nycnewsjunkie

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.

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”).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Weird. Perhaps they were taking after the NYC flag? But I agree, that gradient does not look good.

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.

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.

Understood, and I totally agree with you there. They should be transparent with viewers about this and shouldn’t pretend it didn’t happen.

I don’t mean to offend you, but this is a nothingburger. Changes happen on the fly during a newscast all the time. There are instances where stories are cut due to time constraints. There’s absolutely nothing to get worked up about here when these are things that very few people will actually notice. So they shot the set from a different angle…big deal.

So instead of using it as a learning opportunity for everyone in the newsroom, let’s fire/cancel the guy? I fail to see how that helps anyone. It’s far more productive to heed the lesson from this experience so that people avoid repeating similar mistakes in the future. Not to mention, this cluster f goes beyond one person. If I’m not mistaken, scripts are supposed to be written, edited, and reviewed before going to air. Something went seriously wrong with that process if no one caught that phrasing before hitting air, and work should be done to correct that process. Unless this was done with malicious intent (which by all accounts, it wasn’t), they don’t need to go on a pink slip crusade.

Unfortunately, Next TV doesn’t seem to provide full ratings data in their Local News Close-Ups, but they do note that in the September 2023 ratings period, WBZ placed third behind WHDH at 11pm (in both the demo and total viewers). It wouldn’t surprise me if they were second in other time slots, though. Regardless of ratings, I think they put out a fantastic product; they’re definitely one of the better CBS O&Os IMO. https://www.nexttv.com/news/local-news-close-up-better-things-are-bruin-in-boston

As much as I (and, I presume, most of us) like to hate on Sinclair, the RSN business, and the decreasing accessibility of professional sports, this is probably the best case scenario for the teams. A lot of these teams rely on RSNs for revenue, and the total loss of Bally Sports would have crippled those teams.

In LA, KTTV actually doesn’t perform as well as its competitors. In the mornings, KTLA is in first both in the demo and total households. At 10pm, KTTV is behind both KCAL and KTLA. Getting back to CBS, one silver lining for them is that KCAL is still doing well (they actually won both the demo and total households at 10pm). Unfortunately for them, it doesn’t seem to have translated to ratings growth at KCBS. https://www.nexttv.com/news/local-news-close-up-la-news-battle-begins-before-sunrise

What a horrible turn of events for Newshub and for New Zealanders. WBD has already been making cuts to its NZ division, but to close the entire newsroom is diabolical. A lot of good people are going to be out of work, and most importantly, it’s a disaster for New Zealand. TVNZ (the state-owned “public” broadcaster that operates more like a commercial channel in practice) is going to have a monopoly on TV news. What a joke. I don’t know of too many healthy democracies with a lack of media diversity. You can’t adequately scrutinize people in power when there’s only one, state-owned outlet available to do it. I’m hoping there’s a way to save Newshub before June, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

All good lol (And in fairness, man do those colors look ugly…) I think you nailed it. I’ll continue to give CBS credit for launching the best/most watchable local streaming newscasts, but even aspects of that whole endeavor (like CBS News Now) were seemingly done on the cheap. I would just add that Paramount’s current financial situation probably isn’t helping either. IIRC, the O&Os were hit with layoffs in June and December, and CBS News laid off 20 people this month as part of company-wide layoffs.

I don’t mean to offend, but I really don’t understand why this bothers people. They’re not my favorite colors either, but we’re talking about Pittsburgh here. Sure, there are better ways to execute the black and gold look, but is it so bad that a station’s visual identity reflects the city it serves?

I understand Colorado (the Denver market covers a majority of the state geographically), but given that Texas is also home to a big city like Houston and growing cities like Austin and San Antonio, the brand just doesn’t work IMO.

Don’t count on that happening. The decision’s been made, and unfortunately, what’s done is done. Not only would that be unfair to the person they hired for the job; news executives generally don’t walk back their decisions like that. They’d have proverbial egg on their face if they did.