Jump to content

nycnewsjunkie

Member
  • Posts

    618
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    51

nycnewsjunkie last won the day on May 2

nycnewsjunkie had the most liked content!

2 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

3324 profile views

nycnewsjunkie's Achievements

News Director

News Director (7/8)

1.4k

Reputation

  1. I'm not familiar with Steve Eager's work, but I'm not a fan of this practice either. Granted, commentary is fine when it's a clearly labeled editorial (or when it's an offbeat newscast like "Next" at KUSA). And I know Bill Beutel at WABC occasionally inserted some mild commentary (ex: John Gotti "can only look at the moon through jailhouse bars"), but I don't think he ever waded into politics to this degree. Generally, there's a time and place for editorializing and commentary, and the middle of a supposedly impartial newscast isn't it IMHO.
  2. At this point, I feel like that’s up to NBC; they seem to have all the leverage right now, and I imagine they’d want exclusivity if they’re able to get it. Granted, if I were David Zaslav and I knew the NBA was going to increase their rights fees, I would’ve reached out to NBC (or someone else) from the get go to partner on the second package. It’s exactly what CBS did w/ Turner when they were at risk of losing Men’s March Madness to ESPN. There’s no guarantee it would’ve worked, but I think it would’ve been a far better strategy than Zaslav’s horrid public negotiation (“we don’t need the NBA”).
  3. Standard? No pun intended, but that one came out of left field. You’d think Reinsdorf would just repurpose Stadium into the new RSN. I’m not sure how Standard is going to be able to run a regional sports net when it seems like they can barely run their local TV affiliates.
  4. I don’t think it’ll happen, but I could certainly see him filling an analyst/contributor/commentator role. Charlie Gibson did that for ABC in 2016.
  5. I’m aware of that, I live in the market. Point is, they don’t identify that way now, and I don’t think there’s anything indicating that Nexstar is going that route with their legacy stations.
  6. WPIX and KTLA never went that route. KPLR just rebranded, and they didn’t go that route. I think it’s a safe bet that they won’t mess with what works.
  7. Unfortunately, I think the rumors about NBC have something to them. David Zaslav, in a rather idiotic move IMO, went on record to say “We don’t need the NBA.” In other words, they need us more than we need them. Not only is that an extremely foolish and arrogant thing to say in public; it’s patently false. TNT’s entire sports division is built around the NBA; their plans to start a streaming service w/ Fox and ESPN revolve around having the NBA. It would be disastrous if they lose it. Source: https://awfulannouncing.com/nba/david-zaslav-nba-rights-deal.html If TNT doesn’t pick up a package of games, I just hope one of the other broadcasters picks up the Inside guys. It would be a shame to lose that show like this.
  8. Interesting. Looks like they’ll have Scott Russell (normally the prime time host, IIRC) hosting during the midday/afternoon hours. That makes a lot of sense, given the 6 hour time difference.
  9. If anything, I think consolidation was a symptom of that technological shift. I suppose an excess of deregulation didn't help, but there's a reason why virtually all of the smaller and/or family owned TV station groups saw the writing on the wall and cashed out when they could. In the long term, it won't be viable to have a small piece of a smaller pie. And forget news for a second; aside from sports and a few other exceptions, the vast majority of my entertainment fix comes from somewhere other than the four (and a half, if we're counting the CW) major networks.
  10. I’m not privy as to why Sue’s contract wasn’t renewed. If it’s a case of ageism/sexism, that’s horrible and there’s zero excuse for it. However, it’s also entirely possible that she was ready to retire and he wasn’t. There’s also internet gossip (which I won’t link to because it’s not credible) that suggests that Sue was “phoning it in” and that management at the time wasn’t willing to give her a new contract; again, I’d take that with a grain of salt. If we go off the assumption that Sue’s dismissal was unfair, however, I don’t think one unfair dismissal demands another. It wouldn’t have made it right for both of them to be forced out for their age instead of just one of them; amplifying ageism in the workplace is not the solution to sexism IMO.
  11. I know you probably don’t mean it this way, but this comes off a bit ageist to me. Chuck is willing to work, NBC is willing to have him work, the viewers love him, and he’s still good at what he does, so I don’t see any reason for him to stop just because he’s old. It’s not as though he’s impeding younger journalists from greater opportunities. Besides, David Ushery and Natalie Pasquarella are the primary anchors there now, and if anything, having someone like Chuck in your newsroom to mentor younger journalists is an asset, not a liability. As far as Dana’s concerned, I’ve never met her, so I can’t speak to what others have said about her. Some people talk about her being supposedly difficult to work with, others have nothing but great things to say about her. That said, she was a good anchor who did her job well for decades, and I think she deserved acknowledgment for that. Ideally, one could argue she should’ve been given a bigger sendoff, but considering the nature of the TV news business, I’m glad she was given any sort of sendoff at all.
  12. Weird. Perhaps they were taking after the NYC flag? But I agree, that gradient does not look good.
  13. I’d bet on Pedro Rivera; nothing against Michelle, but sometimes it seems as though she doesn’t proofread her scripts before going to air.
  14. On the one hand, I’ll admit there are worse ways to make cuts than by producing a Scrippscast. Given that Sinclair has resorted to shutting down entire newsrooms and pumping in a questionable product from DC, it’s not so bad by comparison. Better to have a station continue to cover local stories with less than ideal resources/production than to have a local newsroom shut down entirely. However, I still don’t think that this is good for broadcast journalism. IMO, a lot of these Scrippscasts (for example, see WTXL) look hastily put together, and it seems as though they do the bare minimum to cover local stories. The national content often has little to no relevance to the viewer in that market. I’m not totally against the idea of reducing the role of the anchor to save costs, but unless that money is going into more robust local journalism and providing greater context to local issues, it’s a bit disingenuous for Scripps to frame this as a positive evolution in local news. It’s just cost cutting. It certainly seems like this is the future of local news, but we don’t have to like it.
  15. Understood, and I totally agree with you there. They should be transparent with viewers about this and shouldn’t pretend it didn’t happen.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using Local News Talk you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.