WABC shortens 9/11 Coverage

[nymets78 0]

Even as an avid WABC watcher and supporter, this is extremely disturbing and I will have to think twice about depending on them for news when they have decided to ignore the most emotional part of the 9/11 ceremony. I am really angry about this decision.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/2007/09/06/2007-09-06_channel_7_to_cut_911_memorial_coverage.html

[Vlad 276]

Well again I understand that it is a bad thing but its not like they are not covering it at all. Those who are suscribed to Cable Television services can easilly switch it to WABC-DT for the coverage. And also its not like WABC are the is the only one that's going to cover it. Several other stations will do so, so although it is a bad thing to do, its not too bad neither because viewers can simply switch it over to NewsChannel 4 or CBS 2 News, Fox 5, etc. for the coverage, of the exact same thing. But overall it is a slight shame though that they have chosen not to do it this year.

[civic110 10]

Wow, finally something to gripe about on WABC. I have a couple of thoughts:

 

1. It is WABC, the top rated network in the nation in the city where the attacks actually happened...essentially in everyone's backyard. They have a local obligation to carry it.

 

2. However, how many years in a row do they need to do this? Not to sound disrespectful, but 10-15-20 years later are they still going to carry it in some capacity? I guess at some point you need to move on although the healing and pain will never end.

 

3. Having a digital subchannel allows most people who prefer WABC coverage to continue watching it or chose to watch regular programming, which happens to be in "season premeire" week when ratings are huge.

 

I do think it might be too soon to not cover it in its entirety. This won't happen every year...in fact it'll probably be the last year the families get to have their ceremony there. It is a very fine line that WABC is taking a huge risk with a huge major newsworthy event that they're walking on.

[clind 2]

2. However, how many years in a row do they need to do this? Not to sound disrespectful, but 10-15-20 years later are they still going to carry it in some capacity? I guess at some point you need to move on although the healing and pain will never end.

I think you have a point in the general idea that they, and the other locals, will most likely not cover this story in another five years, or shift it towards their alternatives they have available. At some point, this will fade into the background in terms of coverage, but of corse those effected won't forget and might just go out of their way to remember it yearly.

[cbs2idiots 21]

9/11 was very tragic, but in due respect quite frankly I would not want to re-visit or be reminded of that day over and over again, year after year. I would hate feeling sad around that time and I know those that perished would want us to be happy. The healing process must begin. WABC have a reason not to air the coverage so turn to 2,4,5,9 and 11.

[Dave Lampstein 6]

I was talking to a friend of mine from New York earlier this evening and we both agreed that WABC made a good call in deciding to show regular programming. For those in NYC without cable, they can flip on something else and get away from the depressing roll call of the victims who died on 9/11. There are plenty of other choices and you're essentially going to get the same coverage from every single station.

 

Something tells me that the first year the 9/11 memorial is completed will be the last year of the televised memorial at "ground zero"... whenever that will be.

[NigelWick 0]

9/11 was a horrible day beyond imagination. Let's never forget, but it's also time to begin the process of moving on and healing.

[mediadorkx07 0]

I agree - we shouldn't forget it, but it's time to begin moving on. WABC made a good call.

[username23 1]

While GMA and all the other networks will be covering the 9/11 memorial, there is something different about local TV, and this is the reason that local TV exists. People turn to their local station for news about their hometown, for news they care about. During the 9/11 attacks we as New Yorkers saw OUR anchors and OUR reporters giving us the news, while the rest of the nation saw NETWORK anchors and NETWORK reporters giving them the news. 9/11 was a major event to New York and as such is treated as a major memorial service. I agree there is an obligation by the New York local stations to cover the news and work on behalf of the public. WABC made a poor decision to use the defense that GMA is covering it. When I turn on my TV I want local coverage. It means something special to turn to an anchor or a reporter...a LOCAL anchor or reporter, and know this is their town, too, and they know what it's like. It's more personal. Local stations have an obligation to stand behind the public that supports them, and comfort them during this time of national and local tragedy.

[wabceyewitness 767]

From 7online.com:

 

(New York - WABC, September 7, 2007) - Eyewitness News has decided to expand its coverage of the September 11th ceremonies.

 

You will now be able to watch the entire ceremony, including the reading of the names, right here on Channel 7. The event can also be seen on our digital cable channels and 7online.com.

 

We received emails and calls from some of you telling us you might not be able to see the ceremony on only our digital channels or the Internet.

 

In an effort to make sure this ceremony would be available to all of you, our loyal viewers, we decided to broadcast the entire ceremony on all of our channels.

 

 

=========

 

From NY Daily News:

 

WABC Channel 7 will air entire 9/11 ceremony

 

Station changes course under pressure from families

 

By RICHARD HUFF

DAILY NEWS TV EDITOR

 

Friday, September 7th 2007, 12:24 PM

 

 

WABC/Ch. 7 has caved into pressure from families of 9/11 victims and will carry the entire Sept. 11 name-reading ceremony from lower Manhattan next Tuesday.

 

The change came after the Daily News reported the station's decision to shift live coverage to its digital cable channel and the internet, sparking outrage from victims' loved ones.

 

"I made some calls, I spoke to families, we got some emails," Ch. 7 news director Kenny Plotnik told The News today.

 

 

"The real issue, there is really a terrible misunderstanding with digital channels. There seems to be a situation where people don't understand the concept of digital channels."

 

Most of the families Plotnik spoke to said they couldn't get the digital channel, and argued that if they couldn't see the full coverage on Ch. 7, they wouldn't get it. The top-rated station in New York had initially intended to switch to "Live with Regis & Kelly," "Rachael Ray" and "The View" when every other channel would be carrying the ceremony.

 

Backing off the hours-long name-reading ceremony is something that was discussed by news directors in town after the fifth anniversary of 9/11, but only Ch. 7 decided to take the step.

 

The station figured regular fare on the broadcast channel would be an alternative, while also serving those who wanted the coverage with the digital channel. But, many folks do not know the digital outlet exisits - it's on many local cable services including Time Warner and Comcast. Others said they didn't want to watch the ceremony on the computer.

 

"People were upset and confused," Plotnik told the News. "They were upset. It was upset and confusion. There wasn't any anger."

 

Plotnik said there would be other opportunities to use the digital channel down the road, but the 9/11 ceremony was not the time to test it. The station alerted viewers to the latest change today.

 

"We were trying to service everybody and give every body what they wanted," he said.

 

The Ground Zero ceremony gets underway at 8:25 a.m. Tuesday and all local stations are planning to go live with the full ceremony.

[tazz765 0]

We received emails and calls from some of you telling us you might not be able to see the ceremony on only our digital channels or the Internet.

 

Not to sound like a d---head, but why couldn't they just turn to 2, 4, 5, 9, or 11?

[cbs2idiots 21]

We received emails and calls from some of you telling us you might not be able to see the ceremony on only our digital channels or the Internet.

 

Not to sound like a d---head, but why couldn't they just turn to 2, 4, 5, 9, or 11?

 

Exactly! Some people are just ignorant. The other channels will be airing it. They make it seem that Channel 7 is the only channel than can air the coverage. I guess on Sept 11 those that dont have cable will have to stick it out. How sad and depressing.

[Vlad 276]

Yeah thats something that I just don't understand in some people. I know its a cruel and mean thing to even think about saying and I apologize to everyone in advance, I respect those who have gave their lives away on that terrible day, but its not like WABC is the ONLY sole channel providing coverage. Viewers can watch a ton of other channels that will broadcast the same exact thing. Another alternative is to air regular programming on the DT Channel (107 for IO). Thats how they should've done it actually. Air everything on the DT channel and keep the coverage of the Analog and High Definition feeds of the channel. (7 and 707 for IO).

[NYNews 54]

Both sides have good points. Some might not have access to digitial channels with DirecTV. But I do think the viewers are stubborn. From the article, it seems they that they weren't offended by WABC's decisions not to air it, rather they were confused about the digital channels. As many of you said, there are a plethora of options to choose from. It's not like WABC will show something different and special comparred to coverage from WNBC or WCBS. Certainly the situation was blown out of proportions.

[civic110 10]

People do not like change, and as opposed to looking to find out where ABC+ is on your digital system...that's too confusing.

 

I'm sure (as in previous years) there will be only ONE feed anyway with the same camera angles and same shots as all of the other networks. Some shots may vary as different stations might be perched on different vantage-points, but the feed will probably be the same from centralized cameras.

[Geoffrey 779]

Wasn't ABC 7 the one that relied more on ABC News than the other NY stations back on 9/11? I seem to recall them not providing as much local coverage on that day as the others.

[abc7 Man 26]

they should put the syndicated shows on WABC+ sub-channel so at least these shows will air in the NYC area... instead of not airing at all.

[civic110 10]

Yea, that's so stupid. If they were going to air the ceremony on the digital channels and regular programming on 7...why not just reverse it?

 

WNBC put their regular network programming on 4.4 during preseason football and they should do the same now, although I don't think they will.

[wabceyewitness 767]

Wasn't ABC 7 the one that relied more on ABC News than the other NY stations back on 9/11? I seem to recall them not providing as much local coverage on that day as the others.

 

It was actually the other way around....ABC News relied heavily on WABC to provide national coverage of 9/11. ABC News was the only network news organization to be honored with a Peabody Award for its live 9/11 coverage. Because they relied so much on WABC, Peter Jennings requested that the award be shared with WABC as well.

[mets8383 0]

Um, why do we have 2 threads, with nearly the same name and topic, in one? Someone could have posted this in the other thread, but obviously did not. *Waits for the ensuing grief*

 

 

...good to see the thread police on the scene!!!

[clind 2]

We received emails and calls from some of you telling us you might not be able to see the ceremony on only our digital channels or the Internet.

 

Not to sound like a d---head, but why couldn't they just turn to 2, 4, 5, 9, or 11?

 

Exactly! Some people are just ignorant. The other channels will be airing it. They make it seem that Channel 7 is the only channel than can air the coverage. I guess on Sept 11 those that dont have cable will have to stick it out. How sad and depressing.

It just seems like times and events like these is why we have multiple platforms for news and the addition of other digital channels. While there are people who want to watch the coverage, it would be nice for an alternative, though I guess that's what cables for.

[username23 1]

yeah, but most of the cables are going to be tuned to the 9/11 coverage in one way or another. As for the comment about why couldn't people just tune to one of the other channels, they could, BUT WABC knows that this means less ratings and an increased chance that one of those people who tunes into one of the other stations may just like what they see and remain a loyal viewer of another channel. Remember it's a news BUSINESS, viewers = money, and if there were that many complaints to force WABC to reconsider, that means that station management was concerned that they could loose viewers aka money. Plus, advertisers who pay the money were likely concerned that viewers could loose faith in the ability of WABC to report local news and in the faith that WABC is in touch with the needs and wants of viewers, thereby leading to a decrease in ratings.

[SuitSnob 19]

So, this Christmas is every single station going to be required to broadcast the Yule Log because people don't feel that it being on 11 is enough?

[wabceyewitness 767]

So, this Christmas is every single station going to be required to broadcast the Yule Log because people don't feel that it being on 11 is enough?

 

 

 

 

Comparing 9/11 to the Yule Log is, plain and simple, just stupid.

 

 

And, the previous poster is absolutely correct. If viewers who usually turn to WABC for news were disappointed about the station's decision not to carry the 9/11 ceremony on its main channel, then those viewers may lose trust in WABC and may not turn to Ch. 7 in the future. In the end, WABC made the right business and community relations decision.

[username23 1]

I agree with you that digital subchannels are the future, but stations have not done enough to really promote them, nor have they given the time for the general public to feel comfortable in using them. There needs to be better viewer education in the usage and familiarity of these channels before we can really expect the audience to trust coverage on these channels. It was a poor decision to throw the audience into the world of digital subchannels with something as large as the 9/11 coverage.