• 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

Your comments on the status of Television News...

1st of 5 said:
Tv news and their networks will be replaced by something else in the near future, just as TV replaced Radio and Radio replaced Newspapers. NPR? You've got to be joking. They are the most liberally slanted, one sided and biased propaganda huxsters on the air. I'm still waiting for that catch all tear jerking story about that HIV positive teenage unwed pregnant transgendered drug addicted child molesting vegetarian law school scholarship illegal immigrant student who turns tricks in her spare time to supplement her meager welfare food stamp handout all due to those callous and cold hearted politicians who actually expect people to work and support themselves!
Click to expand...

I don't agree with you. NPR did the best expose on the mortgage crisis that I've heard anywhere. They interviewed all player involved -- even homeowners who shouldn't have been given loans. It certainly wasn't a tearjerker -- I came away shaking my head about the shister financial industry types who kept offering these loans, the stupid people who took them without thinking about how they were going pay, the housing flippers who were going to make their fortune, gov't regulators who were looking the other way...hardly "liberal' and much better than the typical yelling and screaming on the cable nets. Oh, but I forgot, NPR is boring! ::) ::)
 
A few things need to happen:

1. A principle I call Zoom In/Zoom Out: More world news AND more local news. National news can be gotten everywhere - world news less so - local news even lesser so.

2. More editorials and counterpoints. Raycom is really thinking with its companywide editorial policy. It's a way to rival the cablers.

3. More online integration. As in every newscast online, possibly excluding parts of sports segments until they wise up.

4. More investigative and even informative reports. We would be a better place if stations did reports on countries and their culture. As we go globalized, we need to be informed world citizens.

5. All of that without the hype. And not the KPHO-brand "News without the Hype, CBS 5 News" which tends to be hyped up itself.

And my wish list...

6. No flashy. Simple, clean, modern. Look to WBZ, KCNC in 1995, or KSAZ in 1994 if you get stuck. And no "Desert Doppler 15 HD Forecast Center" long weather center names either.
 
Raymie said:
3. More online integration. As in every newscast online, possibly excluding parts of sports segments until they wise up.
Click to expand...

3a. Better websites. Cleaner designs with enough whitespace to make them pleasant to look at, easier navigation, larger videos, etc.
 
One of my major complaints about TV news is the "commentary" some anchors give after each story. Just read the damn tele-prompter. I for one am not interested in their opinions. If these anchors want to offer commentary, then step away from the anchor chair and become a commentator.

Weather forecasts most of the time are wrong anyways, despite the fancy radar system and 10-day forecasts. Anyone who works in broadcasting knows all to well that nobody can predict the weather 10 days in advance.

In conclusion I would say considering the state of TV news today that Howard Beale would be proud.
 
I have gotten into mind-bending conversations with local TV news directors over the idea that there is just
not enough local news in most communities to fill 1-3 hrs. of broadcast time on a regular daily basis. A tightly
focused 30 minutes would do just fine for most localities on most days. But instead they pump it up with filler,
forcing you to sit through "the best buys in flowers for Valenties Day" or "Six ways to keep your pets safe" in
order to get to relevant local stories later on. Yeah, I know they are tossing cliffhangers at you to get you to
hang on thru the maximum number of ads. But in a world that moves this quickly it is damned annoying!
 
I want one thing and one station that usually gave it got rid of the person who gave it. The replacement didn't care.

I tape the part o the 10:00 Fox newscast that includes the low and high for the day. That's it. I've already heard the forecast on the radio. I want to know what ACTUALLY happened.

As for news, I get that from Mike Huckabee, as I once did from Paul Harvey. I subscribe to a newspaper. Right now when I read it I'm reading about how Bush is trying to stop Gore from counting pregnant chads.

I do flip through the pages to see if there's anything I want to keep. Of course, if I'm taking that long to read it, "keeping" seems pointless. I also recycle those pages that don't have anything on them of substance.
 
The motive, as in most anything, is money. Investigative news on the local level disappeared when they began letting go the longtime vets who could do it, and replacing them with lower-waged young people. And they wanted to lessen their exposure to lawsuits. From what I see, local TV news plays it very safe, and is more boring than ever.
The last real, in depth news to be found is on the national level...60 Minutes and NPR's Morning Edition.
 
I pretty much gave up newsmagazines during the OJ scandal. The first one.

There were too many of them and I had to cut somewhere.

As for network news the competition was syndicated reruns of shows I hadn't seen some episodes of the first time around. CBS no longer has a "voice of authority" on its nightly newscasts. And I gave up on local news due to it being mostly crime stories.

I regard investigative reporting by TV stations as tabloidish. Maybe it's the way it's promoted. When newspapers do it I'm generally glad.
 
Acutally, I also read newspapers at libraries when they're new. And generally I've already read most of the stories I would want to online, to save time at those libraries.

But if the story is in my local paper that I subscribe to, I'll wait.
 
Few people are watching the full two, three or four (or more) hours of a newscast. Yes, there are some segments that don't repeat, but that's the minor...often filler...material. Yes, you can pack it in to 30 minutes, but if I'm already on the road in the half hour you pick, you don't get the viewer; the station that is doing news when I'm available does.

Simple mathematics, not an issue of how "much" news there is.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom