Mario500 3 Posted March 25, 2008 Author Share Posted March 25, 2008 Getting everyone's attention to the problems of today's broadcasters is not my only hobby. If no one has the time to say such things (including those you call "pointless"), it could take many years for great change to occur at stations such as WEAR. We cannot wait until the next generation of broadcasters arrive on the scene to serve viewers better. It is better to take chances now or wait until it's too late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElliotJones 52 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Getting everyone's attention to the problems of today's broadcasters is not my only hobby. If no one has the time to say such things (including those you call "pointless"), it could take many years for great change to occur at stations such as WEAR. We cannot wait until the next generation of broadcasters arrive on the scene to serve viewers better. It is better to take chances now or wait until it's too late. So, the station airing news relevant to it's viewers is a problem? I'm sure you would have made a post about WEAR not airing a newscast if they hadn't. Stop spamming the fourms with your irrational grudge against WEAR and tell us who this week's entertainment guests are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mario500 3 Posted March 25, 2008 Author Share Posted March 25, 2008 Going ahead with the network's scheduled movie from the beginning would have been easier for WEAR that night. Read some earlier posts and you will see the problem among others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMA 135 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Ever thought of the possibility that WEAR either didn't realize, (which is unlikely), or that news is A, more relevant, B, a better choice advertising wise, and C, better than an archaic, inaccurate, account of a biblical story? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mario500 3 Posted March 25, 2008 Author Share Posted March 25, 2008 I guess they decided upon one ("B" seems more likely) or all three of those possible reasons for having a newscast instead of providing a good movie viewing experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProButtonPusher 230 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Mario--just think for a moment, could you please? From the looks of it, they did have intentions to show the entire movie (technically they did, just out of order)...It could have simply been a problem in master control...give them the benefit of the doubt for god sakes...its not as easy as it looks on TV, sometimes...its easy for you to bitch about it, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mario500 3 Posted March 25, 2008 Author Share Posted March 25, 2008 I understand the intent to show the entire movie by tape delay, but it would have been much easier just to carry the network feed from beginning to end without error. This would have also given viewers more time to get ready for bed, since ABC began the movie at 6:00 PM CT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMA 135 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 *facepalm* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alaskanews 108 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 *facepalm* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
who?cares 253 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 "Sometimes you just have to cry, or put your head in your hands" ^I'm now postive that's what you need to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TennTV1983 747 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mario500 3 Posted March 25, 2008 Author Share Posted March 25, 2008 Why post these images? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Horn 78 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Mario, I don't know which is worse -- you, for thinking that a 50 year old movie somehow benefits the public interest more than local news, or these kids who think news music and graphics need to be updated and new every 27 minutes in order for a newscast to remain cogent. Though, I know you to reside in both groups, so it seems to me that you're just a big ol' sack of fail. Please, for the sake of whatever dignity you might have remaining, stop and think about all this. You're complaining that a decades old film was preempted for local news. Really. Please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cityprod 9 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Given a choice of programming The Ten Commandments or Local News in a slot, Local News would win every time for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mario500 3 Posted March 25, 2008 Author Share Posted March 25, 2008 If you had lived in this area, you wouldn't mind WEAR not having a newscast at 6:00 PM for the network to air a movie such as "The Ten Commandments". The newscast would simply follow the movie for viewers interested. I don't consider myself part of any of the groups mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Horn 78 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 I consider myself part of any of the groups mentioned. Progress! Acceptance is the [st]second[/st] [st]third[/st] [st]fourth[/st] fifth(?) step. Still, though, Mario, you say that anyone interested in the local news could have just watched it afterwards. Couldn't anyone interested in the Ten Commandments have just rented it from Blockbuster? Seriously. Give it up. ETA: Mario500 tried to be slick and added "don't" after I had already quoted him. lulz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mario500 3 Posted March 25, 2008 Author Share Posted March 25, 2008 That was a typographical error. I recognized the error and added "don't" to the sentence as quick as possible. I am not part of the groups mentioned. Yes, anyone interested in the movie could watch it at their time of choice, but the viewing experience for some WEAR viewers was ruined that Saturday night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Horn 78 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 That was a typographical error. I am not part of the groups mentioned. Yes, anyone interested in the movie could watch it at their time of choice, but the viewing experience for some WEAR viewers was ruined that Saturday night. So the station should pander to the minority of viewers over serving the whole public interest? Never go into broadcasting. You'll fail miserably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mario500 3 Posted March 25, 2008 Author Share Posted March 25, 2008 Many cable channels once served a minority of viewers until they decided to go on a more general route. For example, the USA Network and TBS. If we don't bring up these issues, the broadcasters will always get away claiming they are "serving the public interest". Viewers have many choices on a Saturday night besides watching a movie on a broadcast station, but the station should at least serve interested viewers better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Horn 78 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Mario. Pay attention. Cable outfits don't have an FCC obligation to serve the public interest. OTA ops do. News>Charlton Heston. Also, News Ratings>The Ten Commandments Ratings. (And by the way, your examples of niche cable networks are real poor. You should have gone with the pre-Versus Outdoor Life Network or pre-pre-Spike TNN.) What you seem to be missing is that more people are interested in local news than The Ten Commandments. Just because you like a piece of shit 50-year old movie doesn't mean the rest of the area designated by Nielsen Media Research as Mobile-Pensacola does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mario500 3 Posted March 25, 2008 Author Share Posted March 25, 2008 I know cable channels are not obligated "to serve the public interest", but like any business all broadcasters should go for quality over quantity. Advertising money is only temporary, but your viewers may be around for years to come. I know a better example of a cable channel that no longer serves a niche audience: American Movie Classics. I just remember a time when USA Network and TBS had niche programming (game shows and classic animated cartoons). I never expected all viewers in my area to be interested in the same movie. That would be like WEAR expecting all viewers on the Alabama side of the market to watch their newscasts. While the three major network affiliates in Mobile were not broadcasting news for both sides of the market at 6:00 PM (WKRG usually has a newscast at this time on Saturdays, but they were airing college basketball from CBS), WEAR should have just gone along and aired the entire movie before the news. Simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMA 135 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Yes, they'd air the local news after a 3 and a half hour movie (4 hours with advertising). That makes total sense. I actually think you are insane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mario500 3 Posted March 25, 2008 Author Share Posted March 25, 2008 Yes, they'd air the local news after a 3 and a half hour movie (4 hours with advertising). That makes total sense. I actually think you are insane. WKRG had a late newscast at about 10:54 PM on Sunday after the CBS schedule moved ahead due to college basketball. WEAR still had late news when they carried ABC's "Monday Night Football". I don't see anything insane here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColumbusNewsFan 217 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 I have been reading this whole exchange since Sunday. I will not get into the belittling and other things. I see where both party are coming from but I notice something that no one is pointing out and should be the question. Why did WEAR not show the movie on a hour delay if it knew it was doing a 6:00pm news that way people who want the news would be happy and then people that want to watch "The Ten Commandments" would be happy as well. As I see it WEAR do have a obligation to the community but they also have a obligation to the network. WEAR pulled an EPIC FAIL on both Saturday...plain and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mario500 3 Posted March 25, 2008 Author Share Posted March 25, 2008 After the movie ended on the network feed, WEAR aired it again on tape delay, but from scenes shown in the past hour. Instead of showing the entire movie on tape delay beginning at 7:00 PM, they joined the network's presentation in progress. As I said before, WEAR did a poor service that night when there was an easier option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.