HanSolo

Regarding costs, I tend to think the people who have access to the P&L info and are responsible on up the chain have that info and balance costs vs benefits. And they would also better know any data that indicates if there is a return on investment. Even if “flexing muscles” is a motivation, so be it. It’s a business and that’s part of the game. Im sure there are close calls that go either way, and sometimes there are factors none of us know the situational specifics about.

That pretty much answers the Peacock question.

Not at all. Never really did. It's a perfectly usable branding convention (with history on that particular station, but that is neither here nor there). There's a relatively limited (all things considered) pool of branding conventions that work. There's a good reason CBS went that direction with, what is it, a half dozen of their stations post CW? (KDKA+/KPIX+ as exceptions, IIRC?) There's no singular right or wrong approach, and honestly, you'd be hard pressed to find something that would be truly "stupid," since generally speaking, no one wants to tank their employer and endanger their paycheck. Any one person may have preferences, hangups or quibbles with an approach, subjectively. But stepping back and trying to put things through an objective filter and leaving personal animus aside, it's serviceable for their needs.

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.

This is an area where it's endemic to society as a whole. I don't know you could say it's disillusionment with journalism more or less than all kinds of fields. Even if someone feels a calling or a passion, reality sets in no matter the field (teaching, journalism, first responder, etc) and the bills are sometimes going to win out over the "calling." Wages for most sectors haven't kept up with inflation and haven't for decades for rank-and-file type roles. Contracts and non-competes are dreadful at lower salaries, and thankfully at least one of those is seeing some action.

As Kenny Rogers once pontificated, you gotta know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em. If the economics don't make sense for them, then let TNT spend like a drunken sailor. They're not lacking for sports content, and can continue to bulk up at the right price.

Could not agree more wholeheartedly. The clapbacks against the trolls are welcome. Be it Adam against the bigotry, or Jamie Apody against the misogyny et al, pushing back against trolls is important. Even someone like Ginger Zee at the national level pushing back on the criticism of darn near anything she wears, her actual credentials to speak to topics of meteorology and climate, etc., make an important statement by being resolute when attacked. Adam is an asset to the city's broadcast scene and as a whole for all he does in the community. Extra props to him for not relenting on the antiquated prohibition against gay men being able to donate blood and getting that turned around by the local Red Cross chapter.

Things that make you go hmmmmm......for all those who remember the '90s anyway

That's an awesome graphic. It does make me roll my eyes as a viewer at times...maybe quite a few times....but it's what they do and it works for them, so no complaints. I'm pretty sure I know what I'm going to get, so that choice is on me.

And that may be the difference between folks who gravitate to a board like this vs. the "general public" (and in no way is that meant as derogatory). The switching, the studying...and yeah, to an extent the level of even caring who's doing it in the moment. When I saw an alert there was a Trump verdict, ABC was the last channel I'd had on, so that was what came up and I watched. NBC or CBS could have easily been the last station, and wouldn't have occurred to me to bother flipping because "I like that David Muir" guy (to use an example). If anything, I sometimes switch over to CNN not for any given anchor, but once the networks end their special reports, if it's something I'm interested in, I figure there might be some additional coverage on a news channel. With regard to the Trump trial, I know plenty of people who didn't need any TV outlet; they could get what they needed on their breaking news alerts and move on. What I think would be interesting is data that shows perceptions and habits changing over time. We can all point to the era of Cronkite et al and how they were the trusted voices. By no means have we totally abandoned that era, but I think if we're objective about it, it's a very different world today. This isn't a knock on any anchor or outlet, but we simply, collectively, don't gather around just a handful of outlets and wait for the "voice of god" to tell us things. Some do. Some will continue to. But the old models change over time; we think it's abrupt when it manifests as a change to the status quo, but it's something that's been gradually evolving for a long time.

The reasons are of course clear from a business standpoint. Perhaps i'm the odd duck who doesn't care if Lester Holt is telling me whatever happened, or whatever person happened to be around. Wouldn't be the first and won't be the last time I'm an odd duck. Even for something absolutely huge, like (just an example, nothing more) perhaps the death of a sitting president, I'm not going to tune away because David was off on a beach in Hawaii and it took him time to get back. I don't doubt there are people who would, and yeah, I get why there's an "A" team, it just doesn't compute when I take off the "business" hat. Say I'm watching NCIS (does CBS actually have any other shows that aren't an NCIS offshoot? ) and whatever "big even" happens. I might watch World News Tonight regularly, but I'm not flipping over so they can tell me the same thing CBS is. (Again, odd duck, I get it. Just sharing some thoughts, and were it me being tasked with running things, I sure as heck wouldn't do it based off my own habits and tastes.)

Putting on my "viewer hat," I find this fascinating. I can't think of anything less important to me, personally, when a "big story" happens than if the "main" anchor is there, nor would I change over from station A to B simply because A has its coverage anchored, for however long, by someone who isn't [David/Lester/Norah]. I completely understand that with the big bucks, so to speak, comes sometimes having to get back to work unexpectedly. I do. But at the same time, I see these folks as human beings. I'm all in favor of them getting to have the time off they booked and planned. I will never make their money or have their prestige, so it's easy for me to say they deserve their vacation time even if something surprising happens. But the same goes at a local level. They all schedule things as it is to avoid known major news events; if something freaky happens when they're trying to take family time or whatever, my completely personal stance is let them have it. You have a team for a reason.

I'd lean more just giving someone some familiarity with various shows and formats to be a utility player backup as needed.

All of this. I'm not seeing why it matters how different stations in different markets having the same general look and feel is an issue. Viewers aren't watching out of market news. And for the fraction of a fraction of people who travel to the other city and happen to watch the news there, that has no negative impact.

They had good business reasons for doing so. The CW served its purpose and as the respective companies went through their own changes (good, bad and otherwise), it became apparent the that purpose was not a priority. That's ok, priorities change. If Nester was there to pony up the price and get them out of managing a business that didn't really fit their strategic plans, good for them.

The world is different 20+ years later. Businesses change. Owners change. Executives change. Budgets change.

Stipulated that this is not currently on the table, but even if the time comes at some future period TBD, there is no other viable option. Consumers have gone where they've gone. Assuming you can't make a go of "traditional" fare in the 10 pm hour, you either program it with something less costly and perhaps more topical, or you throw in the towel on the time. I know we love to get down on people for lack of creativity and whatnot, but sometimes that's not the issue. The issue is the world evolves and old models sometimes need to give way. Since it's almost inevitable the Leno experiment would be brought up in that context, that failure was also a set of circumstances unique to that time and that program, on that network. It doesn't automatically mean anything in the general world of late-night-esque shows can't work when that day comes, any more than the flameout of countless 10 pm dramas over the decades meant every drama airing at 10 pm was going to be a failure. In a world in which linear TV is declining, wringing revenue from news is a way to make something out of the inevitable. It won't work for everyone, and there may be various flexible options if and when the time comes, but for some, it will be a path to keep the lights on a little bit longer.

Glad to see there are still actual news briefs in those cut-ins. WPVI could try emulating their sister to the north and, I don't know....put some news into the news cut-in. They barely do a weather and traffic update, not even as in-depth as what's seen here, and except in the rarest of circumstances, no actual news headlines whatsoever.

Seems like that's the point of the theme. If that's the brand they want and they want it (mostly) uniform, that's the reason.

And she did well sticking to whatever NDA-type agreement may be in place. Good for her for getting back out there, and hey, if it leads to something, more power to her.

When it does run, that slight misalignment gets my OCD going. But the average person is not going to notice. I also don't think they need to do quite as much with the animations in the top of the newscasts. The three segments of the bar representing the three stories before the "big story" is fine, but it doesn't need to animate out and then back in with each teaser.

This may be an interesting business story to see how it plays out. The Talk was kind of little more than wallpaper by the time the axe fell. But can a ground-up drama be enough of a profit source for an organization that isn't exactly rolling in dough? Does having those production partners change the financial calculus? How long or short of a leash does the show get to get a foothold?

Whatever the true story, wherever it falls, it has the hallmarks of a protracted legal process. What precipitated it....well, we'll likely never know. Such is life. The fact that no one pulled the Sports Sunday promos that show and name her is amusing, but hey, things slip through.