• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Philly TV vs NYC TV

N

Nertz

Guest
I spent a few days in a part of New Jersey where I could get both Philly and NYC TV stations. I would have to say most of the NYC stations were better. One exception was WWOR, since WPSG seems like a better UPN station, not that that is going to mean anything. Their WNET blows out WHYY away.
 
NYC always has been a better market. More money. More resources. Top of the ladder; therefore best talent. For O&O's, the bosses are watching.

WNET does a pledge drive, celebrities show up, same people we see on New York based network and syndicated talk shows. (On KCET in Los Angeles, movie stars - BIG movie stars - show up.)

> I spent a few days in a part of New Jersey where I could get
> both Philly and NYC TV stations. I would have to say most of
> the NYC stations were better. One exception was WWOR, since
> WPSG seems like a better UPN station, not that that is going
> to mean anything. Their WNET blows out WHYY away.
>
 
Just going by the local news on the major networks, I think Philly more than holds its own. Had a chance to check out several of the NYC news programs earlier in the month and really wasn't that impressed at all. Not that this is a huge factor, but I thought a lot of the graphics were "older", and didn't find the presentations all that appealing.
<P ID="signature">______________
Nick Langan
WNJL.com Radio
</P>
 
> Just going by the local news on the major networks, I think
> Philly more than holds its own. Had a chance to check out
> several of the NYC news programs earlier in the month and
> really wasn't that impressed at all. Not that this is a
> huge factor, but I thought a lot of the graphics were
> "older", and didn't find the presentations all that
> appealing.
>
I went to Trenton State. People from South Jersey watched Philly and people from North Jersey watched NYC. Channel 6 had Jeopardy on a few seconds ahead of channel 7. One of my roomates would be out in the living room watching from NYC and I always yell out the answer before Alex was done asking the question.
 
> Just going by the local news on the major networks, I think
> Philly more than holds its own. Had a chance to check out
> several of the NYC news programs earlier in the month and
> really wasn't that impressed at all. Not that this is a
> huge factor, but I thought a lot of the graphics were
> "older", and didn't find the presentations all that
> appealing.
>

Agreed. NY local television is very professional, but also not cutting edge. Philly TV news has more interesting features and does a much better job of supplying their viewers with "local" news.

I've always thought that New York was one of the worst markets from which to see "local" stories. Places such as northern NJ, Westchester, Fairfield County and Long Island seem terribly underserved by their major market affiliates. Especially when you consider just how many people live in these places. I suppose it's difficult to serve 16 million people with a 30 minute newscast. Especially when a good percentage of that time is dedicated to national stories.

That can't be said about the areas around Philly - the locals seem to do a perfectly good job of covering the market. Also, I'd take a Philly weathercaster over the New York ones anyday!
 
> I spent a few days in a part of New Jersey where I could get
> both Philly and NYC TV stations. I would have to say most of
> the NYC stations were better. One exception was WWOR, since
> WPSG seems like a better UPN station, not that that is going
> to mean anything. Their WNET blows out WHYY away.
>

For Spanish language television, NYC TV is better.
For PBS stations selection, NYC TV is better.

WB11 is also better than WB17. WPHL is pretty weak (no sports programming, outsourced news program); Tribune better add some programming on to it, esp. since they'll losing so much programming next fall. My guess is they'll do paid programming in the morning (between 6am-11am), sorta like they did in the 90s, and possibly shift everything else later. In the mid-90s, they did infomercials between 9:30 and 11am.

Back in the early 90s, I also think 5, 9 and 11 carried reruns that 17, 29 and 57 didn't carry. However, the opposite was also true. It would have been nice to get both sets, at the time. Now, neither market is special. Or, I guess with DVDs, cable channels, it's not really important.

For NJ coverage or local suburban news coverage, Philly TV is better. I think Philly has a more hometown feel, also.
 
A few years ago I lived in a town that had both Philly & NYC-TV. I've since moved two towns North and "crossed the line" and get NYC only via the cable company (although I can still pick up Philly OTA if I try, and I don't, too much work, but I'm rambling). The biggest advantage to having both was a chance to get extra Fottball games. Not just the Eagles, but a second National Coverage game, instead of getting stuck with the Giants at 1 and Jets at 4 with no other options. Oh, and the other advantage was Channel 6's Action News... fun to watch.


> Back in the early 90s, I also think 5, 9 and 11 carried
> reruns that 17, 29 and 57 didn't carry. However, the
> opposite was also true. It would have been nice to get
> both sets, at the time. Now, neither market is special.
> Or, I guess with DVDs, cable channels, it's not really
> important.
 
> I've always thought that New York was one of the worst
> markets from which to see "local" stories. Places such as
> northern NJ, Westchester, Fairfield County and Long Island
> seem terribly underserved by their major market affiliates.
> Especially when you consider just how many people live in
> these places. I suppose it's difficult to serve 16 million
> people with a 30 minute newscast. Especially when a good
> percentage of that time is dedicated to national stories.
>
> That can't be said about the areas around Philly - the
> locals seem to do a perfectly good job of covering the
> market. Also, I'd take a Philly weathercaster over the New
> York ones anyday!
>
I agree with NYC not doing much local news. Actually I was a little disapointed in the News Anchors themselves. They don't seem to have the "personality" of other markets. It's almost as if they are like "Well I'm in NYC the big time, I don't have to try."

I think "as a whole" Chicago does a better job with the news anchors.<P ID="signature">______________
Once I figured out the meaning of life....Then I forgot to write it down.</P>
 
> I agree with NYC not doing much local news. Actually I was a
> little disapointed in the News Anchors themselves. They
> don't seem to have the "personality" of other markets. It's
> almost as if they are like "Well I'm in NYC the big time, I
> don't have to try."

I would have to disagree, well except for WCBS, WNYW and WWOR. Then again I have been watching Chuck and Sue for as long as I can remember and they do a much better job at 11 than anyone else I have seen anywhere. However, I may be a bit biased from years of exposure, plus it is hard to really compare newscasts from someplace you know very well to someplace you don't. <P ID="signature">______________
<a href=http://www.triborough.org/blog/>Random Observations on Life, the Universe and Television</a></P>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom