Why TV News sucks:

[The Mockingbird]

Anna Nicole Smith Coverage was the third biggest story of the week of February 4 - 9, beaten only by Iraq coverage.

The bosomy blonde’s demise consumed a staggering 50% of the cable newshole PEJ examined on February 8 and 9. Those are levels reminiscent of those pre-9/11 celebrity sagas—think Princess Di and JFK Jr. Nice work, guys. (http://www.journalism.org/node/4096)

[CKMD]

And, again, if the viewers didn't want it, we wouldn't cover it.
The ratings for Anna Nicole news went through the roof for metered markets.
We cater to the viewers. We deliver a product.
If we are to blame for giving the public what it wants, then shame on me!

This thread should be titled: "why the general public sucks."
We are just a window reflecting it back to them.

[ February 13, 2007, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: Can't Keep Me Down ]

[spts]

i totally agree.

you can't mock "local news" for this.. when viewers are eating this story up like it is going out of style.

[Another side]

And it's nothing new. This business has ALWAYS been about what the viewer wants -- not what WE want.

In another couple of months it will be sharks gnawing on swimmers. Before that, we may get a Hollywood-type we all know who gets a DUI.

[Roy Hobbs]

I'll still take Charles and Mr. Misenheimer's Garden in Suffolk, Virginia.

http://www.davidrwagner.com/charleskuralt.jpg

[Kelvin Hemholtz]

While I HATE the fact that there are more eyeballs ready to watch this stuff, I HAVE to admit that ... well, there ARE more eyeballs ready to watch this stuff. I have to go against my own prejudice in this case.

You know where the "new" eyeballs for "news" are? In the non-traditional stories... i.e. entertainment (movie stars) and events (like sports). People are tired of Iraq and politics as usual and talking heads. (Note: they like politicians, not politics - see Barack Obama and John McCain)

Face it, we're a consumer society and we want to be entertained immediately whether it's by video games, movie stars or jocks. Why do you think YouTube got so big so fast? PBS Frontline isn't exactly the top download there.

Everyone says "sports is dead" in the newscast. Screw that. The celebrity of sport is as big or bigger than movie stars and "wannabe movie stars" like Anna Nicole and Paris Hilton. Tiger Woods farts and everyone knows about it and wants to know more about it. Same for J-Lo and Benifer and Madonna and whoever. Sports guys need to drop X's & O's and just go with the ESPN move of basically saying: This guy is famous... and he shoots a ball too!

People DIG hearing about famous people. Even those who are only famous for BEING famous like Anna Nicole. As much as I PERSONALLY hate it... I say there are ratings to be won with that kind of material on the local level and ratings are what we're here for.

(Now going to take a shower... ugh)

[AutoTranz]

Originally posted by Kelvin Hemholtz:
While I HATE the fact that there are more eyeballs ready to watch this stuff, I HAVE to admit that ... well, there ARE more eyeballs ready to watch this stuff. I have to go against my own prejudice in this case.

You know where the "new" eyeballs for "news" are? In the non-traditional stories... i.e. entertainment (movie stars) and events (like sports). People are tired of Iraq and politics as usual and talking heads. (Note: they like politicians, not politics - see Barack Obama and John McCain)

Face it, we're a consumer society and we want to be entertained immediately whether it's by video games, movie stars or jocks. Why do you think YouTube got so big so fast? PBS Frontline isn't exactly the top download there.

Everyone says "sports is dead" in the newscast. Screw that. The celebrity of sport is as big or bigger than movie stars and "wannabe movie stars" like Anna Nicole and Paris Hilton. Tiger Woods farts and everyone knows about it and wants to know more about it. Same for J-Lo and Benifer and Madonna and whoever. Sports guys need to drop X's & O's and just go with the ESPN move of basically saying: This guy is famous... and he shoots a ball too!

People DIG hearing about famous people. Even those who are only famous for BEING famous like Anna Nicole. As much as I PERSONALLY hate it... I say there are ratings to be won with that kind of material on the local level and ratings are what we're here for.

(Now going to take a shower... ugh)My sentiments exactly.

Take American Idol for instance (vomit). This has to be some of the worst examples of creativity EVER...but people watch the hell out of it.

Ask any executive producer or ND at any local FOX affiliate if American Idol will be in their rundowns on the last night of performances...

[prizzle]

Anybody out there have to offer a "local angle" on Anna Nicole's death--and how it's affecting people in "our area?"

C'mon Missoula....Bangor...Anchorage?

[Clubbeat]

Originally posted by Can't Keep Me Down:
And, again, if the viewers didn't want it, we wouldn't cover it.
The ratings for Anna Nicole news went through the roof for metered markets.
We cater to the viewers. We deliver a product.
If we are to blame for giving the public what it wants, then shame on me!

This thread should be titled: "why the general public sucks."
We are just a window reflecting it back to them.Right on, right on....

[CKMD]

Originally posted by prizzle:
Anybody out there have to offer a "local angle" on Anna Nicole's death--and how it's affecting people in "our area?"

C'mon Missoula....Bangor...Anchorage?Understandably, we are local news and should always lead local unless the top national story is of such importance, makes a difference in our lives.
Anna Nicole did not, and certainly didn't lead any newscasts in my local market.
BUT, it is a story for our rudnowns and should be in them because the viewers want it. Period.

[Rosenblum]

Originally posted by Another side:
And it's nothing new. This business has ALWAYS been about what the viewer wants -- not what WE want.

In another couple of months it will be sharks gnawing on swimmers. Before that, we may get a Hollywood-type we all know who gets a DUI.Perhaps the answer here is to disconnect news from ratings and income. When broadcast licenses were first granted, they were offered at no cost to people like Bill Paley on the understanding that in exchange they would offer the public a certain number of hours of news and public affairs programming. In those early years, news was very much considered a loss leader. (read Three Blind Mice by Ken Auletta).

When profitability and the chase for ratings came to dominate news and public affairs, public affairs vanished and news became Anna Nicole Smith.

In the long run, this is detrimental to a society in which 85 percent of the population gets its news and information from television news.

When the Iranian Hostage Crisis happened in 1979, ABC News began a nightly news show with the then little known Ted Koppel called America Held Hostage. (Day 1, day 2). That show (and crisis) ran for 444 days. that is 444 hours of programming devoted to one subject - Iran. If you went to Columbia University and took 444 classroom hours on Iran you would earn a PhD in Iranian History and be fluent in Farsi. If I strapped you to a chair and made you watch all 444 America Held Hostage shows, your brains would fall out of your ear. And Koppel is no idiot. But we dont have a linear and progressive view of content.

Perhaps we should disconnect news from entertainment and income, and look at it as a way to educate the American people about important issues. (this is closer to the BBC view of things). It is not so bad. It is different, but it is not so bad. It could not be worse than Anna Nicole Smith.

[CKMD]

Sure...if we weren't a capitalist society and wanted to be socialist. :rolleyes:

Everything is about making money and those of us who WORK in this business don't do it for money but realize the need for money...it gives us paychecks.

[Rosenblum]

Here is an interesting quandry for you 'capitalists': What do you think the value of an FCC broadcast license is? How many billions of dollars do you think you would value those at? HOw much did ABC or NBC pay for theirs? Answer: nothing.
Who owns it? You do. The public does.
From a strictly capitalist perspective, where those licenses have enormous value, can you force those license holders to offer news for free (or rather in exchange for the licenses) and pull the licenses if they fail to? You bet. This is not socialism. This is capitalism at its best. What we have NOW is socialism - but socialism for GE and Disney.

[ZuZu's Petals]

Are you sure this is what viewers want?

I don't need to know one more thing about Anna Nicole.
I wasn't interested in her before she died, I'm not interested now.

I can guarantee my dad is not interested. Neither is my mom... but she'll be talking about it because it's on t-v and she tends to think whatever is on Fox New Channel is not only interesting... but true!

The ratings shot up? Really? And you're sure it was because of Anna Nicole? If she's on every flippin' channel what distinguishes that your ratings are up because she's on yours?

I'll admit, when I was traveling I was stuck in a hotel room with limited channel selection and I ate dinner in front of Entertainment Tonight's EXCLUSIVE interview of a sob mess of a woman named Anna Nicole. I think there were only sports on the other channels.
That doesn't mean as a viewer... that I demanded it.
I would have rather seen Brady Bunch re-runs but that was all that was on.

[DoneThatToo]

Originally posted by Rosenblum:
[QUOTE] . . Perhaps the answer here is to disconnect news from ratings and income. . .I'm all for that but I think it would be an extremely hard sell to the station owners.

No ratings for newscasts, throw the add dollars out the window, just do the news on what you think is important and damn the public opinion. If you could convince them (the owners) that it would not affect rating on the rest of the station's programming you might have a chance of getting one or two to buy into that idea.

But local news is currently the only original content that many stations have to offer. It is what will separate one station from another, not the Simpsons or Survivor where the local station only gets a small cut of the 'eyeball' money. Heck the trend now is to have locals pay nets for programming (re: NFL).

We all know that the most bucks for locals are made when locals control the majority of the air time and local news provides us with that control. So to not rate / sell based on rate is not going to happen. Local news will always be tied to ratings.

graemlins/icon_kidra.gif

[Fearmonger]

The problem with too many TV journalists is that they are playing to their own tastes instead of the viewers that feed them.

The truth is that Americans have really bad taste and love tabliod gossip garbage.

These dopes can tell you about Anna Nicole, Paris Hilton or Britney's beaver but don't have a clue what's going on in the government that takes much more than 1/2 of their money.

The viewers of real, life changing and important news are vanishing.

The viewers don't want news with good taste, they want news that tastes good.

[Fake Post]

Originally posted by prizzle:
Anybody out there have to offer a "local angle" on Anna Nicole's death--and how it's affecting people in "our area?"

C'mon Missoula....Bangor...Anchorage?Have you covered the local stripper angle yet? How about the plastic surgeon angle?

Oh yeah, there's more. Been to the local hair salons and ask them if bleached blonde is still the popular color for gold diggers.

Have you highlighted similar May to December romances among your markets local celebs?

That's just a beginning.

[Rosenblum]

Originally posted by DoneThatToo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Rosenblum:
. . Perhaps the answer here is to disconnect news from ratings and income. . .I'm all for that but I think it would be an extremely hard sell to the station owners.

No ratings for newscasts, throw the add dollars out the window, just do the news on what you think is important and damn the public opinion. If you could convince them (the owners) that it would not affect rating on the rest of the station's programming you might have a chance of getting one or two to buy into that idea.

But local news is currently the only original content that many stations have to offer. It is what will separate one station from another, not the Simpsons or Survivor where the local station only gets a small cut of the 'eyeball' money. Heck the trend now is to have locals pay nets for programming (re: NFL).

We all know that the most bucks for locals are made when locals control the majority of the air time and local news provides us with that control. So to not rate / sell based on rate is not going to happen. Local news will always be tied to ratings.

graemlins/icon_kidra.gif </font>You could legislate that a station owner could not get an fcc license or a cable operator could not get a franchise without providing one or two hours of commercial free news and public affairs broadcasting as the quid pro quo for the license or franchise you could move them pretty fast. This is hardly a radical model- it is how broadcasting started out.

Will this happen? No. Because there is too much money involved here on all sides, politicians included. But it is certainly possible to do.

[The Mockingbird]

I think it would have been great to have a national day of mourning for Anna Nicole Smith, that way, producers could have cold opened with...

(**TAKE VO***)
AROUND THE NATION, FLAGS ARE AT HALF STAFF TONIGHT OVER THE DEATH OF ANNA NICOLE SMITH.

[CKMD]

Originally posted by Rosenblum:
[QB][QUOTE]You could legislate [QB]Stopped reading there because you want the federal government to regulate business. Socialist.

[Boots]

I agree that it is what people want to watch. I too hate to see this infotainment on the news.

I admit I have been watching ET the last few nights for 15 to 20 minutes just to see what they have on Smith. When it comes on when I'm flipping at 7 I stop too.

[Rosenblum]

Originally posted by Can't Keep Me Down:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Rosenblum:
[QB]You could legislate [QB]Stopped reading there because you want the federal government to regulate business. Socialist.</font>You may not realize it, but the government already regulates the broadcasting business quite a lot. A lot!

[CKMD]

And you are calling for more?
Socialist.

I do "realize" there is regulation in place. There should be less seeing as these are "public" airwaves run by "private" businesses.
If you want "government" media, move to a socialist country.

[ February 15, 2007, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: Can't Keep Me Down ]

[Rosenblum]

It's State Media now. If I put up a transmitter and start to broadcast television, I will be arrested by the state. Why should the public airwaves be handed over to a few corporate interests. Shouldn't these very valuable licenses be auctioned and the proceeds turned over the the public? Maybe the cellular companies will pay more.

[Backup QB]

Originally posted by Roy Hobbs:
I'll still take Charles and Mr. Misenheimer's Garden in Suffolk, Virginia.

http://www.davidrwagner.com/charleskuralt.jpgDo you ever post anything other than random photos and one-liners that don't mean anything?

[Backup QB]

Originally posted by Can't Keep Me Down:
And, again, if the viewers didn't want it, we wouldn't cover it.Oh, please. The people keep wanting our cancer-causing cigarettes so we'll keep making them.

[CKMD]

Your point is what?
Tell me, why do ratings go through the roof during a huge crime or violent event?
Tell me why ratings go through the roof when a celebrity dies in a public way?

We deliver a product.
If you don't like the product you are supposed to make for the consumer, there's tons of jobs out there. Go find one.

[Roy Hobbs]

Originally posted by Backup QB:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Roy Hobbs:
I'll still take Charles and Mr. Misenheimer's Garden in Suffolk, Virginia.

http://www.davidrwagner.com/charleskuralt.jpgDo you ever post anything other than random photos and one-liners that don't mean anything?</font>[/QUOTE]Absolutely. Sometimes I reverse it and post one-liners first and then random photos that don't mean anything.

http://www.bankraid.com/images/cleese.jpg

[ February 15, 2007, 08:55 PM: Message edited by: Roy Hobbs ]

[CKMD]

I tend to enjoy Roy's pics and quips. They are certain to make me laugh everytime.

He's all the greatest ball player of all time.

[ February 16, 2007, 07:31 AM: Message edited by: Can't Keep Me Down ]

[Backup QB]

Originally posted by Can't Keep Me Down:
We deliver a product. If you don't like the product you are supposed to make for the consumer, there's tons of jobs out there. Go find one.Mock, if that doesn't sound self-important, I don't know what does.

Can't, I actually have a job, thanks for asking. And, it isn't in your messed-up industry. Too many people in TV news dumbing down the "product". I mean, we can never have too much coverage of riveting topics such as Michael Jackson's pets.

[The Mockingbird]

What sounds self-important?

[s'news]

Originally posted by prizzle:
Anybody out there have to offer a "local angle" on Anna Nicole's death--and how it's affecting people in "our area?"

C'mon Missoula....Bangor...Anchorage?Hit the strip clubs. Find a stripper who idolizes Anna. Bingo.

[wxgeek]

Originally posted by prizzle:
Anybody out there have to offer a "local angle" on Anna Nicole's death--and how it's affecting people in "our area?"

C'mon Missoula....Bangor...Anchorage?Could it happen here?!?!

[Kilgore Trout]

Originally posted by Can't Keep Me Down:
Your point is what?
Tell me, why do ratings go through the roof during a huge crime or violent event?
Tell me why ratings go through the roof when a celebrity dies in a public way?

We deliver a product.
If you don't like the product you are supposed to make for the consumer, there's tons of jobs out there. Go find one.Drug dealers deliver crack..does that make it a viable way to make money? That's the crux of the argument! Yes, we do deliver a product.. we could also deliver even more banal, inane, and yet sexed up and orgasmic material and see even better ratings...so why not do that?
See... TV news used to be a service to the public-- chock full of information and shared knowledge that only the journalists had access to before sharing with the viewer.
Now, TV news is a service to the stock holder, and the journalists' worth has plummetted because people can get pertinent info elsewhere. The MANAGERS NOW SEE THEIR JOBS AS MAKING MONEY FOR THE COMPANY---PERIOD! THEY USED TO SEE THEIR JOB AS ONE OF RESPONSIBILITY TO AN AUDIENCE OF VIEWERS HUNGRY TO LEARN...NO MONEY MATTERS EXCEPT MAYBE TO KEEP IN THE BLACK INK, AND PAY THE NEWS DEPARTMENT'S WAY... PERIOD. NO PROFITS !!!!!
Again, the debate is about what TV news "should be".. versus what it has become.

[CKMD]

And what makes you think I don't agree with what news should be?
But, what we think it should be is not what regular people think it should be. Period.
Have you done any marketing and asked "people" what they want? What they look for? have you sat behind the glass and watched normal people watch local news and listened to what they say? The stories they remember?
I have and it's sad, disgusting, revolting and you really do hate your viewers even more...but, they are the viewers and they are our paychecks.

But, guess what, this is what news is and it will not be reverting back to the good old days.
You're right...managers do try to make their companies money. You see...some of us like our jobs.
But you can make money and still do news and be proud of it...I am proud of the product we put out daily. Too bad you want to lump us all together. Some of us still do news the right way and offer viewers more than just the banal and "tips".

But...oops...I'm being self-important again!!! :rolleyes:

PS: Yes, selling crack is a viable way to make money...it's illegal, but it's still viable. Ask the question another way... if you can.

[ February 18, 2007, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: Can't Keep Me Down ]

[Rosenblum]

Maybe we have as much responsibility to inform and educate as we do to entertain. What would happen if schools were responsive to only what the majority of students wanted?

[Sultanosurf]

It's bad enough when everybody stuck in a scandal blames 'the media,' but now all this hand-wringing, soul-searching, self-doubt -- the media blaming the media?

It's a crazy story with elements all over the place. Yeah, that drive-by, car chase, local soldier killed is local. It should lead. But if you don't think stories of national interest with strange twists and daily developments deserve a spot in your show, you're doing viewers a disservice.

Why all the agonizing? People wanna see it.

[The Mockingbird]

There's a difference between doing the stories like the Astronaut and Anna Nicole Smith, and dedicating an entire news hour to it.

I was in the gym, and Fox did breaking news on a NASA newser, only they jumped the gun early and were doing a tap dance for twenty minutes.

Good Lord.

[Roy Hobbs]

Were any of the Fox anchors wearing tap pants? Now that gets my vote every time!

[Another side]

Originally posted by Can't Keep Me Down:
And what makes you think I don't agree with what news should be?
But, what we think it should be is not what regular people think it should be. Period.
Have you done any marketing and asked "people" what they want? What they look for? Yes, I have. Many, many times, primarily in print, and once in broadcast. And what I learned is, viewers and readers lie. They will, almost to a person, tell you they want more "good news." And they think they might, but by-and-large they won't watch it or read it. What they really watch, first and foremost, is crime/public safety -- the problem is most of us in TV have defined crime/public safety as :20 VOs on car crashes and crack-house shootings and in the process we've sent thoughtful, involved viewers packing in order to secure larger numbers from the "I've-got-five-minutes-to-spare-so-hit-me-quick-and hard-and-it-better-include-weather," set. In many ways, we are our own worst enemy, slobbering after the lowest common denominator.

I have and it's sad, disgusting, revolting and you really do hate your viewers even more...but, they are the viewers and they are our paychecks.Anyone who truly "hates" their viewers (and readers) should get out of journalism NOW. They will only make matters worse. We seek the audiences we have; we can't then turn around and blame them for showing up.

[CKMD]

Originally posted by Rosenblum:
Maybe we have as much responsibility to inform and educate as we do to entertain. What would happen if schools were responsive to only what the majority of students wanted?Students and adults that have purchasing power are not the same and cannot be used as an analogy in this debate. Like the crack selling analogy.

Another side: hate is a strong word. I will retract it.
And yes, they lie...but how come in ALL the research I've seen, the women 35 to 55 complain about pantyhose and hairdos and not the news itself? The same people that call my wife about her hair or her necklace or blouse rather than the story she reported on, etc?

[Spike]

Originally posted by Another side:
And what I learned is, viewers and readers lie. Actually, they don't. They really DO want deeper news. That's why they say they want it. They just don't watch it. Not watching and not wanting are not the same thing.

Do you know any fat people who want to be fat? Not a one. They all want to be thin. But they aren't willing to do what it takes to be thin, or maybe they just can't.

Likewise, people want to be informed, but they don't want the work that goes along with it. In-depth news takes more work on the part of the viewer. A three or five minute package means the viewer has to pay attention longer. A more complicated story means that they might have to think a little harder to understand what has happened. Crime and scandal are easy to understand. Those who want that extra information either aren't willing to put in the effort, or they're not able to.

I think it's funny that you chide someone else for hating the viewers, but then you call those same viewers liars without really trying to understand what that research is telling you.

[ontrackp]

Entertainment is always more popular than news. That's why Anna Nicole stories are so popular right now - it's entertainment masquerading as news and it attracts audience.

The wide availability of all kinds of news and entertainment on-line is diminishing the importance of news delivered on TV. News Directors have to decide what news will be served up each day, and viewers are stuck watching those stories. Now, anyone can go online and find the stories they are interested in - spend as much or as little time on them as they want, and move on. It's changing the mindset of the consumers of news. This is why huge media companies like Disney are referring to the web as "first choice media". This should create opportunity for journalists that understand the relationship between content and distribution, but it's not good for traditional news broadcasts.

[TV Dad]

Originally posted by ontrackp:
Entertainment is always more popular than news. That's why Anna Nicole stories are so popular right now - it's entertainment masquerading as news and it attracts audience.

The wide availability of all kinds of news and entertainment on-line is diminishing the importance of news delivered on TV.What kind of news and entertainment is NOT available online these days? Come on....we're all talking about it...it's right under our noses... "In depth local reporting"! Would it sell in your market or wouldn't it? There's a fairly large number of us (me included) who believe there IS a market for this. But, given the constraints of today's newscasts, there's just no time for longer packages. Why not create a newscast that's nothing but in-depth pieces? A local version of "60 Minutes", if you will. Would that sell? :confused:

[Consider This]

Originally posted by TV Dad:
Why not create a newscast that's nothing but in-depth pieces? A local version of "60 Minutes", if you will. Would that sell? :confused: Probably not. WBBM in Chicago did just that a few years ago with much fanfare from critics and much yawning from viewers. It sank like a rock.

[ February 20, 2007, 07:56 AM: Message edited by: Consider This ]

[AllSmiles]

blah, blah, blah..... the news sucks because we're covering Anna Nicole. I for one am a viewer as well as a broadcaster and as sad as it is to say I want to know all the details. Tell me just what are the people in your newsroom talking about this week at the watercooler? Anna's death and Britney's new 'do. That's the way it is and if you don't want to cover it, don't expect good ratings.

[The Mockingbird]

Originally posted by AllSmiles:
blah, blah, blah..... the news sucks because we're covering Anna Nicole. I for one am a viewer as well as a broadcaster and as sad as it is to say I want to know all the details. Tell me just what are the people in your newsroom talking about this week at the watercooler? Anna's death and Britney's new 'do. That's the way it is and if you don't want to cover it, don't expect good ratings.The key part is: "People in your newsroom".

Projection bias. It's not just for breakfast anymore.

[ontrackp]

TV Dad

You are onto something. Television news will survive if it reinvents itself to provide something that the competitive delivery channels don't do as well. In depth local news could be work really well, if it can be produced at a price that the market can afford. I don't think local television news is dead, it just has to evolve -- content has to evolve and techniques and technology have to evolve. Unfortunately, there are neanderthals on this board that resist the idea of any change. I would welcome a discussion of where television news should go, and how it can get there.

[Sultanosurf]

Look, most of us (And focus group studies of local viewers) would agree that a good newscast should be a concise capsule of the day's events that affect people in our audience.

But to lean over any particular direction skews that capsule. We learned that crime catches eyeballs, so local casts are chock-full of depravity, when it doesn't really represent the community as a whole. The ratings easily show that sensational 'info-tainment' also sells, so we've obviously got to fit those stories in at some level.

I'd argue that the true key to survival isn't blowing up the whole cast and handing viewers cameras or whatever, but remaining true to the concept. It pisses me off that shootings, stabbings, sex predators take over the A-block, and Smith/Spears gets airtime in the B block that probably should've gone to more analysis on the ruling on Guantanamo detainees. But as a realist, it's seems as long as we keep a moderating approach while trying to fit the stories with as much heat for that day we can still be competitive, and stay true to our instincts.

Even with all the technology, it still comes down to something akin to telling captivating stories around the campfire. And if you tell the stories well...

[Rosenblum]

Remarkably, the answer to much of this quandry is right before the eyes of local news stations, (and equally unremarkably, they fail to see it for the most part).

We are fixated on 'breaking news', but then undercut the concept because we ask the viewer to wait until 5 or 6 to see it... or miss it.

The web is the natural repository for 'breaking news' as it is, in fact, now. All the time.

If local news continually uploaded their news stories to their websites first, and offered them as nonlinear options, then, remarkably, the website would automatically aggregate those stories in terms of popularity. In effect, the website offers the stations at full time, 100% focus group - and, since the 'show' follows the web (instead of the the web being a place to put stories after they air), the 'show' can then be fine tuned to reflect with great accuracy what the audience actually wants to know about.

And its cheaper than paying Magid.

[ February 21, 2007, 06:10 AM: Message edited by: Rosenblum ]

[TV Dad]

Originally posted by Rosenblum:
If local news continually uploaded their news stories to their websites first, and offered them as nonlinear options, then, remarkably, the website would automatically aggregate those stories in terms of popularity. In effect, the website offers the stations at full time, 100% focus group - and, since the 'show' follows the web (instead of the the web being a place to put stories after they air), the 'show' can then be fine tuned to reflect with great accuracy what the audience actually wants to know about.
The second part of this is: Those reporters, photographers, VJ's..whatever...whose stories are the most popular with the online viewers will be able to command the highest salaries. You're bringing eyeballs to the website and that makes you valuable.

[Rosenblum]

nice. very nice.

[John M.]

Another -- and so far unmentioned -- aspect of the AnnaNicolization of news is that it's cheaper to produce. TV newscasts are TV productions; they're limited to what they can get on the air. You go for stories you know you can turn.

In the case of celebrities, people already know them so you don't have to take the time (or have the storytelling skill) to build a rooting interest in them. Anna Nicole? Take some file off the feed, add a couple of soundbites and you have a story. Big fire? Show flames, get soundbites with the fire chief and some displaced residents and you have a story. A great story? Probably not. But it will fill the time and if the pictures are compelling enough, it will keep the audience.

At least those who normally tune in. People might want serious in-depth news but those willing to sit through it fled local TV newscasts long ago. Ask any college educated professionals in other fields how often they watch.

Part of the reason for that is the paucity of genuinely good storytellers. The reason Charles Kuralt stood out was because he was so rare. The people worth watching every time they turn a story are gifted people. They're hard enough to find but when you're paying house painter wages it's even harder to get Picassos to apply.

[Tripe Face]

Originally posted by prizzle:
Bangor. Bangor? I never ever MET her.

[Bureau Chief]

[/qb][/QUOTE]The second part of this is: Those reporters, photographers, VJ's..whatever...whose stories are the most popular with the online viewers will be able to command the highest salaries. You're bringing eyeballs to the website and that makes you valuable.[/QB][/QUOTE]

This might just work but then you will have to take the Assignment desk out of the picture. Far to many are giving those special stories to their current favorite reporters and photogs. Turn the people loose to find their own stories with pay based on story count and on-line veiwer ratings....hmmmmm this might work. IMO the future of our business is the internet. We are only just starting to realize its potential. Some forward thinking individuals are gonna be ready and capitalize on it and make a fortune, others, stuck in the 70s, are gonna be left in the dust by youngsters fresh out of school with cyber-journalism degrees.