Former WROC-TV 8 reporter Rachel Barnhart is back in the Rochester media and headed to WHAM-TV 13 starting Monday, April 10th. She'll join 13's staff as a web producer/Internet reporter until she can go back on air. That could happen sometime this summer. She'll be responsible for writing and updating content, and will get to file original web reports.
-
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
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Rachel Barnhart Goes To WHAM-TV 13
- Thread starter tvnewswatcher
- Start date
M
Mark_Giardina
Guest
Damn smart move on the part of 13 in hiring Rachel.
I've always said that 13 plans for the future when it comes to their on-air personnel. Adding Rachel to their news staff will only improve WHAM TV's overall product.
Good luck Rachel at your new job.
<P ID="signature">______________
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted and I won't be laid a hand on.
I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them".</P>
I've always said that 13 plans for the future when it comes to their on-air personnel. Adding Rachel to their news staff will only improve WHAM TV's overall product.
Good luck Rachel at your new job.
<P ID="signature">______________
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted and I won't be laid a hand on.
I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them".</P>
O
odomski
Guest
Good move on Channel 13's part. I wish Rachel the best of luck in her new job at WHAM. Screw you Nexstar. You lost a good on-air talent, but you morons don't give a damn about the good people in your company. Nothing against the people who work at WROC (it's not their fault Nexstar sucks), but I hope that place sinks even further then it already has. It will serve Sook the Schnook right.
> Good move on Channel 13's part. I wish Rachel the best of
> luck in her new job at WHAM. Screw you Nexstar. You lost a
> good on-air talent, but you morons don't give a damn about
> the good people in your company. Nothing against the people
> who work at WROC (it's not their fault Nexstar sucks), but I
> hope that place sinks even further then it already has. It
> will serve Sook the Schnook right.
>
You honestly think the suits at Nexstar care that they lost a good reporter? Hell no! All they are interested in is the bottom line. So instead of having someone on the payroll making, let’s say, 40k a year, they now have someone making 30k. All the company is thinking about is that they are saving 10k a year. They forget the fact that one of their best reporters will now be working for the competition. Instead Eldridge and the front office are euphoric that 8 experienced a slight ratings increase in their morning show that features the team of Jackie Gleason, Blondie the news reader and that new guy, whoever the hell he is.( And I doubt will be at Channel 8 this time next year)
At WHAM TV Rachel will have twice the number of people watching her work compared to 8. So in the long-run, she made out very well.
Keep an eye out for the next person on Eldridge’s “hit list”. I’m betting its Dave McKinley. Why Dave? Because he has everything 8 doesn’t want in their reporting team. Experience, creditability, and he gets paid too much money.
Instead 8 is banking on people like Lia Lando and Ty Chandler to bring the station’s ratings up to par with 10 and 13. Anyone willing to bet that both women, especially Lando, are sending out their tapes and resumes already?
> luck in her new job at WHAM. Screw you Nexstar. You lost a
> good on-air talent, but you morons don't give a damn about
> the good people in your company. Nothing against the people
> who work at WROC (it's not their fault Nexstar sucks), but I
> hope that place sinks even further then it already has. It
> will serve Sook the Schnook right.
>
You honestly think the suits at Nexstar care that they lost a good reporter? Hell no! All they are interested in is the bottom line. So instead of having someone on the payroll making, let’s say, 40k a year, they now have someone making 30k. All the company is thinking about is that they are saving 10k a year. They forget the fact that one of their best reporters will now be working for the competition. Instead Eldridge and the front office are euphoric that 8 experienced a slight ratings increase in their morning show that features the team of Jackie Gleason, Blondie the news reader and that new guy, whoever the hell he is.( And I doubt will be at Channel 8 this time next year)
At WHAM TV Rachel will have twice the number of people watching her work compared to 8. So in the long-run, she made out very well.
Keep an eye out for the next person on Eldridge’s “hit list”. I’m betting its Dave McKinley. Why Dave? Because he has everything 8 doesn’t want in their reporting team. Experience, creditability, and he gets paid too much money.
Instead 8 is banking on people like Lia Lando and Ty Chandler to bring the station’s ratings up to par with 10 and 13. Anyone willing to bet that both women, especially Lando, are sending out their tapes and resumes already?
Good luck to 13's employees, who inherit a notoriously difficult coworker that WROC-TV 8 couldn't fire fast enough.
> Former WROC-TV 8 reporter Rachel Barnhart is back in the
> Rochester media and headed to WHAM-TV 13 starting Monday,
> April 10th. She'll join 13's staff as a web
> producer/Internet reporter until she can go back on air.
> That could happen sometime this summer. She'll be
> responsible for writing and updating content, and will get
> to file original web reports.
>
> Former WROC-TV 8 reporter Rachel Barnhart is back in the
> Rochester media and headed to WHAM-TV 13 starting Monday,
> April 10th. She'll join 13's staff as a web
> producer/Internet reporter until she can go back on air.
> That could happen sometime this summer. She'll be
> responsible for writing and updating content, and will get
> to file original web reports.
>
I
IlDuce
Guest
> Good luck to 13's employees, who inherit a notoriously
> difficult coworker that WROC-TV 8 couldn't fire fast enough.
>
Jealously is so unbecoming.
I’m sure that Rachel will be very happy working for a “real” news organization staffed with professionals at a TV station that actually has an viewing audience instead along side a group of “newbies” and amateurs (except Dave McKinley) that currently occupy 201 Humboldt Street.
And the only reason 8 wanted to get rid of Barnhart is not because she’s difficult to work with. It’s because she had the audacity to refuse management’s attempts to force her into signing a contract that would have reduced her salary. Plus the fact that Lee Eldridge didn't like Rachel, just like he didn't like Melissa Long, and a few other current staff members.
It will be amusing to watch 8 drop further into the ratings basement now that Barnhart is gone. I'm sure (in their own minds) the management at 8 believes that Melanie Barnas, Ty Chandler, Jennifer Chu, Lia Lando and Katrina Irwin will attract viewers. Those people couldn't hold Rachel's handbag let alone compete with her when it comes to either news gathering or anchoring.
> difficult coworker that WROC-TV 8 couldn't fire fast enough.
>
Jealously is so unbecoming.
I’m sure that Rachel will be very happy working for a “real” news organization staffed with professionals at a TV station that actually has an viewing audience instead along side a group of “newbies” and amateurs (except Dave McKinley) that currently occupy 201 Humboldt Street.
And the only reason 8 wanted to get rid of Barnhart is not because she’s difficult to work with. It’s because she had the audacity to refuse management’s attempts to force her into signing a contract that would have reduced her salary. Plus the fact that Lee Eldridge didn't like Rachel, just like he didn't like Melissa Long, and a few other current staff members.
It will be amusing to watch 8 drop further into the ratings basement now that Barnhart is gone. I'm sure (in their own minds) the management at 8 believes that Melanie Barnas, Ty Chandler, Jennifer Chu, Lia Lando and Katrina Irwin will attract viewers. Those people couldn't hold Rachel's handbag let alone compete with her when it comes to either news gathering or anchoring.
M
Mark_Giardina
Guest
Reaction To Your Comment About Rachel Barnhart
> Good luck to 13's employees, who inherit a notoriously
> difficult coworker that WROC-TV 8 couldn't fire fast enough.
Never having worked with Rachel Barnhart I can not attest that your statement about her being difficult to work with is correct or not. Perhaps you did work with her and have a different perspective on the subject. Yet I will say that her on-air product was not only very professional but that many times her stories appeared on Channel 8 days before her competitors had them.
Wouldn’t you agree however that if Rachel had a reputation of being difficult that reputation would have spread through the “grapevine” and that 13 would have never hired her?
Is it possible that Rachel (in your opinion) was hard to work with because she insisted on being a professional who would not tolerate mediocrity? The desire to do the best job possible and just being a pain-in-the-ass are two different categories altogether, trust me.
From what I’ve been told, either from people who work at 8 or know someone who works there, that it is no secret Channel 8’s news director wanted to make some personnel changes and that Rachel was on the list of people he wanted to see leave. Well he accomplished his goal and now Rachel is gone.
Personally I think the decision to let Rachel go was Channel 8’s loss and 13’s gain and that in the long run the decision will come back to haunt Channel 8.
<P ID="signature">______________
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted and I won't be laid a hand on.
I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them".</P>
> Good luck to 13's employees, who inherit a notoriously
> difficult coworker that WROC-TV 8 couldn't fire fast enough.
Never having worked with Rachel Barnhart I can not attest that your statement about her being difficult to work with is correct or not. Perhaps you did work with her and have a different perspective on the subject. Yet I will say that her on-air product was not only very professional but that many times her stories appeared on Channel 8 days before her competitors had them.
Wouldn’t you agree however that if Rachel had a reputation of being difficult that reputation would have spread through the “grapevine” and that 13 would have never hired her?
Is it possible that Rachel (in your opinion) was hard to work with because she insisted on being a professional who would not tolerate mediocrity? The desire to do the best job possible and just being a pain-in-the-ass are two different categories altogether, trust me.
From what I’ve been told, either from people who work at 8 or know someone who works there, that it is no secret Channel 8’s news director wanted to make some personnel changes and that Rachel was on the list of people he wanted to see leave. Well he accomplished his goal and now Rachel is gone.
Personally I think the decision to let Rachel go was Channel 8’s loss and 13’s gain and that in the long run the decision will come back to haunt Channel 8.
<P ID="signature">______________
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted and I won't be laid a hand on.
I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them".</P>
Re: Reaction To Your Comment About Rachel Barnhart
> > Good luck to 13's employees, who inherit a notoriously
> > difficult coworker that WROC-TV 8 couldn't fire fast
> enough.
>
>
> Never having worked with Rachel Barnhart I can not attest
> that your statement about her being difficult to work with
> is correct or not. Perhaps you did work with her and have a
> different perspective on the subject. Yet I will say that
> her on-air product was not only very professional but that
> many times her stories appeared on Channel 8 days before her
> competitors had them.
>
> Wouldn’t you agree however that if Rachel had a reputation
> of being difficult that reputation would have spread through
> the “grapevine” and that 13 would have never hired her?
>
I agree. Also, I have not heard that many people from the channel 8 crew trashing Rachel. Most of them that I have talked to have done nothing but express support for her throughout all of this. If she was so difficult to deal with on the job front, then I doubt that would be the case. You cannot break stories like she does without ruffling some feathers along the way. Good investigative reporters are not supposed to be weak yes men.
WHAM-TV has made a very wise choice and gotten themselves a heck of a reporter!
> > Good luck to 13's employees, who inherit a notoriously
> > difficult coworker that WROC-TV 8 couldn't fire fast
> enough.
>
>
> Never having worked with Rachel Barnhart I can not attest
> that your statement about her being difficult to work with
> is correct or not. Perhaps you did work with her and have a
> different perspective on the subject. Yet I will say that
> her on-air product was not only very professional but that
> many times her stories appeared on Channel 8 days before her
> competitors had them.
>
> Wouldn’t you agree however that if Rachel had a reputation
> of being difficult that reputation would have spread through
> the “grapevine” and that 13 would have never hired her?
>
I agree. Also, I have not heard that many people from the channel 8 crew trashing Rachel. Most of them that I have talked to have done nothing but express support for her throughout all of this. If she was so difficult to deal with on the job front, then I doubt that would be the case. You cannot break stories like she does without ruffling some feathers along the way. Good investigative reporters are not supposed to be weak yes men.
WHAM-TV has made a very wise choice and gotten themselves a heck of a reporter!
> Keep an eye out for the next person on Eldridge’s “hit
> list”. I’m betting its Dave McKinley. Why Dave? Because he
> has everything 8 doesn’t want in their reporting team.
> Experience, creditability, and he gets paid too much money.
I have heard many rumors to this effect. I know that Eldridge has not made Dave's life exceptionally easy. We shall see. However, he is the only talent left among the reporters there.
> Instead 8 is banking on people like Lia Lando and Ty
> Chandler to bring the station’s ratings up to par with 10
> and 13. Anyone willing to bet that both women, especially
> Lando, are sending out their tapes and resumes already?
>
Oh, don't forget about Joylynn Whitfield. There is some more quality for you. And I highly doubt that the above mentioned reporters (one of whom refered to Benjamin Franklin as a president) will be able to bring any more viewers in. I think I heard most of the few remaining viewers exercising their remotes and changing the station the day Rachel left.
> list”. I’m betting its Dave McKinley. Why Dave? Because he
> has everything 8 doesn’t want in their reporting team.
> Experience, creditability, and he gets paid too much money.
I have heard many rumors to this effect. I know that Eldridge has not made Dave's life exceptionally easy. We shall see. However, he is the only talent left among the reporters there.
> Instead 8 is banking on people like Lia Lando and Ty
> Chandler to bring the station’s ratings up to par with 10
> and 13. Anyone willing to bet that both women, especially
> Lando, are sending out their tapes and resumes already?
>
Oh, don't forget about Joylynn Whitfield. There is some more quality for you. And I highly doubt that the above mentioned reporters (one of whom refered to Benjamin Franklin as a president) will be able to bring any more viewers in. I think I heard most of the few remaining viewers exercising their remotes and changing the station the day Rachel left.
> Good luck to 13's employees, who inherit a notoriously
> difficult coworker that WROC-TV 8 couldn't fire fast enough.
If that is the case then she will not last long at 13. The staff at 13 WHAM (WOKR) are very proud of their product -this includes news, engineering, and production depts. The people who are difficult to work with, if they are a "star" or just don't carry their weight, seem to disappear from the station quickly. When the news dept. folks walk into engineering for something everyone is happy to see them and will do whatever it takes to help them. The production people working in the news room or on the floor are considered equals or in some cases superiors just because of their many years of experience at the station. Snottyness or rudeness will not go over well.
My gut feeling is she will be warmly welcomed at WHAM-TV and she will be happy
working there.
>
> difficult coworker that WROC-TV 8 couldn't fire fast enough.
If that is the case then she will not last long at 13. The staff at 13 WHAM (WOKR) are very proud of their product -this includes news, engineering, and production depts. The people who are difficult to work with, if they are a "star" or just don't carry their weight, seem to disappear from the station quickly. When the news dept. folks walk into engineering for something everyone is happy to see them and will do whatever it takes to help them. The production people working in the news room or on the floor are considered equals or in some cases superiors just because of their many years of experience at the station. Snottyness or rudeness will not go over well.
My gut feeling is she will be warmly welcomed at WHAM-TV and she will be happy
working there.
>
Channel 8 Is One Big Joke
> > Keep an eye out for the next person on Eldridge’s “hit
> > list”. I’m betting its Dave McKinley. Why Dave? Because he
>
> > has everything 8 doesn’t want in their reporting team.
> > Experience, creditability, and he gets paid too much
> money.
>
> I have heard many rumors to this effect. I know that
> Eldridge has not made Dave's life exceptionally easy. We
> shall see. However, he is the only talent left among the
> reporters there.
>
> > Instead 8 is banking on people like Lia Lando and Ty
> > Chandler to bring the station’s ratings up to par with 10
> > and 13. Anyone willing to bet that both women, especially
> > Lando, are sending out their tapes and resumes already?
> >
> Oh, don't forget about Joylynn Whitfield. There is some more
> quality for you. And I highly doubt that the above mentioned
> reporters (one of whom refered to Benjamin Franklin as a
> president) will be able to bring any more viewers in. I
> think I heard most of the few remaining viewers exercising
> their remotes and changing the station the day Rachel left.
>
Benjamin Frankin as president? God where does 8 get these minimum-wage wonders from? Better yet what type of education do these people have? A sixth grader could tell you that Franklin never served in elective office, let alone was President of the United States. Maybe these so-called reporters at 8 should start watching the History Channel, or better yet pick up a history book and read.
Regarding Dave McKinley, if he is the next person to get shoved out the front door then Channel 8 will lose any contacts it has in the field.
With the exception of McGuire, Hetsko and Kucko, Channel 8 has NOBODY that can compete with rivals 10 and especially 13. In less than two years Lee Eldridge has managed to get rid of the most professional people on staff and replace them with small market "eye candy" just so that he can report to Nexstar that he's saved the company money. And we all know that most, if not all of Eldridge’s hires are short-term employees, who will leave 8 at the drop of a pin. To them 8 is just something to put on their resumes. The only thing going for Channel 8 is its affiliation with the CBS network. And now that Couric is going to anchor the CBS Evening News, perhaps 8 may, and I say may, get a slight boost from Couric's coattails.
> > Keep an eye out for the next person on Eldridge’s “hit
> > list”. I’m betting its Dave McKinley. Why Dave? Because he
>
> > has everything 8 doesn’t want in their reporting team.
> > Experience, creditability, and he gets paid too much
> money.
>
> I have heard many rumors to this effect. I know that
> Eldridge has not made Dave's life exceptionally easy. We
> shall see. However, he is the only talent left among the
> reporters there.
>
> > Instead 8 is banking on people like Lia Lando and Ty
> > Chandler to bring the station’s ratings up to par with 10
> > and 13. Anyone willing to bet that both women, especially
> > Lando, are sending out their tapes and resumes already?
> >
> Oh, don't forget about Joylynn Whitfield. There is some more
> quality for you. And I highly doubt that the above mentioned
> reporters (one of whom refered to Benjamin Franklin as a
> president) will be able to bring any more viewers in. I
> think I heard most of the few remaining viewers exercising
> their remotes and changing the station the day Rachel left.
>
Benjamin Frankin as president? God where does 8 get these minimum-wage wonders from? Better yet what type of education do these people have? A sixth grader could tell you that Franklin never served in elective office, let alone was President of the United States. Maybe these so-called reporters at 8 should start watching the History Channel, or better yet pick up a history book and read.
Regarding Dave McKinley, if he is the next person to get shoved out the front door then Channel 8 will lose any contacts it has in the field.
With the exception of McGuire, Hetsko and Kucko, Channel 8 has NOBODY that can compete with rivals 10 and especially 13. In less than two years Lee Eldridge has managed to get rid of the most professional people on staff and replace them with small market "eye candy" just so that he can report to Nexstar that he's saved the company money. And we all know that most, if not all of Eldridge’s hires are short-term employees, who will leave 8 at the drop of a pin. To them 8 is just something to put on their resumes. The only thing going for Channel 8 is its affiliation with the CBS network. And now that Couric is going to anchor the CBS Evening News, perhaps 8 may, and I say may, get a slight boost from Couric's coattails.
Re: Channel 8 Is One Big Joke
> > > Keep an eye out for the next person on Eldridge’s “hit
> > > list”. I’m betting its Dave McKinley. Why Dave? Because
> he
> >
> > > has everything 8 doesn’t want in their reporting team.
> > > Experience, creditability, and he gets paid too much
> > money.
> >
> > I have heard many rumors to this effect. I know that
> > Eldridge has not made Dave's life exceptionally easy. We
> > shall see. However, he is the only talent left among the
> > reporters there.
> >
> > > Instead 8 is banking on people like Lia Lando and Ty
> > > Chandler to bring the station’s ratings up to par with
> 10
> > > and 13. Anyone willing to bet that both women,
> especially
> > > Lando, are sending out their tapes and resumes already?
> > >
> > Oh, don't forget about Joylynn Whitfield. There is some
> more
> > quality for you. And I highly doubt that the above
> mentioned
> > reporters (one of whom refered to Benjamin Franklin as a
> > president) will be able to bring any more viewers in. I
> > think I heard most of the few remaining viewers exercising
>
> > their remotes and changing the station the day Rachel
> left.
> >
> Benjamin Frankin as president? God where does 8 get these
> minimum-wage wonders from? Better yet what type of education
> do these people have? A sixth grader could tell you that
> Franklin never served in elective office, let alone was
> President of the United States. Maybe these so-called
> reporters at 8 should start watching the History Channel, or
> better yet pick up a history book and read.
> Regarding Dave McKinley, if he is the next person to get
> shoved out the front door then Channel 8 will lose any
> contacts it has in the field.
> With the exception of McGuire, Hetsko and Kucko, Channel 8
> has NOBODY that can compete with rivals 10 and especially
> 13. In less than two years Lee Eldridge has managed to get
> rid of the most professional people on staff and replace
> them with small market "eye candy" just so that he can
> report to Nexstar that he's saved the company money. And we
> all know that most, if not all of Eldridge’s hires are
> short-term employees, who will leave 8 at the drop of a pin.
> To them 8 is just something to put on their resumes. The
> only thing going for Channel 8 is its affiliation with the
> CBS network. And now that Couric is going to anchor the CBS
> Evening News, perhaps 8 may, and I say may, get a slight
> boost from Couric's coattails.
>
Besides cutting costs by cutting bodies and salaries, Eldridge and Jaromin's thinking was to "change the culture" at ch. 8. They believe that by getting rid of people hired by Bob Kirk or anytime in the last century, that that would improve the product. But what about the technical crew? Why didn't they face any axes? They are as much a part of that "culture" as the news people.
So often, new managers are under pressure to change things. Not that the change is for the better. THEIR managers believe any change is progress.
TV managers operate under the assumption that if you change out things like graphics, sets, music, faces, that people will want to check out what's new, "sample" the product, and then stick around because they like what they see.
Eldridge, being the typical ND, wanted to bring in his own people -- who would be loyal to HIM. In a few cases, he had no choice - he had to make some hires for openings when he got there -- in many others, he simply wanted to be able to call it his shop. He once told someone that when he got there, he didn't like ANYBODY -- that he wanted to get rid of EVERYBODY. Change for the sake of change is the worst kind.
Plus, there was/is so much pressure in that company to save a buck. A LOT of pressure.
As for Rachel -- yea, he wanted to get rid of her. And everyone.
This is show business, folks. Journalism is their sideline.
Don't worry. Someday the people running that place'll get their due. What goes around, comes around. Believe me.
> > > Keep an eye out for the next person on Eldridge’s “hit
> > > list”. I’m betting its Dave McKinley. Why Dave? Because
> he
> >
> > > has everything 8 doesn’t want in their reporting team.
> > > Experience, creditability, and he gets paid too much
> > money.
> >
> > I have heard many rumors to this effect. I know that
> > Eldridge has not made Dave's life exceptionally easy. We
> > shall see. However, he is the only talent left among the
> > reporters there.
> >
> > > Instead 8 is banking on people like Lia Lando and Ty
> > > Chandler to bring the station’s ratings up to par with
> 10
> > > and 13. Anyone willing to bet that both women,
> especially
> > > Lando, are sending out their tapes and resumes already?
> > >
> > Oh, don't forget about Joylynn Whitfield. There is some
> more
> > quality for you. And I highly doubt that the above
> mentioned
> > reporters (one of whom refered to Benjamin Franklin as a
> > president) will be able to bring any more viewers in. I
> > think I heard most of the few remaining viewers exercising
>
> > their remotes and changing the station the day Rachel
> left.
> >
> Benjamin Frankin as president? God where does 8 get these
> minimum-wage wonders from? Better yet what type of education
> do these people have? A sixth grader could tell you that
> Franklin never served in elective office, let alone was
> President of the United States. Maybe these so-called
> reporters at 8 should start watching the History Channel, or
> better yet pick up a history book and read.
> Regarding Dave McKinley, if he is the next person to get
> shoved out the front door then Channel 8 will lose any
> contacts it has in the field.
> With the exception of McGuire, Hetsko and Kucko, Channel 8
> has NOBODY that can compete with rivals 10 and especially
> 13. In less than two years Lee Eldridge has managed to get
> rid of the most professional people on staff and replace
> them with small market "eye candy" just so that he can
> report to Nexstar that he's saved the company money. And we
> all know that most, if not all of Eldridge’s hires are
> short-term employees, who will leave 8 at the drop of a pin.
> To them 8 is just something to put on their resumes. The
> only thing going for Channel 8 is its affiliation with the
> CBS network. And now that Couric is going to anchor the CBS
> Evening News, perhaps 8 may, and I say may, get a slight
> boost from Couric's coattails.
>
Besides cutting costs by cutting bodies and salaries, Eldridge and Jaromin's thinking was to "change the culture" at ch. 8. They believe that by getting rid of people hired by Bob Kirk or anytime in the last century, that that would improve the product. But what about the technical crew? Why didn't they face any axes? They are as much a part of that "culture" as the news people.
So often, new managers are under pressure to change things. Not that the change is for the better. THEIR managers believe any change is progress.
TV managers operate under the assumption that if you change out things like graphics, sets, music, faces, that people will want to check out what's new, "sample" the product, and then stick around because they like what they see.
Eldridge, being the typical ND, wanted to bring in his own people -- who would be loyal to HIM. In a few cases, he had no choice - he had to make some hires for openings when he got there -- in many others, he simply wanted to be able to call it his shop. He once told someone that when he got there, he didn't like ANYBODY -- that he wanted to get rid of EVERYBODY. Change for the sake of change is the worst kind.
Plus, there was/is so much pressure in that company to save a buck. A LOT of pressure.
As for Rachel -- yea, he wanted to get rid of her. And everyone.
This is show business, folks. Journalism is their sideline.
Don't worry. Someday the people running that place'll get their due. What goes around, comes around. Believe me.
Tech Crew did leave
A lot of people behind the scenes DID leave 8. They were forced out because of the 20 cent an hour raise their union negotiated and the terrible morale and short staffing. 10 got three 8 photographers in the last two years. The morning show crew is almost all new. The EP was fired. The assignment editor took one look at Lee and bolted. Cathy is living on short-term contract extensions until she can get out. I could go on...
A lot of people behind the scenes DID leave 8. They were forced out because of the 20 cent an hour raise their union negotiated and the terrible morale and short staffing. 10 got three 8 photographers in the last two years. The morning show crew is almost all new. The EP was fired. The assignment editor took one look at Lee and bolted. Cathy is living on short-term contract extensions until she can get out. I could go on...
J
JerkStore26
Guest
> > Good luck to 13's employees, who inherit a notoriously
> > difficult coworker that WROC-TV 8 couldn't fire fast
> enough.
>
> If that is the case then she will not last long at 13. The
> staff at 13 WHAM (WOKR) are very proud of their product
> -this includes news, engineering, and production depts.
> The people who are difficult to work with, if they are a
> "star" or just don't carry their weight, seem to disappear
> from the station quickly. When the news dept. folks walk
> into engineering for something everyone is happy to see them
> and will do whatever it takes to help them. The production
> people working in the news room or on the floor are
> considered equals or in some cases superiors just because of
> their many years of experience at the station. Snottyness
> or rudeness will not go over well.
> My gut feeling is she will be warmly welcomed at WHAM-TV and
> she will be happy
> working there.
> >
>
your gut is incorrect.
> > difficult coworker that WROC-TV 8 couldn't fire fast
> enough.
>
> If that is the case then she will not last long at 13. The
> staff at 13 WHAM (WOKR) are very proud of their product
> -this includes news, engineering, and production depts.
> The people who are difficult to work with, if they are a
> "star" or just don't carry their weight, seem to disappear
> from the station quickly. When the news dept. folks walk
> into engineering for something everyone is happy to see them
> and will do whatever it takes to help them. The production
> people working in the news room or on the floor are
> considered equals or in some cases superiors just because of
> their many years of experience at the station. Snottyness
> or rudeness will not go over well.
> My gut feeling is she will be warmly welcomed at WHAM-TV and
> she will be happy
> working there.
> >
>
your gut is incorrect.
Re: Tech Crew did leave
> A lot of people behind the scenes DID leave 8. They were
> forced out because of the 20 cent an hour raise their union
> negotiated and the terrible morale and short staffing. 10
> got three 8 photographers in the last two years. The morning
> show crew is almost all new. The EP was fired. The
> assignment editor took one look at Lee and bolted. Cathy is
> living on short-term contract extensions until she can get
> out. I could go on...
>
Touche.
> A lot of people behind the scenes DID leave 8. They were
> forced out because of the 20 cent an hour raise their union
> negotiated and the terrible morale and short staffing. 10
> got three 8 photographers in the last two years. The morning
> show crew is almost all new. The EP was fired. The
> assignment editor took one look at Lee and bolted. Cathy is
> living on short-term contract extensions until she can get
> out. I could go on...
>
Touche.
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.