a station that believes in sports..

[adam & doctor drew]

link (http://www.tucsonweekly.com/gbase/Currents/Content?oid=oid%3A95954)

[SamG]

Why post this more than 3 months after the article came out?

[adam & doctor drew]

I just saw it.
if it's been posted before, sorry.
the moderators can delete it.

[SpxGrunt]

[enable sarcasm font] You mean stations should cover and devote more time to events that draw tens of thousands of people (i.e. viewers)? [sarcasm font disabled] Thank God someone sees the light. Of course, I'll wait for the naysayers to weigh in on ratings, but you know, ratings depends on content.

[adam & doctor drew]

here's (http://onmilwaukee.com/sports/articles/begel081707.html?12408) another piece on sports from today's Milwaukee paper.

[southwesternguy]

None of what was said before matters. If you get a good enough rating with a sports show, pregame show, whatever, that an advertiser will pay good money to run ads on, you'll be safe as a sports department.

Even the idiots who run TV stations can't say no to lots of money.

[Randy Steinman]

Originally posted by adam & doctor drew:
here's (http://onmilwaukee.com/sports/articles/begel081707.html?12408) another piece on sports from today's Milwaukee paper.The author of this piece has pulled out every tired cliche and drawn-out argument on this topic that I've seen/heard in the past decade. When I finally stopped yawning, I read his bio.

He "has run his own consulting business" (no surprise there), "has worked in government" (like that's impressive), and "has won awards as a journalist."

The (unidentified) awards were apparently for his ability to write articles which are void of an original thought.

southwesternguy nailed it in the previous post. Like a college prof told me more than 25 years ago: "Be worth twice to them what they're paying you, and you'll never be out of work."

[Eeps Snorps Now]

Stations should cover sports that matters to viewers; events, high school football, sports stories that get beyond organized teams and dumb-a** soundbites from coaches and QBs.

But 90% of the sports content that runs day in and day out is of interest primarily to a small sliver of viewers (and the sportscasters themselves), most of whom already get their sports in much greater doses elsewhere.

We've pulled the plug on sports in a few of our newscasts, and no one...absolutely no one...noticed, or cared.

Let's do MORE sports, probably showcased higher in the newscast when it matters or when it is told/presented in a manner which appeals to the bulk of the audience.

Let's do LESS sports when it's just another day with the local sportos trying to pretend they're doing their own "SportsCenter." Maybe we can devote all that wasted time to...get this...actual news coverage!

[kgsl]

Originally posted by Eeps Snorps Now:

Maybe we can devote all that wasted time to...get this...actual news coverage!More time for "news coverage" of Paris, Britney, Lindsay and Anna-Nicole? :rolleyes:
I don't see many locals filling their casts with quality "news" either. You must be the exception.

[adam & doctor drew]

yes, I'm sure every newsroom is being forced to hold back high-quality news coverage because of that 2 and a half minutes that sports is eating up.

[southwesternguy]

Originally posted by adam & doctor drew:
yes, I'm sure every newsroom is being forced to hold back high-quality news coverage because of that 2 and a half minutes that sports is eating up.LOL!!!

[Eeps Snorps Now]

Sorry, your "sporto view" of reality is kinda like the famous New Yorker cover. To a guy with a basketball, everything of consequence looks like a basket.

Yes, we do fill that extra three minutes with actual local news.

[adam & doctor drew]

bullsh*t.

if you had 3 more minutes of great local news, you'd run it and cut sports.

it's been my experience (in multiple stations and cities) that sports is almost always given the amount of time that news can't fill that day.

I've never once seen the news people hold back something great because they had promised the time to sports (or anyone else).

[Eeps Snorps Now]

Originally posted by adam & doctor drew:


if you had 3 more minutes of great local news, you'd run it and cut sports.

We did. No one missed the daily sportscast. The newscast was improved, and now frequently features important local sports coverage or well-crafted local sports features.

Sounds like you've worked for a string of cr*ppy stations.

The issue isn't filling time, it's making sure that every minute of every newscast features content that is relevant and compelling to viewers. If there is a sports story that makes the cut, run it. Showcase it. Hell, lead the newscast with it if it's that big a deal.

But running a sportscast in every newscast just for the sake of running a sportscast, and filling it with the sort of content which does not hold any interest whatsoever for the vast majority of the audience, is simply an idea whose time has passed.

The audience has a solution for this sort of lazy newscast. They change the channel or more likely, turn off the set. That's what they are doing in droves, if you haven't noticed. The "institution" of putting a sportscast into a linear local newscast whether there's anything worth putting IN it is one of the big reasons why.

Why do you think stations aren't exactly falling all over themselves to hire "sportscasters" these days?

[adam & doctor drew]

on a couple points we agree:
a) if you're not going to do sports well, you should cancel it.
b) people are turning off local news more than ever.

but to blame B on sports is weak, IMO.
sports is on (in most markets) at 26 or 27 after the hour for 2-3 minutes, long after the 2nd click.
as long as sports is in that position, it can't move the needle up or down, no matter how good or bad it is.

so if viewers are tuning out "in droves," maybe it's that they don't like what's in the first 25 minutes of the "newscast."

[ August 19, 2007, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: adam & doctor drew ]

[Eeps Snorps Now]

Originally posted by adam & doctor drew:


so if viewers are tuning out "in droves," maybe it's that they don't like what's in the first 25 minutes of the "newscast."You and I definitely agree on that point.

All too much of what gets put in newscasts is considered by increasing numbers of time-restrained viewers as "more trouble than worth." A station weak at news coverage and presentation certainly needs to clean up the top of the newscast as Priority #1. Then they need to hold viewers to the end (and deliver them to the next program), and that's where sportscasts increasingly fail to earn their keep.

My point is that sports is a small part (if any) of most news viewers' lives. Many like sports. Their definition of sports is however almost never what TV sportscasters deem legitimate sports to be, so there's a disconnect there too.

Thus, to dedicate a chunk of every newscast to this topic does not make sense. It's an anachronism. Arguably we'd be better off replacing it with a few dedicated minutes to coverage of religion, hobbies, pets, health/wellness, shopping, tips on whoremongering (for our religious right Republican viewers), entertainment or fashion. Any one of those topics probably is of more interest to more of our viewers than a generic sportscast.

So, why not just take those few minutes and program something there that actually means something to viewers on any given day?

Ok, I didn't really mean that whoremongering tips thing. Not completely, anyway.

[ August 19, 2007, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: Eeps Snorps Now ]

[adam & doctor drew]

Originally posted by Eeps Snorps Now:

So, why not just take those few minutes and program something there that actually means something to viewers on any given day?
sure, go to it.
but how many stations in America are doing just that?

I don't know of any.

[Eeps Snorps Now]

Originally posted by adam & doctor drew:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Eeps Snorps Now:

So, why not just take those few minutes and program something there that actually means something to viewers on any given day?
sure, go to it.
but how many stations in America are doing just that?

I don't know of any.</font>[/QUOTE]There are some.

Not enough. Should be more.

See my comments on the previous threads regarding the (mis)use of helicopters in the "local news wars." Our viewers stopped caring a long time ago.

[adam &amp; doctor drew]

Originally posted by Eeps Snorps Now:
Our viewers stopped caring a long time ago.totally agree.
and it's not all the fault of sports.

in fact someone on here (sorry, I can't remember who) has been asking the question for years: name a station that dropped sports and then instantly zoomed to #1.

[ August 19, 2007, 07:33 PM: Message edited by: adam & doctor drew ]

[Eeps Snorps Now]

Yeah, I'd agree that merely "dropping sports" is probably not going to make a poorly-rated station a market leader. And if dropping sports results in (as one poster on this thread suggested) a station plugging in Britney Spears gossip, etc., then they've simply substituted one "viewer hurdle" with another.

Again, I'm not advocating stations not doing sports. I'm advocating stations not doing regularly scheduled sportscasts when there's no real sports content to put in them that's interesting & compelling to the majority of the newscast's viewers.

Done correctly, sports can and should be an essential part of the local news coverage. But way too much local sports coverage mirrors the worst of local news coverage these days. Bland, predictable, and completely out of touch with the lives of those we hope to be our most loyal viewers now and in the future.

[adam &amp; doctor drew]

Originally posted by Eeps Snorps Now:
if dropping sports results in (as one poster on this thread suggested) a station plugging in Britney Spears gossip, etc., then they've simply substituted one "viewer hurdle" with another.
and I'll bet you a dinner that's exactly what they do.

[Eeps Snorps Now]

Depends on who "they" are. I have evidence of stations which have given a lot of thought and care to crafting newscasts which don't contain a regular internal "sportscast."

They don't just throw those three minutes against a wall to see what sticks. They've revisited their newscast content "holistically," so the shows probably don't contain anything about Britney Spears.

Those that do, well...they'll likely continue to lose viewers until they get sold or replaced by syndication or whatever other fate awaits them in a world of media consumers who spend more time online or with niche TV programming, and less with local stations.

[The Thrill]

Keep your sports local, and don't cut 'em. (Yes, if you're in an NFL market, that includes covering that local NFL team...but do it yourself. Don't just take feeds.)

The folks'll watch...especially come high school football season.

[Consider This]

Originally posted by Eeps Snorps Now:
I'm advocating stations not doing regularly scheduled sportscasts when there's no real sports content to put in them that's interesting & compelling to the majority of the newscast's viewers.As little time as most regularly scheduled sportscasts get, if your sports people can't find enough "real" content to fill them, you don't need to cut the sportscast, you need to cut the sports people.

[Eeps Snorps Now]

Originally posted by Consider This:
[QUOTE]
[qb]if your sports people can't find enough "real" content to fill them, you don't need to cut the sportscast, you need to cut the sports people.I'd say replace, not cut, if the current sportos are doing nothing more than a local version of "SportsCenter." Then figure out how to best deploy them and showcase what they produce.

In markets where sports equates to really well-presented stories rather than coach and QB interviews, this all tends to be less of a discussion.

[ August 20, 2007, 09:27 AM: Message edited by: Eeps Snorps Now ]

[foxravens]

Eeps...

As a veteran of 30+ years doing sports, I have a couple of observations.

1.) You obviously don't work in a major league market. Just TRY and cut sports in a market with an NFL, MLB, NBA or NHL team. Ain't gonna happen. Many people in those markets are heavily invested in those franchises, both financially and emotionally.

2.) It is obvious you are not a sports fan. That costs you credibility with me when you're trying to make your point.

3.) This latest assault on the sports segment is nothing new. People like yourself (and I'm assuming you are a management type) have been trying to "fix" sports for years. Those "fixes" all failed. I had to smile when I read your "Coach and QB" line. I first heard that one on 1977 at Magid. The woman who used that line is no longer in the business. I on the other hand, am still standing.

4.) We REALLY don't like being called "sportos".

I look forward to your response.

[ August 20, 2007, 11:21 AM: Message edited by: foxravens ]

[Eeps Snorps Now]

1.) You obviously don't work in a major league market. Just TRY and cut sports in a market with an NFL, MLB, NBA or NHL team. Ain't gonna happen. Many people in those markets are heavily invested in those franchises, both financially and emotionally.

(a.) Wrong (b.) Already has successfully to the degree i've advocated in some newscasts (not all). There are indeed notable exceptions; some markets generate sports stories of great interest to a broad swath of viewers because their teams define the town, etc; most don't.

2.) It is obvious you are not a sports fan. That costs you credibility with me when you're trying to make your point. (a.) wrong. lifelong fan and participant. (b.) i don't care.

3.) This latest assault on the sports segment is nothing new. People like yourself (and I'm assuming you are a management type) have been trying to "fix" sports for years. Those "fixes" all failed. I had to smile when I read your "Coach and QB" line. I first heard that one on 1977 at Magid. The woman who used that line is no longer in the business. I on the other hand, am still standing.

You obviously are an impressive sporto.

4.) We REALLY don't like being called "sportos".

see 2(b.)

[foxravens]

So...
Can we have an instructive discussion, or are you gonna be a wiseass?
I really would like to engage you on this, because it is obviously a pet peeve of mine.

I defy you to identify one station, just one, in a major league market that was successful doing sports the way you describe.
Just one.

BTW- we do 18-20 minutes of sports PER DAY and ratings have never been higher. I mean that literally

[ August 20, 2007, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: foxravens ]

[Eeps Snorps Now]

That's a pretty broad ratings statement. Year to year? Daily cume? Weekly? Book to book? Households? Demos? Multi-book trend? The problem with these declarations and other 'tests' is they are almost impossible to quantify.

As I addressed above, one size does not fit all; there are exceptions to the rule. Your market may well have such an appetite for all things sports or your station may be doing such a good job at presenting it (or convincing them that you're doing a good job presenting it) that they continue to tune in.

My guess is that your station & in-market TV news competitors have far fewer viewers than they did 10 or even 5 years ago.

Viewership will continue to fragment, particularly for sports information, much of which is already consumed online.

Meanwhile viewership to our craft continues to erode, the impact on our peers who make a living doing sports will increasingly be jeopardized, and denial (http://live.psu.edu/story/19017) isn't going to help.

I hope we figure out how to do sports better, not eliminate it. You feel it's fine just the way it is and does not merit scrutiny by viewers. So be it.

[foxravens]

July book, ratings up 30% across the board.

I don't agree with you so I'm in "denial"?
I'm able to "convince them you're doing a good job presenting it"?

Your agenda bias is showing...way to have an open mind.
Nice.
Oh wait, you're going to figure out how to "do sports better", right?
Get over yourself, Johnny Television.

PS- Our success is grounded in the fact that we've all bought into the "all local" way of covering sports.
The viewers obviously agree.

Could it be you are incorrect?
Could it???

[Eeps Snorps Now]

Originally posted by foxravens:
July book, ratings up 30% across the board.

I don't agree with you so I'm in "denial"?
I'm able to "convince them you're doing a good job presenting it"?

Your agenda bias is showing...way to have an open mind.
Nice.
Oh wait, you're going to figure out how to "do sports better", right?
Get over yourself, Johnny Television.

PS- Our success is grounded in the fact that we've all bought into the "all local" way of covering sports.
The viewers obviously agree.

Could it be you are incorrect?
Could it???30% across the board. There's that qualification we were looking for. Yes, I could be incorrect. So could all the trades which have documented the ongoing decline in local news viewership over the years in every market. Am I going to figure out how to fix it? No. But I am going to question the wisdom of every station going a fixed-length sportscast within every newscast containing mostly national stories available online or within sports-only channels.

If a market has an appetite for lots of local news, then I'd also advocate devoting a digital channel to expanded local news coverage. Thus far, few have figured out how to make a go of that.

But I'll stick to my contention that lazy, content-poor sportscasts are one of the elements which are killing our product.

[foxravens]

If your sports guys are doing "mostly national stories" then perhaps THEY are the problem, not a fixed sportscast within the newscast.
Any local sports folk who depend on national stories deserve to be questioned.
The advent of ESPN in 1979 ended all that. The key now is to be hyper-local with your sportscast.

I hardly think a sportscast is why fewer people are watching. Perhaps it could be the way you're presnting NEWS.
Ever consider that?
Of course not.
Sports is a much easier target.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, news types have been trying to "fix sports" for 40 years now.
Yet, the sportscast remains part of the newscast.
Your ideas are not new, just failed.

[ August 20, 2007, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: foxravens ]

[Eeps Snorps Now]

...The key now is to be hyper-local with your sportscast.

We absolutely agree on that point.

...I hardly think a sportscast is why fewer people are watching. Perhaps it could be the way you're presnting NEWS. Ever consider that? Of course not.
Sports is a much easier target.

Uh, no. Scroll up.

...As I mentioned in an earlier post, news types have been trying to "fix sports" for 40 years now.
Yet, the sportscast remains part of the newscast.
Your ideas are not new, just failed.

Failed as in not popular among those who get paid to do sports and want it presented just the way it was 40 years ago in spite of what the great majority of local TV news viewers tell us with their remote controls and in qualitative research, market after market, yes.

If you're in a situation which is the exception, good for you. And I really mean that. Chances are you're practicing the craft according to the point at the top of this post on which we both agree. Unfortunately, many others aren't.

[ August 20, 2007, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: Eeps Snorps Now ]

[foxravens]

Your tone has softened quite a bit.
Had you taken this route from the beginning, I probably wouldn't have posted at all.

Remember, when you start using that broad brush technique, you are taking a giant dump on all of us who proudly broadcast sports for a living.
We have families, and mortgages and tuition payments. Then we read that someone wants to wipe us out, take us out of the newscast, yeah, we get a little salty over that.

Here's something I've learned over my many years in the business: I don't have all the answers.
You don't either.

[Eeps Snorps Now]

True. You messed with me. I messed with you.

Enjoyed the sparring. You didn't back down an inch.

Believe it or not, I really do care about folks in this industry. Without getting into details, it's part of my job. And no, I'm not a consultant. Let's just say there's not a week that goes by that i'm not on air or carrying a camera or posting something on my station's site. So I'm hardly looking in from the outside.

I'm old enough to have kids in their 20's and have watched their viewing habits as they went through their teens and now their own early professional lives. We (local TV news) have virtually no role in their lives, though they are voracious consumers of information.

I'm young enough to have lots of friends in their 30's and 40's. They are not the loyalists their parents were at that age, and will likely not automatically start watching local TV news more once they reach that "magic local TV news" age of 50+.

FTR, I used to anchor sports earlier in my career. I sucked at it. However when I travel around the country and look at other stations' sports products, I'm not quite as critical of my sports anchoring "abilities" as I used to be.

Many who have walled themselves off into their closed vision of what "TV sports" should be are gutting their own employment potential. There are fewer and fewer "sports seats" at the table, with more to disappear. You and I may not like it, but that's the way it is unless we figure out a way to change it.

Many of our ranks have already dropped off the branch and others are teetering. That's not just my opinion; it's happening throughout the industry, including to people I know and happen to care about. I don't like it.

As an industry we've allowed this to happen by putting newscast after newscast...sportscast after sportscast...on the air which viewers increasingly deem unworthy of their time or attention. That IS a broad brush, though I acknowledged that there are notable exceptions in terms of people and stations.

The changes in viewing habits and perceptions usually occur "under the radar," and become apparent in statistical samplings such as NSI ratings over the course of time. As an industry, we've gotten good at justifying book-to-book downturns, and celebrating the upticks.

We're also good at keeping encroaching shadows at bay by giving ourselves lots and lots of awards and keeping our newscasts numbingly similar to our local competitors for fear of losing what we've already got. God forbid our corporate masters should have to report to the shareholders that their stations had an original idea.

Some individuals have risen above by honing new skills, broadening the scope of their reporting and storytelling, and making themselves indispensable to viewers (and thus, stations), on air and online. They are generally in demand while others "wonder what happened to the business."

I'll retire from the biz within five years or so. Most on this board hope to stay in the industry far longer than that. Without some serious introspection from those on the front line as to what we produce and how we present it, there will be fewer jobs available which pay enough to raise a family, etc.

I absolutely hate that.

[southwesternguy]

In my market, we do a 30-minute sports show after the Sunday night newscast. The ratings, most of the time, are the same as the newscast, and every few weeks, they are better than news. After we go off the air, there is an infomercial.

We have either the same, or better numbers than the show that preceeds us, and we have an infomercial following us, so I don't think we're irrelevant to our viewers. People aren't grappling for the remote as soon as the news goes off. Newsies tend to think that as soon as sports comes on the air, people say, "aw, man, turn the channel, we hate this stuff." Not true.

I'm happy with where we are and the product we put on the air every sunday, and so are the viewers.

I don't think we're going away anytime soon.

[Sultanosurf]

Cue the 'Jaws' music...
http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/26/90/22579026.jpg

Hey, I'm back. Even though we probably exhausted this topic last go-round, that Foxravens' comment just can't fly by. "July book, ratings up 30% across the board." You had some way of measuring that your sports ratings went up 30%?

And Adam, the original link was one of those laugh and cry deals. Somehow it's all the sports leg of the table propping things up when they have Fox in prime, then pipe in Fox Phoenix anchor talent?

I actually like filling the local thirst for sports in that particular market if nobody else is doing it. And I understand you guys are desperate for justification, but the logic on this one is a bit of a reach.

Southwesternguy hit it well early, anything else that's a tune-out for half your audience would be gone if it didn't sell used cars.

[WalMartNation]

10 years ago when I got in this business doing sports I was told that local sports would be gone in 10 years.

Now, I read these same arguments over and over again of this board (some of the arguments are very good, from BOTH sides, I might add) and see links to articles from goon print writers in Milwaukee telling me that local sports anchors will be gone in 10 more years. In 10 more years I'll be hearing about how the final decade of local sports will just be starting.

Don't have lazy sports anchors or managers that let them get away with being lazy... eliminate those and you might just have a chance in this "disappearing" segment of news.

[Eeps Snorps Now]

Yeah, i'm absolutely NOT one of those who thinks or contended that "sports will disappear." On the contrary, I hope that digital channels and more robust web content including material originated both inside and outside the station become more commonplace.

My point is simply that too many stations' (not all) daily sportscasts are content-weak, wallpaper-predictable, non-relevant to too many viewers, and thus have become their own worst enemy.

Many stations have responded by cutting dedicated sportscasts out of some (usually not all) newscasts and have diverted those resources into enterprising more and different local sports (or other) stories. The remaining sportscast(s) are generally improved. Those newscasts without a sportscast may feature sports-related stories of interest to audience members who would instinctively tune out (figuratively or literally) a traditional sportscast.

The nature of our entire business will continue to evolve, and the next five years will see the greatest acceleration of industry-altering changes to date. These will be driven by the marketplace, finances, and technology, particularly digital repack in Feb 2009.

Practitioners of local sports can either adhere to an old presentation model which may or may not apply, or champion changes which create opportunities for their station(s) & the industry in general; and most of all, retain current viewers and attract prospective new ones.

[ August 21, 2007, 08:18 AM: Message edited by: Eeps Snorps Now ]

[spts]

and could you please answer the question Eeps that was asked many posts ago...

can you name some stations...BY CALL LETTERS... that have done sports the way you mention?????

i am not doubting you, just curious. would love to see them.

[adam &amp; doctor drew]

Originally posted by Sultanosurf:
Cue the 'Jaws' music...
http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/26/90/22579026.jpg

Hey, I'm back. Even though we probably exhausted this topic last go-round, that Foxravens' comment just can't fly by. "July book, ratings up 30% across the board." You had some way of measuring that your sports ratings went up 30%?

even if you could measure whether sports contributed to that jump, it could still be very misleading, depending on the station and market.

if you're getting a 1 and then get a 1.3, that's a 30% improvement----but still not very relevant if your competition is getting 9s and 10s.

[foxravens]

Yes, I have a VERY good way of measuring.
We have the last quarter-hour of our newscast.
You simply look at the quarter breakdowns.
We went from a 4.3 rating to a 5.5.
Thirty percent, gents.

[SportzGame]

Addressing a comment earlier, at my station we can judge sports separately, and at most metered stations you can as well. Just look at the five/ten minute intervals for your newscast, check the ratings for the time the sportscast falls into: easy enough. Our sports comes at the end of the newscast, and are a separate entity, so we have our own ratings time slot. And our ratings have increased over the last year, each period. It's documented by Nielsen.

[adam &amp; doctor drew]

Originally posted by foxravens:
Yes, I have a VERY good way of measuring.
We have the last quarter-hour of our newscast.
You simply look at the quarter breakdowns.
We went from a 4.3 rating to a 5.5.
Thirty percent, gents.right but let's say for the sake of discussion that sports begins at 21, 22, 24, 26 after the hour.
are you taking credit for the stuff that aired after :15 but before sports?
maybe that stuff caused the ratings to rise (or fall, whatever the case may be).

[WalMartNation]

Originally posted by adam & doctor drew:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by foxravens:
Yes, I have a VERY good way of measuring.
We have the last quarter-hour of our newscast.
You simply look at the quarter breakdowns.
We went from a 4.3 rating to a 5.5.
Thirty percent, gents.right but let's say for the sake of discussion that sports begins at 21, 22, 24, 26 after the hour.
are you taking credit for the stuff that aired after :15 but before sports?
maybe that stuff caused the ratings to rise (or fall, whatever the case may be).</font>[/QUOTE]Just to jump in here.. I've had this same question asked to me too before. I can't say that weather (which hit at :17 EVERY night) didn't contribute to the rise in ratings for our sports segment, but one thing is for sure, 8.2 in the 2nd quarter hour is hell of a lot better than the 4.8 the A and B blocks got in the 1st quarter. We also had a popular weatherman and sports anchor. I'm sure news would love to think the ratings jump was because of all the great kickers they ran, but I'd put money against it.

[intheDblock]

I have an idea. I think we should cut sports and spend more time in our newscasts telling people what to do when it is hot outside. I don't think we tell our veiwers enough to:

1-Drink plenty of water
2-Wear light colored clothing

That 3 minutes of sports at the end of an hour and a half of news could really be used for more content like that. Or perhaps we could self promote more...Just some thoughts.