nycnewsjunkie

I don’t know if any other market has someone like a Jim Gardner. I know other cities have people who’ve anchored for a long time, but I’m not sure they’ve had the same cultural impact/relevance that Jim has in Philly. I mean, the dude had people tailgating in the parking lot for this. Nobody deserves it more, though. Happy retirement, Jim.

You’re right, my mistake. Sorry I mean, I totally agree that CBS needs this shakeup, but I can understand the criticism on some level (and I think it goes beyond music and channel numbers). For all the corniness about the way American stations have continued to identify themselves, it at least gives the impression that your station belonged to your community and not some faceless corporate entity (reality notwithstanding, of course). That’s not to say that CBS O&Os have felt that way (especially under the old management), but some of the vestiges of unique identity were still there. That’s going away now, even at the legacy stations, and one could be forgiven if they felt that their local outlet didn’t really belong to them anymore. Again, not that David Friend cultivated that sense of belonging, but the vestiges were still there. That being said, you’re right, it had to be done. CBS is too big of a company to have most of their stations flailing in the ratings and being irrelevant. The association with CBS News definitely grants them some level of prestige IMO. It’s just that losing local characteristics comes with its own risks. Considering the state of most of those stations, though, I think it’s more than worth it, and at least they’re trying *something* with them.

Considering that you’ve got 10 people liking your post, and that a sizable number of people in this particular thread have offered nothing but uncritical praise for what CBS is doing, your perception is mistaken. Yes, there are people who don’t like it, and prefer stations to have individual characteristics, but that’s their prerogative. They’re allowed to have an opinion too. As far as my personal feelings are, I really like this rebrand. The graphics are miles beyond what they replaced, and IMO, they’re the second best looking local news package out of the US that I’ve seen (the best being NBC’s). although I’m not a fan of the way they use the call letters in what is very likely a temporary branding. The call letters in a box don’t look good next to the “CBS News X” really look sloppy IMHO. (EDIT: I probably should’ve noticed that already, but I really notice it now having seen it on air). I get that they’re trying to transition things over, but they’ve already been doing that for more than a year. In KPIX’s case, I don’t think the anchors/reporters even mention KPIX once. If you’re going all in on CBS News, go all in now.

As for the “why is flat better for mobile?” question, I’m far from a design expert, but I think this article puts forward a good argument for it (and explains it better than I ever could). Long story short, flat design allows for greater contrast and more flexibility. When you’re working with a smaller amount of space, gradients and gloss can be unnecessarily complicated and distracting. It’s the same reason why IOS and Windows dropped their old glossy designs they had for their operating systems several years back. I’m not against the old peacock or anything, but on the subject of NBC News, their visual presentation is looking rather dated IMO (although not nearly as dated as ABC). I’m sure they’ll eventually adapt their graphics to suit the new peacock, but I doubt they’re in any rush to do it given the similarities between the logos. I can be nit picky about this stuff myself, but I honestly didn’t even notice the changes when the new promos first aired. That’s how subtle they are IMO. But to each their own.

Because of a logo change? That’s a bit of an overstatement IMHO. ABC and NBC’s new logos are more mobile-friendly, and the new CBS bug is less intrusive. Besides, we’re the only people that are consciously noticing this stuff; all of these changes are so minuscule that I’m not sure it’s even worth calling them different logos.

I’m sort of surprised that having an affair with two married coworkers while being married yourself doesn’t violate a morality clause of some sort, especially since this is Disney we’re talking about. That said, as reprehensible as TJ or Amy may be in their personal lives, I’m not sure firing them would be a good precedent for the rest of the company. Even though TJ may have had a habit of $h*—ing where he ate, his relationships were consensual, and unless ABC has an explicit “no fraternization” policy, I’m don’t think they’d have any justification for firing him. Same goes for Amy. EDIT: Kim Godwin herself stated that TJ’s actions were “not a violation of company policy,” so ABC would have no justification for firing him.

I must be really slow with this stuff, because I didn’t even know she left CBS2 to begin with.

I don’t think comparing 2 stations in 2 different time slots really counts as competition, but I assume your point is that KCAL has the higher-rated newscasts. Is that really a bad thing? It’s the exact same news department, and the revenue is all flowing in the same direction.

I don’t know if I’d call it “ass-backwards management” (not yet, anyway); it’s more like throwing in the towel on channel 2 in the morning. I can’t blame them. Keep in mind that their current arrangement has KCBS airing a newscast that draws a big fat zero in the ratings, while KCAL airs infomercials. As unconventional as this new arrangement is, it’s better than what they have now (although they might want to consider promoting the damn thing). That’s not saying much, of course. The spiel about “making KCAL a major player” is BS, and I imagine that management is smart enough to realize that they won’t be a major threat to KTLA or KTTV. The broader point is that KCAL can air its own programming (via CBS LA’s news dept), and the extra airing of CBS Mornings can give the show a ratings boost (albeit, a very small one). Sure, KCBS loses morning news, but when no one’s watching it, it’s not like anyone living in LA is going to give a damn.

If they really are launching on KCAL tomorrow, you’d think they’d do a better job promoting it. I haven’t seen anything on their website that promotes a Dec. 5 launch (other than program guides), and I assume they aren’t airing promos on KCBS/KCAL. AFAIK, nothing promoting a specific launch date on social media or YouTube either. Maybe it’s me, but I don’t know if you have any hope of getting viewers for this thing if you aren’t even telling people when/where to watch it. Unless, of course, they aren’t launching tomorrow.

I know Meade is popular around here (and I quite like her myself), but I can’t say I’m surprised that she’s leaving. Her program always had a bit of a niche audience, and since it was the only news program on what’s become a true crime channel, it’s always been out of place. While I personally think it’s better than New Day, its lighter tone means that it wouldn’t fit in with the rest of CNN’s programming. Hopefully she finds work elsewhere (she’s too good not to). Still, I really don’t like this whole “cut to success” mentality that Discovery is implementing across CNN (and across the entire company, for that matter). Yes, CNN desperately needed to change, but making the network irrelevant is not the answer. You kind of answered your own question there. Still, the amount of zombie networks they have is astounding.

Yup, afraid so. I guess it’s a good reminder that people in TV news (or in any place of public prominence) can be as wonderful or as horrible as anyone else.

I’m not sure if they’re planning on keeping it this way, but the branding looks and feels temporary. I’m not a fan of it either, but I suppose it’s necessary given that CBS airs a bunch of newscasts on two LA stations. I wouldn’t be surprised if it all becomes “CBS News Los Angeles” at some point.

On that subject, apparently the interviewer (Markie Martin) is the sister of Margo Martin, Trump’s Deputy Director of Communications. That relationship was not disclosed. I know I should really stop giving NN undue attention, but when they’re interviewing the former president like this, it’s kind of hard to ignore. FTVLive referred to the network as Fox News Lite, but even Fox News has greater levels of transparency. NewsNation is more like Diet Newsmax with a side of Fredo.

IIRC it wasn’t until recently that KLAS started streaming online. And that’s a station in Vegas. This is where Nexstar should’ve been investing instead of trying to create CNN/Fox News Lite.

A good rule of thumb that’s worked well for me: If it’s a sensationalist piece from the NY Post/NY Daily News, there’s a 50% chance it’s horsecrap.

Good point, the last thing the stations need is for more people to see them screw up. That one KSAZ issue could send Arizona’s election into a tailspin just because of all the craziness surrounding it.

I’m surprised they aren’t rolling everything out right now. I’m not just talking about the graphics; I’m referring to the new newscasts in both Detroit and LA. The midterms are going to see higher news viewership than normal, and this would be the best time to launch. To me, it doesn’t really make sense to wait until general interest in news has waned to launch new newscasts.

Maybe because it’s the first of the month? That’s my best guess.

Long overdue IMO. Not that Dana wasn’t a good solo anchor, but Dick Brennan deserves the spot. This also helps on days when one of them is off; the other anchor can just do it solo instead of having the 5pm team fill in.

I definitely agree with that sentiment, and I’m beginning to understand your point; debates are a public service, and should be treated as such (just as they are for the presidency). In an ideal world, every station would carry (or at least have the option of carrying) a gubernatorial/senate debate live. My broader point was that Nexstar isn’t doing anything radical in having exclusive rights. The network O&Os, Tegna (in TX), and many other station groups have organized similar arrangements in the past. I wouldn’t hate the player (Nexstar), but rather the game (in which political parties allow certain companies to have exclusivity in the first place). That said, I didn’t realize Nexstar’s guidelines about crediting NewsNation, and I’ll concede that those are excessive. NewsNation isn’t even conducting the debate; the stations are. It would be like NBC requiring other outlets to credit MSNBC for an event covered by NBC News.

Not quite; airing the debate on WSTR was out of necessity, not for “public interest” reasons. Nexstar doesn’t own a station in Cincinnati, and had to partner w/ Sinclair in that market to ensure its debate could be seen in every Ohio market. That said, it’s really not a big deal IMHO. Is it any different than WABC/WPVI having exclusivity over a New Jersey gubernatorial debate? I actually don’t mind Nexstar doing this. Just like ABC in NJ, Nexstar has the rights to host this debate, so why wouldn’t they air it on their platforms? If anything, airing it in all of their markets broadens the reach of the debate, as it now airs on stations that may not otherwise have carried it. And what does it have to do w/ NewsNation? These debates are being moderated by local anchors/reporters, not Chris Cuomo (and thank God for that).

Nah. That assumes NewsNation had any sort of lead to begin with. They’re more like the 2022 Denver Broncos. A very expensive flop.

I didn’t get it at first either, and I’ll try to simplify what I think they’re doing as best I can. CBS knows that local news is more identifiable w/ viewers than the national network. That’s a problem for them, given that CBS national newscasts don’t perform well in the ratings. By slapping the “CBS News” name onto local newscasts, the CBS News brand effectively becomes more regional. The hope is that viewers identify their local newscasts with CBS News as a whole, and that they stay w/ their CBS News station for national news rather than flipping the channel. CBS also wants to push local/national streaming, given the rise of OTT services, and also wants to integrate the operations of local streaming services. The best way they can do that is by having everyone brand around the network, rather than have the channel number on TV, the CBSN brand for streaming news, etc. The current “awkward muddle” of brandings is because they’re transitioning. In NY, I’ve seen more references to CBS New York than CBS 2 in station promos. I have no idea if this would actually accomplish the first goal of increasing viewership, and I don’t see myself wanting to watch the CBS Evening News in my market just because WCBS doesn’t call itself CBS2 anymore. However, it would accomplish the goal of integrating the network in a streaming-heavy world.

That’s rather ironic, considering Antena 3’s history. They’re apparently considered to be the Fox News of Romania, and were known for falsely reporting that George Soros was behind a series of protests against the Romanian government. The network also ranks as being among the least trustworthy in Romania, according to a Reuters Institute study. I guess that given CNN International’s reputation, Antena 3 figured that a partnership with them might bolster their credibility.