage), you set them up to replace a core player who's close to retirement, or ready to leave for bigger and better things (family, a job that pays, etc.). Really smart players develop the "next generation" anchors not only on-air, but by getting them involved in multiple community events so they can establish their own identity. Hopefully, that identity is a POSITIVE, not a negative.
Of course, all of this requires management, and stockholders, to look beyond today's share price, and have an expectation that they'll own the station long enough for these moves to come to fruition. Most broadcast owners - in both TV and radio - don't look at the day-to-day profitability. They look at "how much can I make when I sell it", and "how can I maximize profits while waiting for a buyer".
As Clear Channel is finding out in a LOT of markets, the value of a station is dependent on the long-term profitability, and "regional synergies" don't add value, they reduce it.
