nycnewsjunkie

If I had to guess, it’s probably because Peacock is starving for content (and subscribers). Also, IIRC, they can’t simulcast on Peacock and USA due to some archaic reason related to cable.

@ABC 7 Denverbeat me to it, but half of the PBS NewsHour is made up of talking heads, and, no offense to fans of the show, but most people don’t want to watch that crap. It’s a big reason why PBS never moves beyond its very niche audience. Not to mention, it has always been a very slow newscast, and was considered as such even when the big networks were doing slower-paced newscasts. Many European networks seem to find a way to do stories with depth and context without boring their viewers to death; I don’t see a reason why we have to pick between a sleep aid and the desperately frenetic product that the big networks are putting out now.

I’ve gotta hand it to CBS. They took a clean, cohesive intro and managed to make even that look cheap. Also, why do they insist on repeating the same 9 notes of the theme music before every headline in this new intro? It’s repetitive and annoying.

FWIW, the anchor desk graphics have changed.

These (rather blurry) pictures look to be more legit. *If* these are real, they don’t look that bad to me. They’re not the best looking sports graphics I’ve ever seen, but I don’t know if I’d call them “divisive.”

KPIX uses the box logo during syndicated programming. AFAIK, they still use the old Group W logo for the legal ID during network programming.

I watched some of their newscasts yesterday. As @ThunderJay27 pointed out, they’ve already eliminated all verbal references to the “Eyewitness News” name (except for the intros). They’re ditching the brand, and it’s for the best. It may be associated with the station’s early history, but it’s also associated with a long period of low ratings, as well as the racism of the Dunn/Friend era (see this article; viewers even referred to the newscasts as “White-Witness News”). The name doesn’t carry the goodwill that it does in NYC, for example, where the “Eyewitness News” name actually fits the newscasts WABC puts out. I know KYW wasn’t successful the last time they dropped the name, but this rebrand is nothing like the last one. They aren’t completely retooling the newscasts with people nobody knows. The anchors and reporters are all the same. They’re even making a conscious effort to heavily promote Ukee Washington. The only thing that’s changing is the presentation.

I never really understood why the black and gold color combo generated such passion on either side of the debate, but then again, I’m the most pedantic person I know, so who am I to judge? I wasn’t a huge fan of how it looked on the outgoing package, but I could see that color combo working well with the new graphics. Just as long as they don’t do something stupid, like gold text on a black background (or vice versa). Also, the new newsroom looks fantastic.

I think it’s safe to say that CBS Detroit falls into the “fewer legacy viewers at risk” category. Not only is channel 62 hard to get to for OTA viewers; that station (in its current form) doesn’t have much of a legacy to speak of. I generally agree, but it depends on how much CBS is invested in attracting OTA viewers in Detroit. Moving their virtual channel would only impact people who don’t have cable or streaming. I’m not sure if the number of antenna-only viewers in the Detroit viewing area would make that a big enough concern. Plus, CBS is putting a big emphasis on their streaming news networks anyway, so their Detroit OTA channel probably isn’t their highest priority right now.

Yup, that’s exactly what it was. I can understand the argument that the personal lives of news anchors, no matter how unpleasant, should be kept personal. The problem is that TJ and Amy were doing everything not to keep it personal. That’s too much of a headache for ABC’s liking.

I’m going to do my best to play devil’s advocate for this asinine “censorship” thing, if only to try and understand the logic behind it. Newsmax may stream everywhere, but they largely cater to the same demographics as Fox News. It wouldn’t surprise me if the vast majority of their viewership is from cable/satellite customers, and there are a great deal of satellite customers in rural, more conservative areas. The cable/satellite business may be on its last legs, but Newsmax (and other similar networks) live and die on that business. The problem for them, other than the obvious long-term unsustainable nature of the business, is that they don’t even make money on satellite. According to Ars Technica, DirecTV did not pay Newsmax to carry the channel under their previous agreement. It’s not as though they can ask for a few less cents. Newsmax likely can’t afford to have a large chunk of their viewership not pay for the network. Thus, cue the “political censorship” circus. The political angle of the messaging is there to get their viewers riled up. As you mentioned, they have bigger names, higher ratings than NewsNation, and “respectability” (for lack of a better word), so they can generate a lot more publicity with this stunt than OAN ever could. I’m sure DirecTV will be inundated with calls from people unintentionally asking the company to raise their satellite fees by carrying Newsmax and paying for it. Plus, there are already Republican members of Congress accusing DirecTV of political discrimination. It’s a desperate move on Newsmax’s part, and as @NewEgg00 mentioned, Newsmax will soon be cancelling itself by getting rid of free streaming. It seems that their last-ditch hope is to raise enough of a commotion to force DirecTV to pay for the channel.

I look forward to their future employment at NewsNation. /s

Your snarky attitude is duly noted. I’ll keep it in mind from now on.

These are all good points. I’ve learned to forgive the technical stuff; yes, one could argue that they should clear these things up before broadcast, given that they’ve been preparing behind the scenes for a while, but first day jitters are normal. I’m not really a fan of how they put the logo in a white box, but that might be temporary for all we know. As someone who can be unreasonably pedantic about sets and presentation, I actually don’t mind that it doesn’t look “ultra flashy.” Having the newscast done in the newsroom is rather refreshing, and they did a good job freshening up the WKBD newsroom. What I didn’t like was the awkward story selection. I get that they want to have exclusives, but the top story on your first newscast really shouldn’t be about a fired basketball coach. I also agree on the lack of local reporters. If they wanted to make a good first impression, they should’ve had field reporters on day 1. Still, it’s a hell of a lot better than no news at all.

I agree that not *everything* has to be flat, but IMHO design shouldn’t just stay stagnant in the early 2010s. You could’ve told me this stuff was from ten years ago and I would’ve believed you. I guess it’s not terrible; we’ve seen worse on some Nexstar and Gray stations, and we’re talking about a small station in Pennsylvania. Still, I would’ve gone for something more up to date.

The Daily Mail is reporting that TJ Holmes also had an affair with an intern. Their source describes Holmes as “a predator who took full advantage of his position” One should proceed with caution considering the source, but if it’s true, this can’t be good. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11649639/T-J-Holmes-sex-office-ABC-intern-13-years-junior.html

IIRC ABC also had a problem when they showed Puerto Rico’s countdown last year. Most affiliates cut away to local news, so most of the country completely missed it. Moving the news to 10pm rectified that. Side note: Happy birthday!

In fairness, the gradient on the colors doesn’t help. Still, I’m starting to come around to that thinking myself. Dropping the fill works with some backgrounds/design themes, but not all of them. Hell, the affiliates won’t be dropping the fill because it doesn’t work for most of them.

Same here

I apologize for sounding repetitive, but people who are only watching KCAL might not even know that the brand is now also on KCBS. If they are only making minimal (if any) references to CBS, how do they expect their viewership to grow on KCBS or their streaming channel? That’s where they need to grow. The use of the KCAL brand to stimulate that growth isn’t surprising; the lack of any CBS promotion outside of CBS itself (in a market as big as LA) is. Hopefully their researchers are proven right though (they sure as hell know more than I do). The product itself looks good so far IMO.

How is it “an invitation for disaster” though? They wouldn’t be scuttling the KCAL name at all. KCBS is the station that needs the most help ratings-wise, and I don’t know how the current rebrand invites KCAL viewers to watch newscasts on CBS if they aren’t even promoting CBS. Hell, it barely invites them to go to the streaming channel. Again though, if KCBS sees a ratings increase and CBS News LA sees more web traffic, I’d be happy to be wrong.

It isn’t; just pointing out that co-branding wouldn’t alienate them either.

If they wanted brand evolution, what KPIX is doing is a much better execution of it. Keep the call letters on air to let people know it’s the same newscast, while introducing a new name. In hindsight, it probably wouldn’t make much of a difference on either station ratings-wise, but co-branding would be a better way for people to immediately associate KCAL with CBS on both stations (without alienating KCAL’s current audience). Not to get too off topic, but when Charter purchased Time Warner Cable, there was a period of time when TWC’s brand was phased out and Spectrum’s brand was phased in. Both names were used concurrently in TV ads, and both companies’ logos were on the TWC website. To me, at least, that seems like a better example of brand evolution. That said, if KCBS ends up getting sustained ratings growth because of the association w/ KCAL, that will be a good example of why I don’t work in advertising.

I’m not sure if people referred to it as “KCBS” in recent years though; I feel like it was just “CBS2” for most people. That’s what it is in NY; WCBS is associated w/ the radio station, not the TV station. I don’t always explain myself well, so I should probably clarify that on its own, I actually like the “KCAL News” brand, given that KCAL is the stronger station; it just doesn’t sound like a good idea when CBS is restructuring their O&Os around CBS News. They could’ve incorporated the KCAL brand alongside CBS News LA (a la KPIX) on both stations; that way viewers build a stronger link b/w KCAL and CBS. In hindsight, having mulled this over for a few minutes, it may not make much of a difference anyway. Regardless of what name they call it, KCAL’s ratings probably won’t change much, and KCBS will have an uphill battle. It would’ve been nice to see linear and streaming integrated right away, but I guess that’ll have to wait. One thing I’ll agree on: at least they’re not pretending they’re two different news organizations anymore.

I’m not assuming that at all. My point was that going all in on the KCAL brand only to drop it after less than a year is not the smartest way to go about a rebrand. KPIX has already demonstrated that you can leverage a station’s brand legacy while incorporating the station into CBS News. KCBS/KCAL could’ve done this with the KCAL brand, which would also solve the problem of people not knowing that KCAL had anything to do with CBS. They’re deemphasizing CBS in the name of viewer attachment to a brand, but they’ll eventually dump the legacy brand in the name of corporate synergy… thereby losing the brand viewers were attached to. IMHO, that’s not a plan; that’s indecisiveness.