Jase

 

I personally give 7 the edge based on experience, no necessarily on how many were present (Tracy Butler did call in with contributions at one point, just not in-studio)...but that's just my preference. At any rate, you couldn't really go wrong with either station today. Imagine thinking that WFLD was a good choice for coverage. Yikes.

 

If you look at the totality of the coverage from every station and the information provided, WMAQ did the best job imo. Let's not forget that Brant, Andy and Pete have a ton of experience under their belts and Cheryl and Alicia both did a commendable job in their respective roles. Overall, I think all stations, even WFLD, did a good job at handling things. While I am sure you can nitpick a few things (WFLD- Bill deferring to Mark as to where certain towns are in relation to others in the storms' path, etc...) , nothing major really sticks out from what I saw.

 

Nope, my math is bad. It was 8 hours. Either way, they beat NBC 5 by a few minutes, so technically, it was a victory...in the poorest sense of the term.

 

Is it wrong that I found channel 7's coverage to be entertaining at times? Besides the fact that I'm a meteorology student, something about the coverage was pleasing to watch. By the time they had been on 6+ hours, all the studio personnel loosened up, and somehow it calmed the mood. To be clear, they weren't making fun of the situation, but they were clearly enjoying their work and the company of each other. THAT is why they're Chicago's #1 news.

 

Oh, and I think the weekend evening team might be my favorite anchor line-up at the station.

 

Sorry, but the edge goes to WMAQ on this one. No other station had their ENTIRE weather team present covering this storm both on tv and social media and thus providing the best up-to-the-minute coverage throughout.

 

There are a few things about this statement I'd like to point out.

 

(*1): Everyone in my family, extended family, and friends families watch 7. So far, everyone I've talked to has said that the new music is more bland than the older cuts. Clearly if they can notice that on their own, there's something about the older music that they prefer. People notice these things, and over-all, we give them less credit than they deserve.

 

(*2): There is a science behind music choices whether it be for a newscast, radio station, product, store (Menard's), etc. I'd hardly call making a music choice as a CSD absurd. There's a lot to think about, not just "How well does that go with our graphics?" Sure, that's important, but if there's a long-standing tradition in the music department, like there is at WLS (30 years with the 2000/2000+ signature), you're going to stick with that tradition. Why? People are comfortable with things that are familiar. With WLS, the people are familiar, the Circle 7 is familiar, and (until recently) the most punchy, melodic, grand theme song of any Chicago TV station has been familiar. Because of the signature, and because of the presentation.

 

Now, honestly, the music is bland. Most specifically the close. The open is fine, they're using Eyewitness News as a bumper, okay, and the close is horrid. I would actually not mind if Gari made a version of the WABC S4 closing cut with the 2000+ signatures in there. THAT would be something.

 

 

 

I wouldn't call the new music bland, it just lacks the traditional 'Chicago' or Midwestern sound to it (if that makes sense). This package sounds like something you would hear either on the West or East coast (a New York kind of sound really). In comparison to other stations in the market, it's a little too soft and lacks any authority. Less horns and more drums and trumpets is the way to go.

I don't believe this one has been listed. Definitely one of the worse (especially for a station from Market #3) .

WFLD