carolinanews4

@TheRolyPoly I'm not sure what you are responding to here. I know WRAL/WRAZ simulcast news in the morning, midday, and afternoon. I mentioned that in my response to the original poster that said WRAZ would have to change affiliations because FOX wouldn't allow a simulcast of WRAL. So I was letting the original poster know there are already time periods where news is simulcast on WRAZ.

Variety published an article that says, "this conversation has happened multiple times over the past 10 years, and emphasize this is not the first time the option of ceding time to affiliates has been discussed at the broadcaster." So there is a possibility this might not happen any time soon. But I do think the Big 3 will contract their primetime schedules at some point. It just makes economic sense. Plus NextGen TV has the ability to bring new revenue streams to broadcast stations. So I think it only wise for the networks and their affiliate bases to start thinking about what their relationship looks like in the future. Perhaps there is a subscription model where NBCUniversal allows USA Network or Bravo to be encrypted on a broadcast signal. The broadcast station could then share some of the revenue with the network. If people are beholden to the concept than an NBC station must air prime programs from 8-11, news at 11, and Tonight at 11:35 then business will dry up fast. Personally, I'd like to be the first network of the 3 to give the affiliates the 10 p.m. hour and start my late-night programming at 11. You'd rather play leader than play catchup. Could I learn more about why you said this? WRAZ airs a simulcast of WRAL News at 6 a.m., 12 p.m., 12:30 p.m. and 4 p.m. So why would FOX not allow a 10 p.m. simulcast? There's also a little ratings trick when it comes to simulcasts. If the simulcast is pure duplication, meaning the exact same feed airs on two different stations then you can combine the ratings. Let's use WRAL/WRAZ as examples because they are referenced above. The 6 a.m. news on WRAL and WRAZ could be touted as combined viewership provided all content (news and ads) are duplicated on each station. That has the potential to widen the audience and thus be more attractive to advertisers. If, however, Capitol Broadcasting airs different commercial breaks on WRAL and WRAZ then the ratings must be broken out separately. As stations fight for revenue, a single primetime newscast shown on two stations could be a good thing from a revenue standpoint. Even if it is lackluster from a creative output.

A couple of things stood out to me in NBC's announcement regarding NBC News Daily. First, the network said, "NBC News will provide signature world-class reporting and breaking news coverage in a first-of-its kind, live in most markets mid-day news offering." It was the "live in most markets" comment that stood out to me. Well, today The Los Angeles Times gave me more by stating, "The anchors for the program will depend on the time zone, as the newscast will be live across the country, using the hours shown on the NBC News Now stream. Stations will get the team of Morgan Radford and Vicky Nguyen or Kate Snow and Aaron Gilchrist." So essentially the network will simply broadcast an hour of NBC News Now. Or I guess you could say NBC News Now will stream four hours of NBC News Daily. In any event, it is using one crew to create a program simultaneously for the NBC broadcast network and the NBC News Now stream. And thus, the economics of this programming decision makes sense. NBC gets lower production costs and probably similar ratings. Meanwhile, you move production-cost heavy "Days" over to Peacock where you have two revenue streams: subscriptions and advertising. The other thing that I was curious about was "the option for NBC stations to add local news.” TV Newser reported that, "NBC stations do have the option of adding local news instead of this new national news offering." I'm hearing that statement is not accurate. NBC is not relinquishing the time slot back to affiliates. It is the ability for stations to add local news into the national show, not cover up the national broadcast with a local newscast. Think of it like the five-minute station breaks during the Today Show (7:25, 7:55, etc.) where local stations do news and weather.

The fact that Amy and TJ anchored GMA is probably the reason an encore cooking show aired. GMA3 uses the same studio crew as GMA and its taped shortly after GMA goes off the air. My guess is that Amy and TJ were doing GMA for the West Coast. I'm not sure who anchored the supreme court coverage for ABC or how long it lasted but those two were probably either part of the Special Report or focused on producing an up-to-date West Coast show.

I bet this is less about a rigid programming schedule for their staff and more to do with cable operators agreements. As news programming has grown, the "general entertainment" programming from WGN America's original format has shrunk. Most old school contracts have a minimum number of hours that must be dedicated to the channel's stated programming purpose. So while I think NewsNation probably would have liked to cover it - and certainly had the resources to given the availability of a clean feed - I bet they couldn't afford to lose 3+ hours of their entertainment schedule. Ultimately this is one of the biggest problems for this channel. The need to still fulfill old carriage agreements while trying to take on a new mission. At some point they need to go all in if they are going to try to be a full-service news network.

My entire point here is that we don't know what is going to happen. The claim that "3K is history for WNBC" seems premature as the only thing we know is that the two stations are moving into a shared workspace. Shared workspaces does not equal new studios. Like I said, I hope WNBC does get a new set but there's no evidence at the moment to support that. Only speculation. I haven't forgotten that 30 Rock used to be filled with radio studios. But all of the radio studios that were capable of being transformed into television studios were converted over half a century ago. As for Studio 1A, it used to be a bank and the ceiling in that space, as is true for most ground floor retail space, is a story and half. In fact, the area over homebase didn't have a ceiling above it at all. You could look down from what is now the SPA into Studio 1A. But my aside about construction clearly became a distraction from the fact that neither B&C or NewscastStudio made any mention of WNBC getting a new studio.

What's your source that WNBC is leaving 3K? I've seen no public announcement that new "studios" are being built. According to Broadcasting & Cable, the two stations will share a "massive workspace extending from 49th Street to 50th Street" which will include a shared newsroom. But there was no mention of studios. Since moving to Studio 3C in 2012 - and for decades earlier when WNBC used Studio 6B - the newsroom and station staff have been housed on a different floor than the studio. All of the television studios inside 30 Rock are two stories tall. So studio 3K starts on the 3rd floor and extends up to the 4th floor. Given there are four existing studios on the 3rd floor, it would be very difficult to find a physical footprint for a new studio that would start on the 2nd floor and extend up to the 3rd. Don't get me wrong, I'd like for them to get a new studio as I think the set in 3K is boring and doesn't fully utilize the space. And I certainly don't want to see them return to the days of a tiny conference room turned into a cramped "studio" space. (That's how Studio 7E was made) But I haven't seen anything to suggest a new WNBC studio is being built. Anyone have any info?

Live with Kelly and Ryan is a WABC production and so it could have been a control room issue. WABC has only one control room and from 8 to 10 a.m. Live has use of the control room. That's why the GMA local cut-ins on WABC are done in the newsroom instead of their news studio. Heck, for 20+ years the Live set and the Eyewitness News set shared the same studio. I mention this because it could have played a role in WABC's decision to go on-air with a special report. I'll be interested to see the new set up once they move downtown.

Studio 45 at the CBS Broadcast Center was home to Inside Edition and Sunday Morning. The Sunday Morning hard set took up most of the space. Opposite the Sunday set was a large green screen that was utilized for the studio portions of Inside Edition. Studio 45 is now being used for Paramount Plus. To me, the minimalistic set from the 70s is part of the DNA of the show. I think their chroma key looks cheap and is more reminiscent of the production value you'd see at a small market station, not a national news program. I know CBS values the story over the presentation, but there's a fine line between intentional minimalism and poor quality. 60 Minutes does all its studio wraps on blue screen and it looks extremely polished. I know studio space is at a premium and it is not efficient to have Studio 45 house a hard set that is only on air for 90 minutes a week. But there must be a better way to shoot this show.

I've never understood why people call something dated when a graphics package (or hand me down set for that matter) comes to a new market. Has it been used before? You bet. Has it been used before on NCN? Nope. So to the viewers of News Channel Nebraska, it is a fresh look. I know this board doesn't like seeing graphics repurposed but this was an affordable way for Flood Communications to update their look. In this ad market I'm impressed a locally operated cable-only news channel is spending anything to evolve their on-air presentation.

It would be ideal if we could express our opinions without making a personal attack or judgement. I find posts from @mrschimpf to be knowledgeable and extremely sound from a business perspective. Not everyone may agree but to say someone "doesn't understand a thing" seems unnecessarily personal. For example, I don't know how one can predict that NewsNation "will never amount to anything" and I think it is overheated rhetoric to claim it is "the biggest loser in tv news history." MSNBC had a decade of failed shows before they hit their stride and the basement dweller that is the CBS News morning show certainly has to be in contention...both are still in business by the way. Lastly, I can't believe that one single show, Live PD, is the ONLY show that could deliver exposure. That seems extremely limiting. It is a wide world, there must be other ideas out there. My point is while I do not agree with your point of view, I do respect you as a person and your right to feel differently than me. For the record, I don't know mrschimpf. Just didn't like what I perceived as an attack. They might not even have noticed or cared.

It started out of necessity back when GMA was in second place but the show then, as it still does, believes a taped newsmaker interview is better because they can edit it down to keep the best parts. As someone else has mentioned, GMA puts a high value on story count. From NY Mag in May 2005: Ben Sherwood says. “We don’t have the luxury of doing live interviews as often as they do.” As a result, GMA often pre-tapes interviews, then edits the segments; on a recent morning, Gibson taped an interview with the parents of children who had been roughed up by a school-bus driver—Couric went live with them later. “They’re getting a more lively pace by cutting out the deadwood in an interview,” says Andrew Tyndall. “It’s more about getting sound bites than the interaction between the interviewer and interviewee.” The taped newsmaker segments became part of their culture and 16 years later they would still prefer to tape an interview at 6:50 so it can be chopped down to air at 7:15. Viewers don't care whether it is LIVE or not, as long as it is an engaging interview. (They also aren't watching all three shows simultaneously to see that one person is commonly on two shows at the same time)

@newsfan6 is spot on that the salaried staff is already on the payroll. I would add one more thing. A station keeps 100% of the commercial time in their local news. The spot load is usually heavier in a newscast vs an off-network sitcom or other syndicated show and all the inventory is local. So they don't even need a great rating for a news expansion to make financial sense.

The RSN business is collapsing faster than the core cable bundle. The problem traces back to when teams and media companies got greedy in forming channels. Everyone wanted their own channel because you could get X dollars a month per subscriber from the cable company. Teams shifted away from broadcast partners to join RSNs. The result became a glut of channels with limited rights to fill 24 hours of airtime. Now comes streaming and that subscriber money is drying up. RSNs are like that children's game of hot potato, where you don't want to be stuck with the potato when the music stops. The music is about to stop and Sinclair has the RSNs with ever-shrinking value.

In my opinion, the problems are rooted in the "old school" culture of CBS News. CBS has always prided themselves on valuing substance over style. The presentation - graphics, sets, even the on-air talent always play a distant second to the storytelling. On one hand, I applaud the commitment to substantive enterprise reporting. However, they are competing in a visual medium. The reason why their primetime has done well is because it entertains. CBS News doesn't care to entertain. Content with no frills. It worked for Cronkite in the 60s and that's where their culture still exists...even if the world around them has changed.

I wouldn't hold out hope for a linear version of FOX Weather replacing FS2. Cable companies won't carry it if the feed is the exact same content that is available for free elsewhere. Its why you see CNN+, MSNBC's "The Choice" on Peacock, and Fox Nation. Plus with the direct-to-consumer model, Fox can determine how many actual viewers they have. That data is much better than Nielsen's "estimates" on viewership.

I doubt this was part of ABC's standard testing program. More than likely the Secret Service administered tests to anyone that would come in close contact with the VP. Those tests would have been administered as close to airtime as possible.

While this is a great idea, I believe it would run afoul of cable exclusivity contracts. It would be difficult to lift News Nation programming off the cable network and put it on a broadcast channel because the cable operator would complain that a program they charge customers to watch is being given away for free simultaneously on a broadcast channel. A few select simulcasts to create awareness at launch? No big deal. A regularly scheduled broadcast? A much bigger challenge. It is the same reason why so many on-demand apps used to require you to authenticate that you were a cable customer before you could watch shows from channels like USA or TNT. Cable operators didn't want the content being given away for free which is why they developed TV Everywhere. Now, of course, cable operators are being cut out of the content ecosystem as Peacock and HBO Max offer those USA and TNT shows direct to consumers. (Just using two random channels as examples)

In a pretty lengthy interview with Deadline, MSNBC President Rashida Jones said that Rachel Maddow's show "will continue as she's doing it now." Jones seems to be positioning Maddow's new contract as one that allows Maddow to expand her interests while keeping her nightly gig. https://deadline.com/2021/09/msnbc-president-rashida-jones-interview-rachel-maddow-future-network-plans-1234823243/

Not really a relevant comparison. As @mightynine mentioned, many years have passed since that simulcast was aired. In that time, the cable ratings landscape has radically diminished. It is also not a great comparison from a revenue standpoint as you can't generate national ad buys in the national simulcast of a local newscast. So even if NewsNation's ratings are not as good (and they probably aren't), the revenue is much improved.

Maybe someone can help me here but I fail to understand these broad doomsday statements. Saying that "NewsNation has lost a majority of its staff" is simply not true. There are about 150 people on staff at NewsNation. Have over 75 people quit? Sure they have lost a few key leaders, and I'm not downplaying that, but to say a majority of their staff is a gross exaggeration. And I still don't understand the "cut losses" concept. People on this board have been clamoring for it to be shut down since the day it launched. This product is a little over 6 months old! FOX News took 6 years before they became a ratings juggernaut. MSNBC took much longer. And both of those channels took far more start up cash than NewsNation did. As long as Nexstar sees long term potential, I believe they will give the channel time to find an audience. All it takes is one marquee program and they can build around that. O'Reilly was the cornerstone for Fox while Olbermann was the ticket for MSNBC. I do agree they need a better programming strategy. The all-things to all-people programming strategy is no longer viable. I would advise them to take a "heartland" approach. I hear a lot from friends in the middle of the country that news is too focused on NY and LA. Maybe being in Chicago then can build a news product for middle America. That certainly would distinguish them. Their ratings would probably be modest, given the population density. But it would give them a target audience for programming and ad sales. In any event, with a lot of people's jobs on the line I'm sure not rooting for a failure. I hope they are given time to find their voice.

NBC News Channel and WCNC are in completely separate buildings. They are neighbors, but the buildings are not connected except for a wiring conduit.

I agree. For CBS News, I think this is an upgrade for their on-air look and feel. In my opinion, NBC News normally has an edge in graphics presentation. Their look tends to be more cohesive and refined than the others. However, I think that this CBS open has better production values than the odd piece-by-piece overhaul of NBC Nightly News.

The 7 p.m. news hour was due to NBC Sports' coverage of the US Open. Golf coverage was from 4 to 7 p.m. So News 4 at 6 and NBC Nightly News slid back an hour. I believe Chuck does currently have a co-anchor at 6 p.m. Natalie Pasquarella had been paired with Chuck for a while now. Did something change?

I'm not sure it is accurate to say WRAL did Brad Johansen wrong. Yes, Crabtree delayed his retirement but that is not why he is no longer at the station. According to the Fayetteville Observer, "there was an employee violation and a personnel matter that needed to be handled immediately." That doesn't sound like the station did him wrong nor does it sound like the station decided not to offer him a contract. This appears to be a termination of an employee for cause. Johansen had already assumed Crabtree's hosting duties of the station's public affairs show, "On the Record" and was the primary fill in. By all accounts he was going to be kept on until Crabtree's retirement. That is until this alleged violation.