• 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

Why do people watch Action News?

N

Nertz

Guest
Why do people watch Action News?
The anchors are wooden, the set is pathetic, the presentation is dated - how many stations still use things like "Via Satellite" and "Action Cam"? -, the music is dated, and its all about fires and murders or murders and fires.
 
> Why do people watch Action News?
> The anchors are wooden, the set is pathetic, the
> presentation is dated - how many stations still use things
> like "Via Satellite" and "Action Cam"? -, the music is
> dated, and its all about fires and murders or murders and
> fires.
>

That's why! You answered your own question.
But you left off the smiley faces in the weather.
 
Nertz: you answered your own questions. People watch WPVI because it's the most recognizable news outlet in the market. I grew up watching Action News and I still watch it when I am in the area to visit family. Over the years, WCAU and KYW have changed so much...where WPVI hasn't. People know it's time to watch Action News when they hear the Move Closer to Your World theme. Stations that make constant changes every couple of years throws the viewers off so to speak.
 
> Why do people watch Action News?
Because the anchors seem like real people, without the forced fake "sincerity" of the other stations.

The set is classy--neon, giant showy "weather stations" and reading the news from 13 different locations adds zilch to the stories, which at the end of the day are not that dramatically different. Adding flash for the sake of flash is a sure sign that you're covering up for some other shortcoming.

The music is perfectly fine. You don't need to keep coming up with new themes just to keep composers in business.
 
> Nertz: you answered your own questions. People watch WPVI
> because it's the most recognizable news outlet in the
> market. I grew up watching Action News and I still watch it
> when I am in the area to visit family. Over the years, WCAU
> and KYW have changed so much...where WPVI hasn't. People
> know it's time to watch Action News when they hear the Move
> Closer to Your World theme. Stations that make constant
> changes every couple of years throws the viewers off so to
> speak.
>
Indeed they do. It speaks volumes that many of the same people are still in place on WPVI, while the other stations play musical anchors just for the heck of it. Take Fox for example...there was no/zero/zilch/nada need to dump Rich Noonan and Jill Chernikoff. Is that condemning their replacements? No, it's just saying they had a recognizable, talented team in place, and dumped them "just because."

Most news viewers want to know a quick rundown of what happened that day, and whether it's going to be hot/cold/rainy/snowy tomorrow. Yes, channel 6 is guilty of giving in to its share of pure nonsensical hype, but compared to 3 and 10, it's like apples and oranges.
 
HomerJay: very well said! I couldn't have said it better myself! Good analysis!
 
> > Why do people watch Action News?
> Because the anchors seem like real people, without the
> forced fake "sincerity" of the other stations.

I can't take it seriously with the music and the whole retro feel.
Its like I am watching Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy.
They don't seem like real people, robots maybe, real people no.
Also I read on the Broadcast Pioneers site that Jim Gardner isn't really real, its just a made up name.
Everytime I watch they are covering a fire, and if one doesn't happen locally they'll find one.

> The set is classy--neon, giant showy "weather stations" and
> reading the news from 13 different locations adds zilch to
> the stories, which at the end of the day are not that
> dramatically different. Adding flash for the sake of flash
> is a sure sign that you're covering up for some other
> shortcoming.

Well the Action News folks have about as much charisma as a lamppost.

> The music is perfectly fine. You don't need to keep coming
> up with new themes just to keep composers in business.

Its silly and from the 1970s. It reminds me of The Brady Bunch and when I hear it I don't think news, I think 1970s.
 
> HomerJay: very well said! I couldn't have said it better
> myself! Good analysis!
>
All you have to do is go back to the 11 pm newscast on Tuesday (10/25) to see why they are NO.1. Lead story...81-year old man, in a wheelchair, kills his ex-girlfriend/caregiver because he thought she was stealing from him, followed by aftermath of Hurricane Wilma and nor'easter at the shore, followed by the casino contol commission hearing on Caesar's employees using security cameras to focus in on various female body parts, then the latest in Iraq. After the first 11 minutes I felt informed and went to bed.
 
> Also I read on the Broadcast Pioneers site that Jim Gardner
> isn't really real, its just a made up name.

Oh my God, no...someone in entertainment using a modified name? Good to know that everyone else on the air must be using their real name.

> Everytime I watch they are covering a fire, and if one
> doesn't happen locally they'll find one.
Interesting. Every time I watch *any* station, they have a copter over the same fires. The warehouses look the same burning up on 3, 6, 10 or 29.


>
> Its silly and from the 1970s. It reminds me of The Brady
> Bunch and when I hear it I don't think news, I think 1970s.
>
You may be on to something there. And while we're at it, what the heck is with that whole stopwatch thing on 60 Minutes? I mean come on, who uses an analog timekeeping device anymore? They need synthesizers, and "swooshes" to sound very 2005...whatever that sound is. And by all means, use a high-tech counter...something with neon and lasers. And jazz up that font.

As for the show itself, come on, what do a seasoned bunch of experienced journalists have to offer that some hip young fresh college grad can't do better, and with more flair. While we're at it, we need to kill those rediculous mockups of magazine pages. I mean, when I think of magazines I think of the stone age. Nobody actually reads them anymore, except the lingering dinosaurs who also insist on buying a real newspaper. And why are the hosts on chairs? Sitting down to intro something? No, no, no---this is the modern era. We need them standing in front of plasma screens with lots of motion to show it's ALIVE. But not just one plasma screen set, that won't do. We need 10...no, 20...no, 30 different "mini-sets" all over the studio where they can stand and deliver the news.

That's how you fix an archaic mess like 60 Minutes and shoot it straight to the top of the ratings. Obviously no one likes what they're doing since it's so old-school. Same theory should work for Action News.

(And don't even get me started on the Wall Street Journal! I mean, line drawings instead of color photos?!?! Sure-fire recipe for disaster.)
 
> HomerJay: very well said! I couldn't have said it better
> myself! Good analysis!
>
Thanks. I was thinking about it, and realized even when I would go on vacation in the Poconos with my family, we always, and I mean always, seemed to wind up with WNEP news. As weeklong visitors, we weren't really watching for "news," except for a news junkie like me, but the weather. Was it really any different on 22, 28 or 16? Of course not. The radar shows what it shows, no matter how Mega/Super/Fancy-Shmancy the name and how many "0"s they put after it's supposed number. Rain is rain. But we felt comfortable with seeing the same faces on WNEP, out there in the "backyard." Hokey? Maybe. But so what? It works!
 
> I can't take it seriously with the music and the whole retro
> feel. Its like I am watching Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy.
> They don't seem like real people, robots maybe, real people
> no. Also I read on the Broadcast Pioneers site that Jim Gardner
> isn't really real, its just a made up name.

I always thought James Goldman/Jim Gardner was more like Ted Baxter (Ted Knight) from the Mary Tyler Moore show. Thankfully I have been very rarely subjected to "Action News" although I can say Goldman/Gardner is no Bill Beutel or Chuck Scarborough. He isn't even a Sue Simmons. As for name changes they are more common than you would think.

> The music is perfectly fine. You don't need to keep
> coming up with new themes just to keep composers in business.
>
> Its silly and from the 1970s. It reminds me of The Brady
> Bunch and when I hear it I don't think news, I think 1970s.

I actually like "Move Closer to Your World" but its in the same way I like those old Frank Gari station image songs like "Stand up and tell them Fresno's great/you're from Detroit" and "Hello Milwaukee/Cleveland" etc.
I think WNEP's more conteporary version would be a better fit, or maybe do something full orchestral with it, but without hte singing hippies.

Do they use Barry White's Love's them like WPIX did for a Friday close/bumper back in their "Action News" days?

<P ID="signature">______________
WCBS = We're Crazy Buffoons and Schmucks
<a href=http://chuck.spotteddogs.org/tv/>Spotted Dog TV Talk - for all your non-news TV Talk</a></P>
 
> > > Why do people watch Action News?
> > Because the anchors seem like real people, without the
> > forced fake "sincerity" of the other stations.
>
> I can't take it seriously with the music and the whole retro
> feel.
> Its like I am watching Anchorman: The Legend of Ron
> Burgundy.
> They don't seem like real people, robots maybe, real people
> no.
> Also I read on the Broadcast Pioneers site that Jim Gardner
> isn't really real, its just a made up name.
> Everytime I watch they are covering a fire, and if one
> doesn't happen locally they'll find one.
>
> > The set is classy--neon, giant showy "weather stations"
> and
> > reading the news from 13 different locations adds zilch to
>
> > the stories, which at the end of the day are not that
> > dramatically different. Adding flash for the sake of
> flash
> > is a sure sign that you're covering up for some other
> > shortcoming.
>
> Well the Action News folks have about as much charisma as a
> lamppost.
>
> > The music is perfectly fine. You don't need to keep
> coming
> > up with new themes just to keep composers in business.
>
> Its silly and from the 1970s. It reminds me of The Brady
> Bunch and when I hear it I don't think news, I think 1970s.
>

Well, you are entitled to your opinion anchorman, eben if it is wrong! ;)
 
> > Also I read on the Broadcast Pioneers site that Jim
> Gardner
> > isn't really real, its just a made up name.
>
> Oh my God, no...someone in entertainment using a modified
> name? Good to know that everyone else on the air must be
> using their real name.

No, I looked up Dave Roberts and it said, "Dave Roberts (born February 14, 1936) is a stage name used by actor David Boreanaz Sr. He has been with WPVI since 1978 and is currently the 5 P.M. and 6 P.M. weatherperson, despite the fact he is not a trained meteorologist."

> > Everytime I watch they are covering a fire, and if one
> > doesn't happen locally they'll find one.
> Interesting. Every time I watch *any* station, they have a
> copter over the same fires. The warehouses look the same
> burning up on 3, 6, 10 or 29.

It is stupid. They all are stupid.

> > Its silly and from the 1970s. It reminds me of The Brady
> > Bunch and when I hear it I don't think news, I think
> 1970s.
> >
> You may be on to something there. And while we're at it,
> what the heck is with that whole stopwatch thing on 60
> Minutes? I mean come on, who uses an analog timekeeping
> device anymore? They need synthesizers, and "swooshes" to
> sound very 2005...whatever that sound is. And by all means,
> use a high-tech counter...something with neon and lasers.
> And jazz up that font.
>
> As for the show itself, come on, what do a seasoned bunch of
> experienced journalists have to offer that some hip young
> fresh college grad can't do better, and with more flair.
> While we're at it, we need to kill those rediculous mockups
> of magazine pages. I mean, when I think of magazines I
> think of the stone age. Nobody actually reads them anymore,
> except the lingering dinosaurs who also insist on buying a
> real newspaper. And why are the hosts on chairs? Sitting
> down to intro something? No, no, no---this is the modern
> era. We need them standing in front of plasma screens with
> lots of motion to show it's ALIVE. But not just one plasma
> screen set, that won't do. We need 10...no, 20...no, 30
> different "mini-sets" all over the studio where they can
> stand and deliver the news.
>
> That's how you fix an archaic mess like 60 Minutes and shoot
> it straight to the top of the ratings. Obviously no one
> likes what they're doing since it's so old-school. Same
> theory should work for Action News.

Just because its popular, doesn't mean its good.
 
> > I can't take it seriously with the music and the whole
> retro
> > feel. Its like I am watching Anchorman: The Legend of Ron
> Burgundy.
> > They don't seem like real people, robots maybe, real
> people
> > no. Also I read on the Broadcast Pioneers site that Jim
> Gardner
> > isn't really real, its just a made up name.
>
> I always thought James Goldman/Jim Gardner was more like Ted
> Baxter (Ted Knight) from the Mary Tyler Moore show.
> Thankfully I have been very rarely subjected to "Action
> News" although I can say Goldman/Gardner is no Bill Beutel
> or Chuck Scarborough. He isn't even a Sue Simmons. As for
> name changes they are more common than you would think.

Yes you may be right about Ted Baxter, but who are Bill Beutel, Chuck Scarborough, and Sue Simmons?
 
> Well, you are entitled to your opinion anchorman, eben if it
> is wrong! ;)

And you are entitled to your wrong opinion.
 
>
> Yes you may be right about Ted Baxter, but who are Bill
> Beutel, Chuck Scarborough, and Sue Simmons?
>
Beutel and Scarborough are (or were) newscasters at New York's WABC and WNBC, respectively. Don't know who Simmons was, though.
 
> >
> > Yes you may be right about Ted Baxter, but who are Bill
> > Beutel, Chuck Scarborough, and Sue Simmons?
> >
> Beutel and Scarborough are (or were) newscasters at New
> York's WABC and WNBC, respectively. Don't know who Simmons
> was, though.

<a href=http://www.wnbc.com/wnbc/1169220/detail.html>Sue Simmons</a> has co-anchored WNBC's 11 PM newscast with Chuck Scarborough for 25 years. She has also co-anchored Live at Five for the same amount of time. She is rather well known, and is one of the first African-American anchorwomen on TV.<P ID="signature">______________
WCBS = We're Crazy Buffoons and Schmucks
<a href=http://chuck.spotteddogs.org/tv/>Spotted Dog TV Talk - for all your non-news TV Talk</a></P>
 
> > Yes you may be right about Ted Baxter, but who are Bill
> > Beutel, Chuck Scarborough, and Sue Simmons?
> >
> Beutel and Scarborough are (or were) newscasters at New
> York's WABC and WNBC, respectively. Don't know who Simmons
> was, though.

Why do you talk about New York?
This is a Philadelphia board!
 
> > > Yes you may be right about Ted Baxter, but who are Bill
> > > Beutel, Chuck Scarborough, and Sue Simmons?
> > >
> > Beutel and Scarborough are (or were) newscasters at New
> > York's WABC and WNBC, respectively. Don't know who Simmons
>
> > was, though.
>
> Why do you talk about New York?
> This is a Philadelphia board!

Because they are (and in Beutel's case was)long running news anchors who are the gold standard. Scarborough has been anchoring for 30 years at WNBC, while Simmons has been anchoring for 25.<P ID="signature">______________
WCBS = We're Crazy Buffoons and Schmucks
<a href=http://chuck.spotteddogs.org/tv/>Spotted Dog TV Talk - for all your non-news TV Talk</a></P>
 
>
> No, I looked up Dave Roberts and it said, "Dave Roberts
> (born February 14, 1936) is a stage name used by actor David
> Boreanaz Sr. He has been with WPVI since 1978 and is
> currently the 5 P.M. and 6 P.M. weatherperson, despite the
> fact he is not a trained meteorologist."

Ah, that old nonsense. Because Accu Weather isn't staffed with more "trained meteorologists" than every station in this city combined. People want something pretty basic out of their weather forecast: to know if it's going to rain. To know if they need to dig out the winter coat. To know if it's a good day to play hookey from work and sneak down to the beach. Save for the few people with isobar fetishes and doppler envy, if the person is likable and delivers ralatively accurate answers to the questions above, the rest is fluff. And constantly harping on who has more meteorologists by every station, 6 included is tiresome.


> > >
> > You may be on to something there. And while we're at it,
> > what the heck is with that whole stopwatch thing on 60
> > Minutes? I mean come on, who uses an analog timekeeping
> > device anymore? They need synthesizers, and "swooshes" to
>
> > sound very 2005...whatever that sound is. And by all
> means,
> > use a high-tech counter...something with neon and lasers.
>
> > And jazz up that font.
> >
> > As for the show itself, come on, what do a seasoned bunch
> of
> > experienced journalists have to offer that some hip young
> > fresh college grad can't do better, and with more flair.
> > While we're at it, we need to kill those rediculous
> mockups
> > of magazine pages. I mean, when I think of magazines I
> > think of the stone age. Nobody actually reads them
> anymore,
> > except the lingering dinosaurs who also insist on buying a
>
> > real newspaper. And why are the hosts on chairs? Sitting
>
> > down to intro something? No, no, no---this is the modern
> > era. We need them standing in front of plasma screens
> with
> > lots of motion to show it's ALIVE. But not just one
> plasma
> > screen set, that won't do. We need 10...no, 20...no, 30
> > different "mini-sets" all over the studio where they can
> > stand and deliver the news.
> >
> > That's how you fix an archaic mess like 60 Minutes and
> shoot
> > it straight to the top of the ratings. Obviously no one
> > likes what they're doing since it's so old-school. Same
> > theory should work for Action News.
>
> Just because its popular, doesn't mean its good.
>
Ditto for the trend of jumping on every new fad to come down the pike, and making sure you dispense with anyone horrible enough to have a gray hair, a wrinkle or a sagging breast. Just because someone else did it, doesn't mean it improves the quality.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom