Rachel Barnhart No Longer At Channel 8

[Mark_Giardina]

I got an official conformation Thursday night, 1/26/06, that Rachel Barnhart and the management at Channel 8 failed to reach an agreement on a new contract. So Rachel is no longer employed at WROC-TV. Checking Channel 8’s web site I discovered that her photograph has also been removed.

Here is a perfect example of the revolving door policy at 8 that has kept that station in the ratings basement for years compared to their competition.


My own personal observation is that Channel 8 has made one serious mistake in letting Barnhart go. As a field reporter Rachel broke numerous stories days before the competition. And her connections at the Rochester City School District gave her an inside as to developments that eventually lead to some first-rate reporting. It is highly unlikely that 8’s new stable of “eye candy” can achieve ¼ of what Barnhart accomplished as a reporter/anchor during her time at 8.

Let’s hope that either R-News, or channels 10 or 13 are smart enough to hire Barnhart and put her on their news team. She’s proven to be not only a damn good field reporter, but also an experienced weekend anchor.

As I predicted in a previous post just a few weeks ago that Channel 8 would be minus two on-air staff by the end of this year. Steve Levine and now Rachel Barnhart are gone, and it isn’t even the end of the first month of 2006.
<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>

 

[Jarvis]

> I got an official conformation Thursday night, 1/26/06, that
> Rachel Barnhart and the management at Channel 8 failed to
> reach an agreement on a new contract. So Rachel is no longer
> employed at WROC-TV. Checking Channel 8’s web site I
> discovered that her photograph has also been removed.
>
> Here is a perfect example of the revolving door policy at 8
> that has kept that station in the ratings basement for years
> compared to their competition.
>
>
> My own personal observation is that Channel 8 has made one
> serious mistake in letting Barnhart go. As a field reporter
> Rachel broke numerous stories days before the competition.
> And her connections at the Rochester City School District
> gave her an inside as to developments that eventually lead
> to some first-rate reporting. It is highly unlikely that 8’s
> new stable of “eye candy” can achieve ¼ of what Barnhart
> accomplished as a reporter/anchor during her time at 8.
>
> Let’s hope that either R-News, or channels 10 or 13 are
> smart enough to hire Barnhart and put her on their news
> team. She’s proven to be not only a damn good field
> reporter, but also an experienced weekend anchor.
>
> As I predicted in a previous post just a few weeks ago that
> Channel 8 would be minus two on-air staff by the end of this
> year. Steve Levine and now Rachel Barnhart are gone, and it
> isn’t even the end of the first month of 2006.
>

Gasp...she might have asked the Death Star for a well deserved raise, and you know what the answer was! I remember being told if you don't like it here, leave. So that's what I did, and I'm much happier for it!

 

[unverviking]

Sad day in Rochester...

Can't believe that they let her go. BUT since I'm not in the business, I don't know the ins and outs of it.

She was top notch, who's next ?? If I remember correctly, Orosz's contract expired this month and she's just hanging in limbo ?? The other, senior members are McKinley, Harness and Irwin. Not to mention the weeknight anchors.

These owners of 8 need to step up and kill thie rovolving door. Once you get used to a reporter, they're gone... SAD way to do business, especially in this market where Janet Lomax, Rich Funke, Ray Levato, Don Alhart, Emblidge, etc all have over between 20-30 years of seniority on the air...

 

[JerkStore26]

rachel barnhart is a "damn good reporter" and "top notch"? please. a little birdie told me she's not the most ethical reporter in the field. plus...what's up with the eyebrows?

 

[rochesternynews]

This revolving door theory might not be a theory after all. Because I have so much extra time on my hands I went ahead and looked at the biographies for all current employees at the 3 stations in town (WUHF doesn't count since they merged with WROC). Only 7 out of the 16 people WROC has listed on their site worked at the station 5 years ago. WHEC had a higher percentage, but WHAM had the highest.

WROC: 7/16 = 44%
WHEC: 11/20 = 55%
WHAM: 15/22 = 68%

It's really quite simple as to why WHAM has been the leader in the ratings book. I'm not a rocket scientist because it only took 10 minutes of my spare time to do this research and come to a conclusion.

 

[Mark_Giardina]

Let’s put this in real perspective shall we?

> This revolving door theory might not be a theory after all.
> Because I have so much extra time on my hands I went ahead
> and looked at the biographies for all current employees at
> the 3 stations in town (WUHF doesn't count since they merged
> with WROC). Only 7 out of the 16 people WROC has listed on
> their site worked at the station 5 years ago. WHEC had a
> higher percentage, but WHAM had the highest.
>
> WROC: 7/16 = 44%
> WHEC: 11/20 = 55%
> WHAM: 15/22 = 68%
>
> It's really quite simple as to why WHAM has been the leader
> in the ratings book. I'm not a rocket scientist because it
> only took 10 minutes of my spare time to do this research
> and come to a conclusion.
>


The owners at Channel 8 don’t give a damn about their employees. Nexstar is a bottom-line company. And if that means getting rid of experienced veterans, who might be making a decent salary, and replacing them with inexperienced people willing to work for less money, then so be it. But yet I’m willing to bet that the sales staff at 8 has to either make their sales goals for the month or heads will roll. So that means seeing even more commercials featuring obnoxious car dealers and law firms that are shilling for clients.

One has to give WHAM-TV credit for thinking years in advance and not days. Even before Clear Channel purchased Channel 13, there was a succession plan in place so that when the day comes that one of the main anchors retires, someone can move into that position that is well known to the viewing public. I’m sure Channel 10 has a similar policy, but don’t tell that to Brian Martin.

Someone once wrote an amusing antidote on here that at Channel 13 that operation plans ahead for seven years. At Channel 8 viewers have no idea who will be on at 7 a.m. the next morning. Never a truer statement was made.

As far as I am concerned Channel 8 is a lost cause. Not because the people behind the scenes can’t do the work, but because that station has been saddled with owners for over the past 30 years who are too damn cheap to put money into that operation to make it competitive.

<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>

 

[tvfriend]

> rachel barnhart is a "damn good reporter" and "top notch"?
> please. a little birdie told me she's not the most ethical
> reporter in the field. plus...what's up with the eyebrows?
>

Very cheap shot. Success breeds contempt.

 

[Bob1370]

Re: Let’s put this in real perspective shall we?

> The owners at Channel 8 don’t give a damn about their
> employees. Nexstar is a bottom-line company. And if that
> means getting rid of experienced veterans, who might be
> making a decent salary, and replacing them with
> inexperienced people willing to work for less money, then so
> be it.

You have to wonder just how sentient the management is at all levels of the company. This kind of cut-costs-at-all-costs policy has clearly cost them ratings, revenue and bottom line profit, and left them struggling. A competitor who does invest in quality prople, at least on the television side (their unwillingness to do the same in their radio division is legendary), is prospering even in a struggling overall market. It shouldn't take a genius to figure out that Channel 8's way of doing business isn't working for them, it's costing them, bigtime.

> One has to give WHAM-TV credit for thinking years in advance
> and not days. Even before Clear Channel purchased Channel
> 13, there was a succession plan in place so that when the
> day comes that one of the main anchors retires, someone can
> move into that position that is well known to the viewing
> public...Someone once wrote an amusing antidote on here that at
> Channel 13 that operation plans ahead for seven years. At
> Channel 8 viewers have no idea who will be on at 7 a.m. the
> next morning. Never a truer statement was made.

Ironically, Clear Channel would do well to have its radio division emulate the way its television stations operate. WHAM-TV in Rochester and WSYR-TV in Syracuse both operate with similar strategies---build a top rated news operation around a popular local icon (Don Alhart in Rochester, Rod Wood in Syracuse) and then assemble a stable and capable supporting cast to supplement and eventually succeed the icon when he chooses to step down. Not a bad idea for a full service radio station either...

> As far as I am concerned Channel 8 is a lost cause. Not
> because the people behind the scenes can’t do the work, but
> because that station has been saddled with owners for over
> the past 30 years who are too damn cheap to put money into
> that operation to make it competitive.

Channel 8 can be saved...but it needs new ownership. Some say it might be the vehicle Gannett uses to get back into the Rochester market (which it reportedly wants to do). If that happens it's good news for 8...Gannett used a slow and steady process of building talent to rebuild Channel 2 into a viable competitor once again in the Buffalo market, and probably would be patient enough to do the same in Rochester. Whoever takes it over next---and make no mistake, in the next few years someone will---would do well to proceed the same way.

 

[Mark_Giardina]

Re: Let’s put this in real perspective shall we?

> Channel 8 can be saved...but it needs new ownership. Some
> say it might be the vehicle Gannett uses to get back into
> the Rochester market (which it reportedly wants to do). If
> that happens it's good news for 8...Gannett used a slow and
> steady process of building talent to rebuild Channel 2 into
> a viable competitor once again in the Buffalo market, and
> probably would be patient enough to do the same in
> Rochester. Whoever takes it over next---and make no mistake,
> in the next few years someone will---would do well to
> proceed the same way.

I’ve been saying for years now that Channel 8 needs a new owner willing to spend the bucks to build up that operation so it can be competitive with the other TV stations in the market.

I agree whole-heartedly with you that eventually the “For Sale” sign will appear in the front yard of that massive complex on Humboldt Street. The question remains however is by the time Nexstar is willing to sell the station, either to Gannett or some other organization, will there be enough viewers left watching WROC-TV? Sure CBS will pull in big numbers, but what about their local news?

In the past several months the station has seen the departure of Melissa Long, Christine Crafts, Rob Haswell, Steve Levine and now Rachel Barnhart. And we both know that more heads will roll before the year is out as the company renegotiates contracts with existing employees.

Even if your theory is correct and say Gannett comes in and purchases Channel 8, it would be extremely difficult for them to entice local talent away from other TV stations, or to recruit former broadcasters seeking to get back into the business, considering the history that Gannett has when it comes to treating its newspaper employees. 13 years without a new contract should send up warning flares that Gannett isn’t exactly looking out for the welfare of its workers.

Instead of Gannett, or any other major media conglomerate, it would be nice to see a group of local business leaders pool their resources and buy Channel 8. That way they would have a vested interest in the community; something that is sorely lacking at the present time.


<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>

 

[fybush]

Re: Let’s put this in real perspective shall we?

> Instead of Gannett, or any other major media conglomerate,
> it would be nice to see a group of local business leaders
> pool their resources and buy Channel 8. That way they would
> have a vested interest in the community; something that is
> sorely lacking at the present time.

I've got eleven bucks in my wallet, plus another 76 cents in change I found in the sofa cushions. If we can find the other $29,999,988.24 from someone else, I'm in!

s<P ID="signature">______________
Tower Site Calendar 2006 JUST RELEASED! - <a target="_blank" href=http://www.fybush.com/nerw.html#calendar>www.fybush.com</a></P>

 

[Mark_Giardina]

Buddy Can You Spare A Million?

> > Instead of Gannett, or any other major media conglomerate,
>
> > it would be nice to see a group of local business leaders
> > pool their resources and buy Channel 8. That way they
> would
> > have a vested interest in the community; something that is
>
> > sorely lacking at the present time.
>
> I've got eleven bucks in my wallet, plus another 76 cents in
> change I found in the sofa cushions. If we can find the
> other $29,999,988.24 from someone else, I'm in!
>
> s
>
Time to call Tom Golisano and see if he's willing to part with some of his "pocket change." Now if we could scrape up 5 million, we might be able to buy a decent FM station in Rochester.

As for yours truly, if I had 30 million dollars, this boy would be on the beach of some tropical island, surrounded by beautiful native women, smoking cigars and enjoying life. But since I've been married for 31 years, the reality is that my wife would get the money and I would be lucky to get an allowance.



<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>

 

[Bob1370]

Re: Let’s put this in real perspective shall we?

> I agree whole-heartedly with you that eventually the “For
> Sale” sign will appear in the front yard of that massive
> complex on Humboldt Street. The question remains however is
> by the time Nexstar is willing to sell the station, either
> to Gannett or some other organization, will there be enough
> viewers left watching WROC-TV? Sure CBS will pull in big
> numbers, but what about their local news?

CBS is a good start. And it will stay with Channel 8 simply because there may be noplace else to go now that 31's under the same management as 8. Consider Channel 8 at this stage, as almost like a startup. What you do from then on, is what Channel 13 did as a start-up operation in the 1960s and 1970s; recruit promising young people with local ties and develop them.

> Even if your theory is correct and say Gannett comes in and
> purchases Channel 8, it would be extremely difficult for
> them to entice local talent away from other TV stations, or
> to recruit former broadcasters seeking to get back into the
> business, considering the history that Gannett has when it
> comes to treating its newspaper employees. 13 years without
> a new contract should send up warning flares that Gannett
> isn’t exactly looking out for the welfare of its workers.

Gannett doesn't run its broadcast properties like its papers, but that may be lost on a potential hire, so if they DO come back into the TV market and don't want the studios continuously picketed by the Newspaper Guild (with controversy-averse advertisers shying away as a result), they will have to settle that one.
It's also not out of the realm of possibility that a network might come into town and gobble it up, given that Rochester is one of the few Great Lakes markets east of Chicago that's showing any overall economic and population growth in the metro. If that network isn't CBS, that shakes up the affiliate picture in an interesting way...but that's a kind of shakeup the market may need.

> Instead of Gannett, or any other major media conglomerate,
> it would be nice to see a group of local business leaders
> pool their resources and buy Channel 8. That way they would
> have a vested interest in the community; something that is
> sorely lacking at the present time.

That would be a case of "back to the future." Veterans' Broadcasting Company, the owners of WROC-TV during the 1960s, was just that kind of company, a group of local World War II veterans who had achieved some success in various business ventures including radio.

 

[NewsSleuth]

Rachel is hot