WABC - 7 Eyewitness News

[mountainave 597]

Kristin Thorne left WABC earlier this year to be an investigative reporter and host with Law & Crime, focusing on true crime. 

[atlnewsfan03 78]

On 2/22/2025 at 5:08 PM, Encore 323 said:

It is sad to see WABC and the ABC network in general leaving its longtime home on the Upper West Side especially with all of the memories, newscasts, and personalities that have been coming in and out of those doors but I am glad that they are planning for the future and 7 Hudson Square will be able to accommodate those needs. The same standards that made the station the most watched in the Tri-State and in the whole nation will continue and will improve with being housed in this modern facility as well as the standards of the ABC News division. I am based in Los Angeles but I know people in New York so it is going to be a change for them when they watch Eyewitness News and network news programming. 

The Upper West Side area (Lincoln Center and West 66th) was to ABC for decades, with the exception of GMA that is based at Times Square, prior to the recent decision made by Disney to relocate ABC's NYC-based properties and productions to Hudson Square near lower Manhattan.

We know Rockefeller Plaza is to NBC.  And the Hell's Kitchen area (along West 57th) is to CBS, with the exceptions of CBS Mornings (2021-Present) that is based in the Paramount Building near Times Square, and the former CBS Early Show (1999-2012) that was based in the GM Building near Central Park.  NBC and CBS getting nifty investments similar to what ABC got would remain to be seen.

[NowBergen 679]

20 minutes ago, atlnewsfan03 said:

The Upper West Side area (Lincoln Center and West 66th) was to ABC for decades, with the exception of GMA that is based at Times Square, prior to the recent decision made by Disney to relocate ABC's NYC-based properties and productions to Hudson Square near lower Manhattan.

We know Rockefeller Plaza is to NBC.  And the Hell's Kitchen area (along West 57th) is to CBS, with the exceptions of CBS Mornings (2021-Present) that is based in the Paramount Building near Times Square, and the former CBS Early Show (1999-2012) that was based in the GM Building near Central Park.  NBC and CBS getting nifty investments similar to what ABC got would remain to be seen.

NBC Universal has received several tax breaks for investments made to remain and modernize at 30 Rock. They actually own many of the floors that are used, rather than leasing them from the buildings owners.  30 Rock is iconic to the network, not just the station.   ABC for years was a hodgepodge of neighboring (not always connected) buildings and required doubling up use of studios.  Before WABC took over the Disney Store space for their news studio, it used the same studio as Live with whoever.  It wasn't the most optimized facility as the network grew and developed.  

[MetroNews 3]

And CBS has been actively trying to sell their buildings on West 57th for the past year or so. 

[Vlad 324]

On 2/25/2025 at 12:03 AM, MediaZone4K said:

I wish they would begin each broadcast with that fantastic shot of the celing circle seven perching over the anchor desk, rather than a wide shot of the anchor desk.

They did it a couple of days ago when they debuted the studio for the 4 pm show. Well, they did it during a going-on-break bumper shot when I had rewatched it. It was a nice aesthetic. I'd imagine they probably won't do these shots forever, so we should enjoy them while it lasts as the novelty of the new space wears off and they return to the regular live shots, etc.. It reminded me of the classic way of doing the news where they would show the anchors talking before the break, that was a nice touch. :).

 

Regarding Bill Ritter’s ad-libs during the broadcasts, it is important to note that he is a seasoned veteran and a legendary figure in the New York market. His industry reputation allows him to incorporate these ad-libs into the show without disrupting its flow. By doing so, I think he enhances the overall value of the production.

 

A lot of veteran anchors similarly did this, similar to Bill Beutel when he was there before he passed he had his signature closing remark at the end of the 6 pm shows in the '90s. Chuck Scarborough did the same before he departed from WNBC, and the same with retired anchor, Jim Gardner on WPVI before his departure. Bill's a sentimental and empathetic guy, you see it in his presentation and reporting, especially after 9/11 which gripped him and many of the reporters and journalists here in New York. It's not an easy market, this city requires a lot of hard work and diligence to survive here. So naturally the reporters and anchors are just raw and heavy-hearted from all the years of tough storytelling.

 

Personally, I like the adlib it really provides a sense of authenticity to the broadcast and adds an extra level of depth and value to the show. 

Edited February 26 by Vlad

[MorningNews 1437]

The issue isn’t ad-libbing in general as much as it is how poor he is at doing it. Any anchor, no matter their experience, will not present well when they stumble all over their unscripted commentary on stories.

 

At times, he’s much closer to Dari Alexander than either of those anchors.

[MediaZone4K 2161]

Speaking of awkward ad Libs, Ritter went "Who would've thought, Los Angeles on fire!" I remember myself thinking, and a YouTube commenter writing, "literally everyone" lol.

Ad-libbing is one thing, inserting your personal biases into hard news stories that require straight facts is another thing.

 

Certain jobs like a morning show host such as Mike Jerrick gives you a little room to add a little extra flair on lighter stories. But to me, tenure is not a license to editorialize.

 

No matter how you feel about the undocumented immigrant issue, Ritter inserted his own bias when calling them "critical to our economy" in the video below. Even his tonality in "now to the confusion that is the federal round up of undocumented immigrants", Small example among many.

Ritter is not alone. Gayle King does it all the time, and Rosanna Scotto is the most obvious example.

Edited February 27 by MediaZone4K

[ns8401 940]

5 hours ago, MediaZone4K said:

Speaking of awkward ad Libs, Ritter went "Who would've thought, Los Angeles on fire!" I remember myself thinking, and a YouTube commenter writing, "literally everyone" lol.

Ad-libbing is one thing, inserting your personal biases into hard news stories that require straight facts is another thing.

 

Certain jobs like a morning show host such as Mike Jerrick gives you a little room to add a little extra flair on lighter stories. But to me, tenure is not a license to editorialize.

 

No matter how you feel about the undocumented immigrant issue, Ritter inserted his own bias when calling them "critical to our economy" in the video below. Even his tonality in "now to the confusion that is the federal round up of undocumented immigrants"

 

Small example among many.

Ritter is not alone. Gayle King does it all the time, and Rosanna Scotto is the most obvious example.

With all due respect that off hand remark about immigrants is fairly widely reported and accepted as factual so it’s not exactly inserting biases into the equation. If the appeal was more emotional that would be perhaps biased. But those folks having all kinds of jobs others won’t do is a perhaps dirty but known thing. I don’t see that as in any way being inappropriate. 

[Vlad 324]

Yeah I dunno, I get that the ad-lib and personal biases can impact the integrity of the broadcast, but at the same time, it is sorta the thing that makes them human really, and can occasionally make the story captivating and compelling at a time where the attention span of people is pretty short.

Edited February 27 by Vlad

[ns8401 940]

I would like to point out as well that what he is doing in the fire story is the kind of thing done back 30-40+ years ago and was not only accepted but EXPECTED. People tuned in just for that kind of stuff. The movie Anchorman is partially based on and is an exaggeration of the way they talked on the air. 
 

The immigrant example is almost certainly 100% in the copy by the way. He didn’t ad lib that. It’s just an old school way of writing it. The cousin of that is the “happy talk” you get at the end of some emotionally gripping story where the anchors do some bantering back and forth giving a thought or two on it. I don’t know if every station in the world uses it but many do (did?). The flowery intro would be in the copy and then they would ad lib the comments at the end. 

Edited February 27 by ns8401

[MediaZone4K 2161]

18 hours ago, ns8401 said:

The immigrant example is almost certainly 100% in the copy by the way. He didn’t ad lib that. It’s just an old school way of writing it.

 

In my experience anchors often rewrite the intros (that producers originally wrote) in their own way. 

In comparison, WNBC did the same report and played it straight in the anchor intro. Even Andrew Siff acknowledged confusion over the round-up policy, without getting too subjective.

 

Ritter's fire remark wasn't a problem, it was just funny and odd that he found it shocking for Los Angeles to be burning in a wild fire-prone state.

 

Overall, (my opinion) flowery language (whether ad-libbed, written by producers, or edited by anchors in the copy) is OK until we start getting subjective on hard stories. And this isn't a political critique. I hate it when Rosanna Scotto problematically does this all the time on Fox 5 with her more obvious and right-leaning opinions.

Edited February 27 by MediaZone4K

[ns8401 940]

3 hours ago, MediaZone4K said:

In my experience anchors often rewrite the intros that producers originally wrote in their own way. 

In comparison, WNBC did the same report and played it straight in the anchor intro. Even Andrew Siff acknowledged confusion over the round-up policy, without getting too subjective.

 

Ritter's fire remark wasn't a problem, it was just funny and odd that he thought it was shocking that Los Angeles was burning down in a while fire-prone state.

 

Overall, (my opinion) Flowery language (whether ad-libbed, written by producers, or edited by anchors in the copy) is OK until we start getting subjective on hard stories. And is not a political critique, because Rosanna Scotto problematically does this all the time on Fox 5 with her more obvious and right-leaning opinions.

And that’s all perfectly fine. But I think the sarcasm went past you with the fire thing. That’s yet another old fashioned thing to do. He isn’t actually surprised there is a wildfire there. It was a joke. 
 

The NBC clip is an example of modern robotic news…. They have all the emotion and delivery of a Vulcan. At least the Vulcan has funny hair and does the eyebrow thing at crazy statements. I would assume they don’t do a ton of happy talk there.

 

This desire for everything to be perfectly neutral like we are putting all of these stories through some sort of arbitration is relatively new and is to some extent a reaction to a carefully crafted narrative of “bias” intended to partially neuter the media. Basically get them so scared they simply won’t report certain things. It also leads them to treat all sides as equal… all sides are never equal, rather there is some sort of spectrum to it. So if our story was about the earth being round vs. flat and a protest by flat earthers turning violent would a hypothetical station have the responsibility to cover the message of the flat earthers straight simply because it is their point of view? Or should the anchors barely contain their laughter at the idea and point out six ways to Sunday in 20 minutes of team coverage why they are wrong?

 

And of course WABC wouldn’t be in the position it is if people watched him and exclaimed “ that biased jerk Bill Ritter is on where’s the remote????”. It’s pretty obvious the audience likes the way he does it and complaints are inside baseball or they already watch one of the other stations. If his flowery delivery and 80’s word choices verifiably cost them cash he’d be turned into a robot really fast. 

Edited February 27 by ns8401

[MorningNews 1437]

My comments weren’t necessarily about his bias (although it’s very apparent) as much as they were about his delivery of off scripted remarks. Again, doesn’t matter what your experience is if you struggle to deliver a cohesive sentence when going off script.

 

Liz Cho, David Navarro, Sade, Joe Torres, Mike Marza, etc. all manage to do the happy talk just fine and in a cohesive way that doesn’t leave this viewer somewhat uncertain of what the point is they were trying to make. 

Edited February 27 by MorningNews

[ns8401 940]

1 hour ago, MorningNews said:

My comments weren’t explicitly about his bias (although it’s very apparent) as much as they were about his delivery of off scripted remarks. Again, doesn’t matter what your experience is if you struggle to deliver a cohesive sentence when going off script.

 

Liz Cho, David Navarro, Sade, Joe Torres, Mike Marza, etc. all manage to do the happy talk just fine and in a cohesive way that doesn’t leave this viewer somewhat uncertain of what the point is they were trying to make. 

I agree that he kind of whips out the uh’s and ah’s and hesitations when he truly goes off script. His delivery is also a little halting in the first place and his voice isn’t gonna be blowing anybody away in authoritative depth like a deep deep baritone voice might. 

[MediaZone4K 2161]

6 hours ago, ns8401 said:

And that’s all perfectly fine. But I think the sarcasm went past you with the fire thing. That’s yet another old fashioned thing to do. He isn’t actually surprised there is a wildfire there. It was a joke. 
 

The NBC clip is an example of modern robotic news…. They have all the emotion and delivery of a Vulcan. At least the Vulcan has funny hair and does the eyebrow thing at crazy statements. I would assume they don’t do a ton of happy talk there.

 

This desire for everything to be perfectly neutral like we are putting all of these stories through some sort of arbitration is relatively new and is to some extent a reaction to a carefully crafted narrative of “bias” intended to partially neuter the media. Basically get them so scared they simply won’t report certain things. It also leads them to treat all sides as equal… all sides are never equal, rather there is some sort of spectrum to it. So if our story was about the earth being round vs. flat and a protest by flat earthers turning violent would a hypothetical station have the responsibility to cover the message of the flat earthers straight simply because it is their point of view? Or should the anchors barely contain their laughter at the idea and point out six ways to Sunday in 20 minutes of team coverage why they are wrong?

I would hope that was sarcasm, lol.

 

Final point. I agree with you that too much of modern local news is robotic and void of any engaging writing. It's x then y then z happened, next story. But again, we have to balance the line between flowery and editorialization. Regarding flat earth, that's an objective fact. You never want to tiptoe around objective facts for the sake of people who won't accept it.  I think RItter however knows what he's doing. 

5 hours ago, MorningNews said:

My comments weren’t necessarily about his bias (although it’s very apparent) as much as they were about his delivery of off scripted remarks. Again, doesn’t matter what your experience is if you struggle to deliver a cohesive sentence when going off script.

 

Liz Cho, David Navarro, Sade, Joe Torres, Mike Marza, etc. all manage to do the happy talk just fine and in a cohesive way that doesn’t leave this viewer somewhat uncertain of what the point is they were trying to make. 

Agreed. I like Ritter's cadence. It's not monotone, it's engaging, the concern again is his opinion slips which have been spoken about by multiple people across this thread. @MorningNews Ill take RItter over Dari Alexander though. She is the definition of disjointed and unengaging delivery. 

 

Edited February 27 by MediaZone4K

[ns8401 940]

18 minutes ago, MediaZone4K said:

I would hope that was sarcasm, lol.

 

Final point. I agree with you that too much of modern local news is robotic and void of any engaging writing. It's x then y then z happened, next story. But again, we have to balance the line between flowery and editorialization. Regarding flat earth, that's an objective fact. You never want to tiptoe around objective facts for the sake of people who won't accept it.  I think RItter however knows what he's doing. 

Agreed. I like Ritter's cadence. It's not monotone, it's engaging, the concern again is his opinion slips which have been spoken about by multiple people across this thread. 

 

Those folks contributing a lot to the economy is also an objective fact. Regardless of status their working means they are contributing and the folks who are working are undoubtedly scared currently. Those are gonna be uncomfortable statements for some people but they are just like the earth being round. That’s why I used it as an example. I’m sure you can find an actual example where he really throws an opinion in there but that simply wasn’t it. Let’s say somebody gets beat up real good and he says “I hope the jerks get what’s coming!”… that might start to blur the lines a bit. 
 

I mean if you go to some corner and see folks working doing landscaping there’s at least a chance they are not legally authorized to work but it’s not reasonable to say they aren’t contributing to the economy because [insert flat earth denial reason here].

 

The first clip you posted didn’t actually include what you were talking about at all by the way. It seemed like a normal intro and then an ABC News sourced report about the fires. I didn’t see where he actually made an off hand remark about whodathunkit in LA. 
 

One thing I’m curious about… do you actually work in the news business?

Edited February 27 by ns8401

[MediaZone4K 2161]

58 minutes ago, ns8401 said:

The first clip you posted didn’t actually include what you were talking about at all by the way. It seemed like a normal intro and then an ABC News sourced report about the fires. I didn’t see where he actually made an off hand remark about whodathunkit in LA. 
 

One thing I’m curious about… do you actually work in the news business?

Yes I do.

 

My apologies, I pasted wrong clip. Here is the correct clip, Also editing my earlier post to include the correct clip. Ritter's funny shocked fire remark is at 0:13.

Edited February 27 by MediaZone4K

[ns8401 940]

27 minutes ago, MediaZone4K said:

Yes I do.

 

My apologies, I pasted wrong clip. Here is the correct clip, Also editing my earlier post to include the correct clip. Ritter's funny shocked fire remark is at 0:13.

Ok well… in that case it’s just typical overdramatic stuff. It’s typical of some stations out there. I think I like my version better said as a joke. Also glad to hear you at least have a toe hold in what you’re talking about. 
 

Although subjective im of the mind that WABC doesn’t have the best product of the original circle 7’s. It’s not bad by any means but it’s just kinda there. Some of that is the overdramatization and iffy anchoring. 

Edited February 27 by ns8401

[MediaZone4K 2161]

15 minutes ago, ns8401 said:

Ok well… in that case it’s just typical overdramatic stuff. It’s typical of some stations out there. I think I like my version better said as a joke. Also glad to hear you at least have a toe hold in what you’re talking about. 
 

Between you me and a fence post WABC’s product isn’t the greatest thing since sliced bread. They don’t have the LeBron James of local news working there. It’s not even the most pleasant of the original circle 7’s to watch. It’s not bad by any means but I’m not blown over by it either. 

Fair.

 

I like WABC, they are probably the best in market right now, followed by WNBC then WCBS.

 

But among the O&O group, WPVI seems to be the strongest that I've watched.

[ns8401 940]

4 minutes ago, MediaZone4K said:

Fair.

 

I like WABC, they are probably the best in market right now, followed by WNBC then WCBS.

 

But among the O&O group, WPVI seems to be the strongest that I've watched.

You aren’t the first person I’ve heard say that about WPVI. I don’t doubt WABC is the strongest station in New York for a moment. 

[Geoffrey 857]

On 2/26/2025 at 6:16 PM, MediaZone4K said:

No matter how you feel about the undocumented immigrant issue, Ritter inserted his own bias when calling them "critical to our economy" in the video below. Even his tonality in "now to the confusion that is the federal round up of undocumented immigrants",

 

"Ciritical" may be a bit of a subjective word but otherwise this is a pretty well known fact. Just because it doesn't fit someone's narrative doesn't make it an opinion or a bias.

 

The fact that others reported the story without this fact doesn't prove your point. Context is important in any story, and perhaps leaving that important piece of information out of stories could be considered journalistic malpractice.

Edited February 28 by Geoffrey

[Vlad 324]

On 2/27/2025 at 6:58 PM, ns8401 said:

You aren’t the first person I’ve heard say that about WPVI. I don’t doubt WABC is the strongest station in New York for a moment. 

 

It might help to note that WPVI's Action News is actually a format of its own. Which fewer stations use compared to WABC's approach. So WPVI's presentation is aligned with their format. The "Action News" format differs slightly from the "Eyewitness News" format. In the Action News, certain dynamics such as time requirements, storytelling, etc, have to be followed, reporters don't dwell too much on the stories, to keep the news going and be able to cover more stories, so you'll probably here less fill in talk and more direct storytelling, whereas with the Eyewitness News format, there is more of a deeper dive which allows for more captivating presentations, fill in words, empathy, "happy talk" etc to be embedded within the show. Whereas with the Action News it's more straight to the point and quick which could be better for some audiences.

 

Action News

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_News

 

Eyewitness News

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_News

 

 

Edited March 4 by Vlad

[HanSolo 146]

Over time, I’d suggest formats have become more mailable within their brands. WPVI’s tempo and constructs vary from morning to midday to afternoon to the 6/11. The differences were more stark in the past, and while not suggesting everything has disappeared, there has been a lot of blurring to adapt to audiences under the big brand umbrella. At this point, no one is sitting in a newsroom saying that they can’t adopt a given tactic because that isn’t what Eyewitness News was at the start; it’s a question of how something works for today’s viewers. Successful brands evolve with the audience. 

[ns8401 940]

13 hours ago, Vlad said:

 

It might help to note that WPVI's Action News is actually a format of its own. Which fewer stations use compared to WABC's approach. So WPVI's presentation is aligned with their format. The "Action News" format differs slightly from the "Eyewitness News" format. In the Action News, certain dynamics such as time requirements, storytelling, etc, have to be followed, reporters don't dwell too much on the stories, to keep the news going and be able to cover more stories, so you'll probably here less fill in talk and more direct storytelling, whereas with the Eyewitness News format, there is more of a deeper dive which allows for more captivating presentations, fill in words, empathy, "happy talk" etc to be embedded within the show. Whereas with the Action News it's more straight to the point and quick which could be better for some audiences.

 

Action News

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_News

 

Eyewitness News

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_News

 

 

I feel gipped a little then... I think WXYZ used some hybrid of both. That might have been due to WJBK's getting Eyewitness News first. The results of doing that are.... interesting.

[abc7 Man 46]

Bill Ritter just announced there is a big announcement being made about the 11pm news.