MediaZone4K

13 hours ago, mre29 said:

So, this brings up a very good question:  Unless there's a significant local angle, why on Earth would individual stations even bother sending anyone to an event instead of taking whatever packages their networks and/or station groups make available?

 

For example, I would think that only stations in the teams' main and secondary markets would be sending anyone to the Super Bowl.

 

For the Olympics, it'd depend on whether or not your station's market has multiple local athletes who are competing (or one or two high-profile athletes), then yes, definitely send someone.

 

For the political conventions and debates? Only if the presumptive nominees are from your state (though that doesn't really apply this year).

 

My thoughts exactly. To me, local stations sending reporters to national stories with no market ties are a stunt move to flex their resources on the competition.

Personally, I don't care about seeing my local anchors at the presidential debate if none of the candidates are tied to the DMA. I'll watch the national news for that.

Sending local reporters to national events were more commonplace back in the day when stations had more resources, and weren't part of large station groups.In today's era of mass ownership and budget cuts, it wouldn't make sense for a Nexstar station in Vermont to send a reporter to a California wildfire since the company has stations in 200 markets including Cali, plus they can get a package from network. 

I understand wanting to control how the story is presented, but as @C Blocksaid is it worth the cost?

On the flip side I've wondered... Why do networks spend money to fly correspondents all across the country when they can just take a package from, or ask for a live shot from, one of their hundreds of local affiliates who are right next to the matter. Quality control I suppose? A fresh out of college reporter in market 100 won't turn a package of Nightly News quality?

CBSEN is doing a top story rundown format now. 

On 6/22/2024 at 3:20 AM, C Block said:

 

Yeah, every station here and there may have a slightly different idea of what has historically been and presently is their flagship newscast. Put most broadly, I think most stations' flagship newscast was probably the late 9/10/11pm 20 years ago. Now, I'd say it's probably the 5 or 6pm or mornings for most stations. I can't stress enough how much late news ratings have dropped for everyone.

It seems mornings--- especially after 7am when the big three do national news-- are the flagship for many Fox/CW stations (with their own news departments). 

11 hours ago, ABC 7 Denver said:

 

Better than "the Shart", I suppose.

Sidebar, thanks to whoever brought up the WAGA set. I've been griping that it looks waaay too blue, lol. It's better than KDFW but definitely not one of the better FOX owned sets.

On 6/22/2024 at 2:47 AM, C Block said:

 

I disagree with the 4pm being the most important show. That's still too early to have the big audience, and if a station is giving all of their content to the 4pm and very little new for 5 and 6, then that's either a result of old habits or is just a poor allocation of resources.

 

The 6pm hour is probably the most important with the highest ratings and the most people at home watching. A lot of stations are still set in their ways of having a bunch of dayside reporters all start at 9:30, with one big editorial meeting then, and then everybody's live at 4 or 5 with a straight pkg for 6. Sometimes that's fine, but I do think that things can and do start to not feel as fresh at 6. Some stations have started to stagger reporter start times to be able to be live later and have new content for 6 and 7, and I think that's smart.

Going back to Atlanta, the exception to that 6pm rule is WSB. From observation they usually do live hits in the 6 (even for stories that don't require them). But it's still repeated content from 4 & 5.

The logic stations give for new at 4 repeat for the remainders is "audiences stick around for quick hits and don't watch newscasts straight through or for hours". How true that is, IDK? EDIT: To WSB's credit, from watching their evening newscasts it looks like they switch up the order of stories between shows.

I might run the TV for hours on one station if I'm doing something else, and the repeats are noticeable. A creative thing a station in my market does is a live VO/SOT at 4, half the story in a PKG at 5, and the complete PKG at 6, to give the illusion of new content and to keep people sticking around through shows.

From a viewer POV I like it but I've heard reporters complain that turning the package multiple ways adds to their hefty workload.

And I get it. 4:00 newscasts often don't leave reporters enough room to make slot. This especially if your editorial meeting begins at 9:30 a.m, and you may not be out the door until after 10:00, plus travel time, editing, etc. The vo/sot at 4 method might alleviate this.

On 6/19/2024 at 8:11 PM, mrschimpf said:

Probably because it's very pointless these days more than anything?

And from an employee standpoint the problem with unnecessary live shots, especially at night, is going past your shift hours.

If your shift ends at 11:35pm and your 11:00 live hit is an hour away from the station, that has you getting back past midnight which can be a bummer for work-life balance. 

26 minutes ago, ns8401 said:

A report from earlier in the day when the scene is more active would seem to be maximum bang for the buck. I’m used to the late news being an update show and the 6pm being the most important though… something that dates off and on back to the 1980’s at least. 

It seems 4pm is the most important evening show now-a-days. In many markets I have seen 4:00 getting all the new packages and then being recycled throughout the later shows, with 10/11-pm maybe having some fresh nightime news. 

Despite 6 PM having the highest ratings, 6:00 newscasts are often rehashes of the 4pm. In Atlanta, I've seen 11 Alive and Fox 5's 6 PM newscasts featuring mostly pretaped look live shots. This most likely  because a day side reporter's shift runs 9-5ish. 

3 hours ago, GraphicsMan said:

I wonder when the alphabet runs out what are they gonna name the designs. 

Look AA

8 hours ago, JosiahCubed said:

And as of the 19th, KNTV has made the graphics yellow for the morning broadcasts.

Niceeee!

In general live shots at night where the scene is not visible are pointless. The main point of a live shot is to display an active scene or breaking news, the second is putting a report on the air in which there isn't enough time to package. Big markets like Atlanta are the king of pointless live shots. 

I doubt the audience cares if the reporter is live at an inactive scene, especially if they are consuming news after the fact on YouTube. 

I had a news director say he didn't want a daytime stand-up for a report airing at night, but the bridge or the cutaway two shots (and the interview) could be in daylight which made no sense. 

Not terrible, not remarkable. Gets the job done. 

8 minutes ago, NowBergen said:

 

At least in NJ, News12 is live only a few hours a day now.  Altice has killed it.  Hyper local?  Not so much anymore.  And they are now pushing News12 streaming, which is only NY news.  Pass.  

Per the IG page of a News 12 Brooklyn journalist, I see she MMJs. NYC is a chaotic market to do that in. I would imagine the conditions are similar in Jersey, pushing people out the door.

I've been told by some Nexstar employee friends that there is MMJing at PIX 11, which could be a contributing factor to turnover. 

On 3/29/2024 at 3:49 PM, Big Rollo Smokes said:

Reporter Amy Yensi is leaving WPIX, and the TV business as a whole.

Late to the party but....the reporter turnover at WPIX along with WCBS and WNYW seems to be frequent. I could not name half the reporters at those stations compared to years past. And this is market 1, imagine the conditions in mid to low markets leading to this same issue.

On 4/9/2024 at 7:02 PM, carolinanews4 said:

 

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 agree with your points but I do support the name change as to distinguish the CBS News streaming site from the TV platform. At this point they might as well give in and call it "CBS News +" Lol.

My old school mentality says we don't need more new streaming services, but I'll still take the product on those platforms over what we're given on cable news. How are these sites even doing ratings wise?

Employees at WROC (CBS 8 Rochester, NY) are picketing over Nexstar's refusal to recognize their union.

From my experience, you need about 75% of Staff support for the union to be recognized.

According to the article, Nexstar tried to claim that producers are ineligible for unions because they serve in a management capacity.

The National Labor Relations Board however ruled producers were union elligable.

Do you all think the unionization attempts will be successful?

https://rbj.net/2024/06/10/wroc-union-plans-picket-over-stalled-contract-talks/

On 6/13/2024 at 5:23 PM, WeatherandTraffic said:

Is it just me or is GMA just a mediocre show now at best? Compared to Today and CBS Mornings, it's quality has gone down, including the weekend shows.

Good Morning America has been this way since the early 2010s, even worse after Sam Champion and Josh Elliott left in 2013/2014. It's become a mix of Inside Edition and Entertainment Tonight.

Right now, I think GMA's hosts are less of the problem as it is story choice, tabloid sensationalized tone, and ADHD pacing. Watching a GMA broadcast from 1984 or 2004 versus 2024 feels significantly dumbed down.

Today has sucked since Meredith & Ann left but its news element tops GMA. CBS Mornings has its flaws but it's the most mature and news-oriented show among the three. 

Yes, sets don't need to match graphics. Sometimes a graphics package looks old but a set looks fine (ex Today updating their graphics but keeping their set in 2009). 

But, on many of the abc o&o stations, both graphics and set happened to reach its outdated point simultaneously. In that case, they might as well update both to improve the overall aesthetic.

The only station that a studio update wouldn't make sense for is WABC since they are moving facilities.

On 5/25/2024 at 12:35 PM, Vlad said:

Now the next order of business. How will the new sets and studios complement the new look. The sets for all the O&Os are now out of date.

Yup. Right now the NBCs have the best sets of the O&Os

I'd argue Hearst and Graham stations have the best sets of the affiliate groups. 

What ABC O&O would you all say has the best set? KGO? KABC? 

WAGA's Sharon Lawson is leaving Good Day Atlanta after 7 years. The reasoning is not clear but her Instagram post says it was her decision. The Atlanta Journal Constitution article notes that two other veteran newscasters left the station after accepting company buyouts. Sucks! Sharon was okay. 

Welp...this is a creative way to reach a younger audience lol.

MSNBC has been very vocal on matters that could affect company interests. From the Rona McDaniel hiring to this.

Loosy related... The only other company I've seen that allows this much criticism on company matters is Fox, with shows like The Simpsons and Family Guy routinely mocking the Fox News Channel. 

On a similar note if you notice the time bugs above the station logo you'll see the Biden packages were placed in the A block.

What sucks about Sinclair stations is that so much of their local broadcasts are made up of national news. Unless it's a major story, local stations typically resort to nation packages to fill airtime by the b or c blocks.

In my market's Sinclair, like these stations in the report, I have seen national packages appear as early the middle of A block. And the  reports are usually never from the Affiliated Network mostly from sinclair.

The nationalization of local news is another issue. As a viewer I don't want to see the same stories rehashed that I can already get from Network or cable.

On 6/12/2024 at 1:36 PM, HanSolo said:

There can be too many variables to say "it works" or "it doesn't." Who's determining success, how long a window, how is the quality of the operation to which someone goes? How about the impact of the network on local programming? How strong is the station someone is leaving? Are viewers more invested in the brand or the people?  

 

Probably many more variables, but just looking at those, you're going to find not only are any given scenarios demonstrably not the same, but that subjectivity can determine what's a success and what's not. 

Fair points. All in all a job should have no say on when and where you seek employment after you leave said job.

9 hours ago, Recovering Producer said:

The real toxic part of contracts many station groups are making people sign are financial penalties if you resign even if you are leaving the business. Thousands of dollars. A one-sided agreement like that should scare away any reasonable person. 
 

Stations will argue it is the cost of the training they gave you and recruiting/hiring your replacement. And you can maybe justify some of that cost on a first contract, but in a second employment agreement the training cost isn’t there. 

— Except small to mid-market stations do little by way of training employees anymore. In my old mid-market newsroom, there was no formal training for reporters, just learning as you go along. There was no hair, makeup, work phones, or any perks attached for reporters. So their argument that investment in employees justifies post-employment non-compete clauses or contract breach fees is null and void. 

And so what if they did invest in employees? Why do employers feel the need to exercise control over what someone does when they leave your company? Fear of losing viewers?  As Katie Couric leaving Today for the CBS Evening News displayed, talent switching channels doesn't mean the viewers will leave in droves as the CBS EN remained #3 and Today remained #1 in their respective slots. Nonetheless, I doubt audiences will abandon a station because a reporter (a more interchangeable face than an anchor) has switched channels. 

If it's fear of spreading company intellectual property — cameramen and digital writers who weren't under contract were privy to just as much information as reporters and producers who were contracted. So that policy of subjecting one to contract not the other was inconsistent to me. 

On 12/20/2023 at 9:54 PM, Howard Beale said:

I’d hate to be a TV news director these days.  Imagine how stressful it must be to try to recruit people!  I see recruiters from Gray and Scripps, among others, who post the same open jobs on LinkedIn almost every day.  I’m also aware of some jobs that have been open for months.

 

I’m no longer in the business, so does anyone here have first-hand knowledge of the recruiting crisis in TV news?

22 hours ago, tyrannical bastard said:

It seems the contracts are getting shorter and shorter.  Turnover is constant, and jobs in smaller markets are either stepping stones for larger markets or only stops for the journalists who take them.

 

The recruiters are on colleges trying to snatch up any recent graduates (or even students) to fill the voids created by all of the turnover.

 

In a way, this may create a future void, as current long-haul journalists and TV people leave the industry for a better life (and salary) because of their experience.  When the experience goes away, these other jobs may suffer unless the schools teach for this kind of experience.

The contracts should be shorter. Being locked into a $16 to $20 an hour job for 2 to 3 years is insane. Call me an extremist but contracts should be abolished for all low wage employees making perhaps less than $100K/yr. 

What the news industry seems to not care about is that their toxic work environments, unrealistic timing expectations, the expansion of the MMJ role and low salaries have all contributed to mass turnovers and low recruitment. 

Many of these conditions were in place before the digital age so we cannot blame loss of viewing habits for the current generation's disillusionment with the profession.

This is the "I quit" generation. Millennials and Gen Z are not as loyal to their jobs and not willing to tolerate crap from their bosses so they will walk away faster than  previous generations.

Stepping outside the specific issue--- working for free is a common expectation in newsrooms. News directors fully expect their reporters to come in with pre-vetted developed enterprised pitches EVERY DAY even though they may not have time on the back end of their shift to do so.

How can this be accomplished?

I worked in a newsroom where the news director basically told reporters "I'm not asking you to work for free, but it does help to be following the news , browsing for stories, and making calls on your off time."

Those things may help but when we speak about work-life balance I don't think that's really what you want to be doing after an 8 to 10 hour work day.

On 12/20/2023 at 9:54 PM, Howard Beale said:

I’d hate to be a TV news director these days.  Imagine how stressful it must be to try to recruit people!  I see recruiters from Gray and Scripps, among others, who post the same open jobs on LinkedIn almost every day.  I’m also aware of some jobs that have been open for months.

 

I’m no longer in the business, so does anyone here have first-hand knowledge of the recruiting crisis in TV news?

From my experience, news directors in mid sized markets are now hiring people who just graduated or are about to graduate from college.

I'm not against that as no one wants to start in market 177. The problem is many colleges ONLY teach written journalism (print/online article writing) and theory of journalism (bias, philosophy etc).

Broadcast skills like teleprompter reading, video editing, conducting interviews, mastering extemporaneous speech during live shots, mmj cameras and meeting tight deadlines are learned on the job in sink or swim environments.