carolinanews4

Let's level set here for a minute. First, NBCU must proceed with business as usual until the day SpinCo becomes a separate business. So, to that end, they proceed as normal in public while numerous plans and backup plans are crafted behind the scenes. For example, their NBA deal most likely included contingencies for how they would proceed if the USA network no longer existed. Remember, this is an 11-year contract, and cable has been contracting for a while, so it is highly unlikely this contract would have been signed without the ability to adjust programming platforms. It is probably happening sooner than anticipated, but cable will look much different 11 years from now, so both sides needed to carve out protection clauses in that contract. In addition, I don't think the NBA is hyper-focused on cable. It has been reported that the NBA was particularly attracted to the NBC broadcast network and its ability to create a "Basketball Night in America" franchise. The broadcast component was why, in the NBA's view, Turner could never truly match NBC's offer since Turner didn't have a broadcast network. The rights are with NBC Sports, not individual channels. And since NBC Sports stays with NBCU, the rights remain with NBCU. There is flexibility on the platforms airing content. Take the Olympics, for example. Ten years ago, NBCU put the Olympics on MSNBC to boost ratings for its struggling news channel. They aired the Olympics in the morning because Imus and their MorningLine programs were also-rans in the ratings department. Enter Morning Joe, and they decided it was more important not to interrupt regular MSNBC programming. So the Olympics moved to a different channel, and they didn't have to wait for a rights renewal to make that change. Having said that, NBC doesn't have carte blanche to do whatever it wants without input from the sports owner. The broadcaster has some latitude as long as any changes provide the sport with equal or greater exposure. For example, NBC couldn't take NBA games off the broadcast network and move them all to Bravo without consulting with the NBA. In that hypothetical case, the NBA probably has some veto authority. More information will be forthcoming regarding how this spin-off impacts NBC Sports. Perhaps SpinCo will sublicense content from NBC Sports, or perhaps NBC Sports will buy time on a SpinCo channel to air their content. Or maybe NBC decides to keep everything for themselves. Given how scripted content is going and the money they are spending on sports rights, they could put everything on the broadcast network and Peacock. Sports used to be exclusive to broadcast, so they might go back to the future regarding how they air sports.

I appreciate your affinity for NBC and USA. While this is a creative take, it doesn't consider business realities. Cable channels have dual incomes: subscriber fees from cable operators and advertising. For a long time, they were the envy of the media world, but their revenue has shrunk with cord-cutting. (One can make a pretty compelling case that the cable channel programmers have made their ratings collapse a self-fulfilling prophecy, but that's a topic for another day.) So, combining CNBC with MSNBC would eliminate a huge chunk of subscriber fees. Financially, they need to remain separate. Viewership-wise, they need to remain separate as their audiences are not similar. USA and CNBC are two of the more widely available channels, and MSNBC has consistently been among the Top 5 cable channels in primetime viewership. That's why they are all part of SpinCo. The revenue from these three will drive the new company. Lastly, there's Peacock. As noted in the separation announcement, the cable channels being spun off account for very little of the content streamed on Peacock. Bravo content does well on Peacock, so it's staying put. NBCU is focusing on broadcast and streaming. They see a profitable future in Peacock and FAST channels like NBC News Now. But I did enjoy reading your creative ideas!

According to the NY Post, the ‘stodgy’ new CBS Evening News anchors received a modest viewership bump for their premier. The broadcast had 5.2 million viewers, a +14% spike from Norah's 2024 average. What I find laughable is the article's extremely negative viewpoint. (I'm laughing, but I'm not surprised because this is the Post, after all) My favorite quote is from the nameless former TV executive who doesn't think "audiences have the capacity to absorb a reporting-led show with lots of segments." Yes, our attention spans have shortened, but not everyone needs the news to be quick hits served with extra flash like Entertainment Tonight. That show has the attention span of a fly. Not bashing ET. There's a place for that, and there's a place for the new CBS Evening News. It is hilarious that people say, "Try something different to stand out," and then, when someone does that, they get bashed for not looking like everyone else. If you want a typical newscast, two broadcast networks offer typical news of the day presentation.

Finally! CBS is being CBS. Instead of trying to copy and beat NBC and ABC, they are compiling a broadcast that fits CBS's ethos. It has the feel, pacing, and in-depth storytelling that is the hallmark of CBS News. I don't know how it will do long term in the ratings, but I applaud them for going their own way. Even the minimalistic graphics is refreshing. (Yes, I hate how the other two label everything as BREAKING NEWS.) But this also feels very CBS. 60 Minutes doesn't use lower thirds at all. They make it a point to incorporate the person's ID into the script. Every version of their morning show used to be a poor imitation of TODAY and Good Morning America. Remember their 5th Ave. streetside studio? It always felt like they were going against the grain, trying to be something that was unnatural for their organization. Until they stopped the cooking segments, concerts, Halloween parties, etc., that the others do well and focused on good storytelling and smart conversation. It hasn't set the ratings on fire, but they are doing something different, which works for them. Now, they appear to have embraced their DNA in the evenings by assembling one heck of a smart newscast.

I happen to come across this today from Pew Research: https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/cable-news/ It shows that MSNBC is posting a profit of over 450 million against almost a billion dollars in revenue. The data also shows that MSNBC has been profitable since 2006 (the earliest year of data displayed in the chart). So, it is highly unlikely that Comcast would say, and that CNBC would report, that MSNBC has been losing money for quite some time.

I don't think that is 1A. The floor and the ceiling headers when the camera pans to the left seem to indicate this is another studio. My guess is that this is 4E. The low ceiling height and the headers would line up with 4E's structure. Back in 2016, they used 4E for Decision 2016 coverage. The glass wall separating the studio and the newsroom was removed and a single cohesive flooring spanning both spaces was put in place. From the quick video above, this appears to be a similar physical setup from eight years ago, but now with AR extensions.

In watching the debut episode of Good Night New York, I was decently impressed. I admit, I had low expectations from the start, but I think it is a good effort to create something unique and local in the daypart. The show isn't live but, more importantly, it isn't a "best of" GDNY clip show. The show is a stand-alone program with a nice naming tie to their morning show. NBC has TODAY and Tonight, and now WNYW has Good Day and Good Night. Maybe it is a bit gimmicky, but I like the tie-in. The topics aren't heavy-hitting, but I think that's ok given they are clearly going for a late-night cocktail party vibe. The graphics give a great late night vibe to the show. Overall, it is much better than I expected and I believe if they stick with it, it has the potential to evolve into a great local show.

TVPassport and WNYW's schedule both have it listed as "Good Night New York". It will air for 30 minutes at 11 followed by Battleground at 11:30. Would seem odd to sandwich Good Day New York lighter pieces between The 10 O'Clock News and Battleground.

If I recall correctly, I believe The View and LIVE are both supposed to start the new seasons in their new studios at 7 Hudson Square. The headscratcher in the Deadline article is this part, "An address for the new downtown studio was not given during today’s episode." While technically true, it isn't like the move is some sort of state secret. The move was publically announced in 2018. Numerous news outlets have published articles speculating whether GMA would move from Times Square. Disney fanfare marked the topping-out of the building in 2022. I could go on. So, for Deadline to act as if the address is a mystery to be revealed later is odd, especially for an industry publication.

Typically 1A is dark during the Olympics. Usually, the 7-9 portion is completely remote from site, in this case Paris, with the third and fourth hours on hiatus. There's a backup anchor at 30 Rock in case something catastrophic happens with the feed but they are usually in a news nook with a still of the Today studio in the monitor behind them. In the past, NBC has utilized these Olympics breaks to work on 1A, from interior updates to exterior videoboard upgrades. So it isn't out of the realm of possibility but I haven't heard anything one way or the other.

14 hours ago, Rusty Muck said: Oh come on, it's academic. If one actually pays attention, the only reason why WTTV and WNCN are even CBS affiliates is because Tribune (at the time for the former) and Nexstar were willing to paid hefty fees to affiliate with CBS. Paramount held all the cards here and you cannot deny that. If one actually pays attention...Nexstar did not own WNCN when the CBS affiliate agreement was signed. It was a Media General station. In addition, WNCN hooked up with CBS because WRAL dumped CBS and NBC took the opportunity to pair up with the #1 station in the market. CBS didn't have a lot of options because outside of WRAL/WRAZ and WTVD, the rest of the stations are poorly viewed. WNCN was the best of the worst. That's not to say Media General had a lot of options on their end either. So they were essentially stuck with each other. Have the terms of the deal been released? Or have you read the agreement?

The NBA needs WBD?? The NBA is getting $76 billion which, according to Forbes, represents an increase of 160% per season compared to the current contract. So I think the NBA is just fine. Besides, why would the NBA 'need' a partner whose CEO said they "don't need the NBA"? Plus is not being on TNT a big loss for the NBA? Their new 11-year pack includes two free over-the-air broadcast networks (a first for the league), a cable channel dedicated to sports, and two streamers in Peacock and Amazon. The three partners (Disney, NBCU, and Amazon) will also carve up international markets with Disney using ESPN-branded assets in Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa, Oceania, and the Netherlands They will use Disney+ in select markets in Asia and Europe. NBCU will distribute NBA games in several European markets via Sky Sports as well as in the Caribbean and sub-Saharan Africa. Amazon’s Prime Video will distribute NBA games with a package of games in Mexico, Brazil, France, Italy, Spain, Germany, the U.K. and Ireland. I believe it is this international piece which is where the NBA will say WBD didn't truly match the offer. They have been clear that it isn't just a dollar amount, but the overall offering. So this international component may well play a role, along with the additional activations Amazon included in their bid. Ultimately, I believe it is WBD that needs the NBA. They have cut most of their original programming so the NBA filled many hours on their schedule. Without the NBA, TNT will have a lot of airtime to fill. Will it be cheaper than producing NBA games? Sure. But the ratings will undoubtedly be much smaller. That, in turn, will hurt their ability to charge cable companies a premium for their channel. And NBA advertising dollars will dry up for WBD. So they will lose revenue on two fronts. Therefore, I believe it is WBD that needs the NBA more than the NBA needs WBD.

I give them credit for trying something new. Is the red a bit harsh? Sure. The Dante's Inferno comment made me laugh. But in an era when most stations are swimming in a sea of similarity, I think it is excellent that Local 10 is branching out. The set will also evolve. How they use that LED wall in week 1 will probably look different than week 101. So while it isn't my personal favorite, I applaud their creative thinking.

The number was a compromise between Congress and the White House back in 2003. In June of that year, the FCC relaxed ownership rules to allow a 45% audience cap. Congress didn't like it and wanted to pass a measure to roll back the FCC's decision. President Bush said he would veto it. So the White House and Congress began negotiating and in November 2003, they settled on a compromise of 39%. That's the official record. But the scuttlebutt was that CBS and FOX were both at 39% and so instead of forcing them to sell stations, which could have begun a lengthy legal fight, Washington chose 39% to get it wrapped up.

Let me see if I can help you here. The rule is that a single entity can't own full-power broadcast licenses that combine to cover more than 39% of the country. (There are some nuances here like the UHF discount, duopolies, Class A stations, etc. But that is the basic rule.) The broadcast networks are subject to this same rule. Their O&O stations can't reach more than 39%. What is not covered in that 39% is programming reach. The broadcast networks, and syndication programmers for that matter, can set up agreements to have their programming broadcast by stations covering 100% of the country. So NBC Prime or Live with Kelly & Mark don't have a limit on their national reach. But NBC and ABC can't directly own stations that reach more than 39% of the country. Hope that helps!

Everyone is compensated. No work happens for free. Having not worked there, I can't speak specifically to CBS. But I know when WNBC talent filled in on the network (either news or sports) they were paid as a freelancer. Typically a day rate. Don't get hung up on the name freelancer. They aren't an outside freelancer in a traditional sense, but they aren't network on-air talent. They are employees of the local station. There are also union rules and talent contracts to take into account. First, union rules differ by shop but it is highly unlikely that any union would permit a member to do additional work for something as arbitrary as an "extra day off" or "national exposure". The reason? The networks could begin to staff positions by offering national exposure. This isn't a work-study internship. I mention contracts because some local talent might be able to negotiate the inclusion of some national hits into their contract. But again, they would be paid for this work. Opportunities for local news talent to fill in at the network have slowly evaporated. WNBC talent occasionally appeared on the now-defunct "NBC News at this Hour" updates and filled in as the newsreader on TODAY. The newsreader position no longer exists in the same form. And when Craig is out, one of the other TODAY personalities fills in. Same at ABC as both shows have large "enable" casts compared to the past. The biggest opportunity for network fill-in work is weather-related. CBS doesn't have a network weather staff like NBC and ABC, so they lean on their local meteorologists regularly. Long way to say, every person is PAID. Heck, every guest on a talk show is paid. When Chuck Scarborough recently appeared on The Kelly Clarkson Show, he was paid.

This is part of why I believe CBS News lags behind its competitors. First, it is yet another rebrand in a seemingly endless string of rebrandings. Just this property alone has had three names in its short life. It launched in Nov. 2014 as "CBSN" before announcing in Sept. 2021 that the streamer would become simply "CBS News". Then in 2022, the Hollywood Reporter reported that "CBS News is rebooting its streaming service, overhauling its entire programming slate." Now, in 2024, comes another new name. CBS News, sans 60 Minutes and Sunday Morning which are frozen in time, appears to take a flavor-of-the-month approach to everything else. It lacks consistency and a true ethos of what its products are supposed to be. Even the programming on "CBS News 24/7" seems to lack full commitment. The channel's newscast of record, "The Daily Report with John Dickerson" may be expanding to 90 minutes but is still only airing Monday through Thursday. I recognize Fridays are slow news days and viewership is light, but I believe you demonstrate commitment to the product by showing up five days a week. CBS launched nearly five years before NBC's streaming product. Today, NBC News Now streams original day-and-date programming M-F from 5 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. Its signature newscast, Top Story with Tom Llamas, airs M-F. ABC's ABC News Live also streams its signature program, ABCNL Prime with Linsey Davis, five nights a week. This past September, ABC announced an expansion of live programming on the channel that also launched in 2018. Live programming only gets added so long as there is revenue to support the expansion. You'd think with such a huge headstart that CBS would be the leader in live programming. But it is not. I believe it is because CBS is constantly toiling with reboots and rebranding.

I truly appreciate that you care about visual presentation standards. But I don't see the lack of a high camera or the shift to chromakey as the lowering of the bar for local news. Endless "local" newscasts filled with national stories from network news services, repurposed packages from ownership sister stations, and copious time spent on television talking about "what people are talking about online". Local newscasts with a shrinking amount of actual community news. That's lowering the bar for news. Not a few tweaks to how a newscast is shot.

For the CBS owned stations, I think comes down to a lack of budget and the resulting lack of identity. CBS O&Os historically have spent less than their ABC and NBC counterparts leaving them with fewer resources. To play catchup stations like WCBS and WBBM have gone through numerous rebrandings. From a corporate standpoint, CBS has undervalued the "presentation" portion of TV news which has been reflected in the way they fund their local stations. They live in the Walter Cronkite era of storytelling. Admirable? Sure. But television is a visual medium and newscasts are built on a relationship with the viewer. I don't feel like CBS has ever truly embraced either of those things. The lack of investment was easier to hide in the 70s and 80s because everyone's presentation was crude. But as technology has evolved, CBS always seems to be playing catch-up. When Jeff Zucker cut NBC budgets in the early 2000s, WNBC went into their "WCBS era" where they lacked identity and money. The NBC O&O group launched Daily Connection which was a "newscast" that featured repurposed content from across NBCU properties. The pieces of the show were assembled in NYC and then fed to stations to be produced with local talent. (Sound similar to the equally generic CBS News Now broadcast from Texas?) Cost efficient? You bet. Compelling tv? Not at all. WNBC eliminated Live at Five in favor of News4You and Extra. When that didn't work, WNBC played musical chairs with timeslots, anchors, and formats for years. WNBC their newsroom into a "Content Center" which was nothing more than a gimmick, like the gimmick WCBS tried in launching the short-lived CBS 2 Information Network. It was during this time when WCBS was able to move up to #2, not because Channel 2 was doing anything particularly compelling but because they offered stability where WNBC didn't. Valari Staab, formerly with the ABC O&O group, has spent over a decade rebuilding the newsgathering resources of the NBC group. New radar technology, studios, increased digital resources, heck even new buildings have been added. CBS meanwhile appears to continue the "more with less" mantra that has been in place for over 40 years. While NBC was rebuilding, the ABC stations, with their well-defined local identities, have steamrolled everyone with a consistent and well-funded product. Meanwhile the FOX O&O group, with seemingly endless hours of local news, generates strong local revenue. What has CBS done? Slapped the last-place 'CBS News' brand onto their local stations. Most of the CBS stations lack the type of true community investment it takes to be a strong player. With audiences for linear TV newscasts continuing to shrink, one could argue it Is way too late for them to catch up.

If this is a benefit of a group product, and that is a big IF, then it is an inadvertent benefit. To say a New Yorker who goes to LA will be drawn to KABC because they share a lower third with WABC is probably overstating the impact of graphics. The real driver for a group package is cost savings. Plain and simple. In ABC's case, it is one package for eight stations. Fox and NBC have been doing it for years. Not only do you save on development but there are downstream savings because topical graphics can be shared. KABC, KGO, and KFSN are probably all sharing flooding graphics for intros, display monitors, etc. Exactly! The network news division (save Sunday Morning and 60 Minutes) is in last place. Many of their local stations (save KDKA and WCCO) were laggards in their markets. So why not reimagine the branding to try to help both? But again, this is an excellent cost savings for the CBS group. And as NYCNewsJunkie rightfully points out, it gave them a comprehensive streaming approach for the first time.

Even if NBCU has such shows in its back catalog (which is highly doubtful), why would the network and its affiliates want to air years, or perhaps decades, old lifestyles, home, or travel shows? Those types of shows can become dated quickly as trends change. But the real issue is that day and date shows are seen as better performers for broadcast. That's why you see news and sports popping up so much. Scripted shows are moving to streaming because they can get real viewership data and people can watch them whenever they want. There's a reason why stations like KTLA and WBTV stay as local as possible. Viewership...and thus ad dollars...are better. Which reminds me of something. Does anyone remember when the late Jim Rogers wanted to take his Intermountain West station KSNV all local outside of NBC network hours? It was 2013 and Rodgers started dumping his syndicated product (Jeopard, Wheel, Judge Judy, Inside Edition, Dr. Phil, and Rachel Ray) in favor of local news. Here is an interesting article from January 2013. It has some very intriguing insights. Jim was about a decade ahead of his time. In regards to adding so many hours of local programming, Jim said, "I want something I can be proud of and, if it’s got to cost me some money,” that’s OK." Unfortunately, he died about 18 months later. The station would ultimately be sold to Sinclair and they immediately started undoing Jim's plan because, as we all know, they are not OK if it's got to come some money.

The debut of CNN's once-a-week show, King Charles, garnered slightly over half a million viewers: 501,000 total viewers. Not exactly seller numbers out of the gate but it is a tiny improvement over CNN NewsNight's November average of 474,000 viewers. The Daily Beast, citing Nielsen data, said it was, "the lowest-rated primetime weeknight series debut for the network in at least a decade." https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/cnn-gayle-king-charles-barkley-premiere-ratings-1235702714/ If you are wondering about the timeslot competition: MSNBC had 1.621 total viewers and FNC had 1.973 total viewers. In my opinion, the strategy of making it a "limited series" could mean 501,000 is their high watermark in terms of ratings. There is no vested interest for viewers to get to know the show because it is going away and producers don't have a lot of time to find the show's rhythm. The whole thing seems unfortunate for everyone involved because there was a lot of effort put into launching and promoting this show when the network already has multiple new shows they need to nurture. I never understood how this show fit into Chris Licht's ultimate vision for CNN...the problem was it didn't seem like Chris knew either. Hopefully, it becomes a hit quickly or reaches the limit part of its limited run quickly.

It appears as though they went dark: https://deadline.com/2023/11/directv-tegna-stations-dispute-cbs-nbc-nfl-college-football-1235646338/ The deadline was 5 p.m. PST and no deal was reached.

Actually, in this case, it isn't. KNBC did not pick up Dateline. The station is clearing the live East Coast feed of NBC Nightly News at 3:30. They added a 3 p.m. newscast leading into Lester. Thus, no room to clear Dateline. KTTV is airing it at 11:30 p.m. This is unrelated to the MyNet feed.

They showed a bit more of the studio during NY Live. Everything you see that is a gray/white peacock appears to be LED. I say that because during the 11A news, they were filled with a blueish peacock motif. The floor has thin gold bars around the parameter which is reminiscent of the floors on the main level of 30 Rock. That is a nice touch but it is a bit too subtle for most viewers. Unless you worked in the building, you probably wouldn't even notice it. The main news desk (which you can see part of in the lower right of the bump shot) is more substantial than the previous desk. The lighting appears to be much improved in 3B. For me, it is a clean but uninspired design. I was hoping for something with a bit more of a local feel. Something akin to WRC's studio. That space, while also modest in size, incorporated some local touches like the stone and the map. WNBC's studio feels like the WBTS studio which is ascetically clean but lacking in local personality. Having said all of that, the space seems nicer than 3K. I always felt like that space was underutilized.