Web site VS Newscast

[interloper]

I can't think of any local tv newsroom today that doesn't have a web site.

What kinds of rules, or maybe a better word is attitude, does your news management have about content between the two?

Do they both have equal footing in your newsroom?

If a reporter has a big story, an exclusive, do you go ahead and break it on the web site first, the moment you know about it, or do you wait until a regular newscast to do that, then post it on your web site?

We had an issue where the web wanted to post a story but the reporter wouldn't give information because they had concerns the competition would see it and have the same information in their own story by the time all went on the air.

If you would agree about holding the information back until it's on the newscast, would you agree that attitude will have to change in the future with the growing importance of the internet?

[LENSCRAFTER]

This will be an interesting thread. I am looking forward to the responses.

I can't answer you from a newsroom standpoint... but from a PR point of view... I know for a fact that one station in my market holds onto stories.

There have been several examples when they have uncovered a story or information... I monitor the web and see nothing... then get home and catch the 5... nothing. Then inevitably it is "BREAKING NEWS" at the top of the 6. Within a minute or 2 of the 6pm broadcast an alert lands in my email box announcing the "Breaking News" event.

[!]

If a reporter has a big story, an exclusive, do you go ahead and break it on the web site first, the moment you know about it,

Yes.

This has been an issue with some reporters, but it is our policy. We are a news outlet, not just a TV news outlet, and we derive ad revenue from our website, not just our TV newscast, so therefore, we break news as soon as we have it.

[user name]

just get it out there, and promo the hell out of how you "had it first".

[NewsguyMark]

News happens 24/7, not just at 5, 6, and 11.

When it breaks it should be on the web, and, if worthy enough, on a crawl on the broadcast side.

The web site should have MULTIPLE photos for each story that can be snapped with a cell phone and emailed to the station long before the crew arrives. Video should be added WHENEVER available.

Web sites should include community news that normally wouldn't fit into a newscast. Schools, churches, boy and girl scout stories... These can be press releases with photos... People in the community love them and all the relatives log on...

Web sites should have teases for stories that are coming up on newscasts. And newscasts should refer people to the web.

Reporter's email addresses should be on every story. These generate endless news tips.

Trouble is, getting broadcast news people to understand this can be a major challenge.

I worked as a web guy at a SC station over the summer. I would have to wait for photos, sometimes for hours, while a package was cut for a newscast that didn't air for HOURS later.

Other times, I was told they didn't have a photo, only to see it on the 11.

The other challenge was getting producers to forward mug shots to me on a timely basis.

The ultimate issue was that the ND didn't hire me, didn't support me, and put her broadcast first. We parted ways a few months later and their web site's content dropped immediately and still lacks.

Meanwhile, their competitor's are killing them online.

[amp]

You can break it on the website. If you can break a story online at 2pm and at 5pm say "We first broke the story on ourwebsite WXXX.com" people in your tv audience can be driven to your website. HOWEVER, 96% of the money made by a tv station is on the air not online. If you make it a habit of breaking news information on your website, maybe your web revenue can go up. But, I don't see the web ever getting you more than 20% of you revenue, at least for the next 10 years.

[Bureau Chief]

We will hold a major story for the first broadcast after it breaks but as soon as it hits the air, it gets posted to the site. We use the cellphone pic option too. We are putting increasing pressure on the photogs and the reporters to prepare material for the web...and to think in those terms. It is a change, even for the newbies. Something that just came out from corporate, is the demand that OUR website is THE ONLY website we are allowed to mention on-air. Otherwise we refer the viewers to our website for more details...but never mention any other website on the actual broadcast. If they want to know the name of some website mentioned in a story, they have to get it off of OUR website. Im torn on this one, not sure it will work for us.


There are new cellphones out with 7 mp cameras in them that look great on the web. I havent seen any video off of them yet but would hope that it would be an improvement over current cellphone video as well.
Imagine what it will be like 10 years from now.

[WOS]

Stories should be reported on the website ASAP, a promo for the evening news, and then a more comprehensive story on at 5,6 and/or 10. Scheduled TV newscasts are rapidly becoming what newspapers are now: the follow-up source for more information, and special reports. The internet and the 24/7 news channels have and are becoming the first source of breaking news for most consumers. As for the website, that includes pictures, video, etc. That's why cellphone cameras are such a valuable resource. What more broadcasters need to do, and fast, is figure out a better way of producing more revenue from their websites.

[trunky]

In this day and age, stories shouldn't ever be held... If your competitor gets it on the web first or gets the email out first (and gets it right) you got beat on the story. You CAN call things exlusive on the web.

It's funny (well not really of course) how reporters stuck in the old ways, or holding onto old-school aspirations will suddenly have difficulty answering their cell phones in the afternoons, and tell you they just don't have much information right now and that they'll call you back in "a while."

Then, they'll call back to ask what the comp is reporting online.

Get the facts straight, create your multimedia as fast as you can, post the story. Send out a breaking news email saying we're on the scene stay tuned to this website and tune in tonight to see the latest on this developing bla bla or however you like to tease it. Then when you report the story on the air, say for more information, more uncut interviews and video, pictures of this super duper compelling stuff and interactive features like polls and commentary log onto our website where you have been totally missing out on utter awesomeness. ;) ;)

"We first broke the story on ourwebsite WXXX.com""
it's great hearing on air people saying this. it's saying if you had've checked our website earlier, you would've been one of the first people in town to know about this.

"OUR website is THE ONLY website we are allowed to mention on-air"
this is kind of funny, I've seen network correspondents do. They'll do an engaging story, a real talker, then talk about an awesome and relevant website, show screenshots, maybe even demo it...then at the end say for more info on this website, log onto OUR website.

[NewsJunkie_TV]

post it to the web and then in the newscast say you broke it first online.

[TVNewsLady]

In a 24-7 news world I think you have to utilize the web at every given opportunity. It's not always going to be an easy choice because yes, your competitor can take that story right away from you. But it's the right choice.

Our newsroom has reporters blogging from the field with their smart phones, our web team checks them for spelling and content accuracy back at the station and posts the stories, and you find them at the Developing News and Web Exclusive spot at the top of our website.

Our competitor has gotten information on a story from us more than once from "snooping" our site, but we would do the same if they had their site together.

This is the world we live in... the profession we've chosen is evolving.

They didn't teach this back in school.

[!]

We will hold a major story for the first broadcast after it breaks but as soon as it hits the air, it gets posted to the site.
You're going to end up far behind the competition eventually with this philosophy. You need people to turn to "you" for news, not just your TV newscast, and if they find that you withhold news and they other guys don't, they'll be gone.

[!]

If they want to know the name of some website mentioned in a story, they have to get it off of OUR website. Im torn on this one, not sure it will work for us.
How will it not work?

You condition the viewers to learn your website's address and always go there--you don't give them a new place to remember (or have to call and ask you desk about) every time you do a story with a website involved.

It's pretty clear your shop hasn't yet understood the idea that you aren't a "TV newsroom;" your folks think you do TV and have a website, too. That attitude's going to kiill you if you don't wise up soon.

[interloper]

In this thought process of posting information to the web before it is broadcast, how do sweeps stories fit into the equation? Say you've worked months on a story that no one else has. Who gets it first? The newscast or the web site?

What if the sweeps story has important information that might affect the safety of viewers? Does that make a difference? Does the web site still get the information first or does your station hold it for better television ratings during sweeps?

Better yet, how long before we just forget about ratings periods if the web is our next big venture? One year? Two years? Five? Ten? Tomorrow?

[overthehill]

I have always seen sweeps pieces as "stunts" for viewers. No need to rush them to the website.

If there is such valuable safety information in a sweeps story why isn't it a regular news story and put on air NOW?! It's obviously being teased, promoted and such for the purpose of attracting viewers.

Certainly put them on the website AFTER air, but no need to get them there before you use them on air.

We have to stop thinking of "air" vs. "web." It's all one. We gather news and use the very best platform, media to reach our targeted consumer. Sometimes, that method is web, sometimes air...many times both. And you'd better be putting MORE on the web than just shoveling the same air version to your website. That's a cheap way to say you're fulfilling your web demands.

[interloper]

I was thinking safety information like tires that blow up on trucks or contaminated water. Something like that. A story that would require some time to investigate and verify to save all from legal issues, yet also information that, if not delivered as fast as possible might mean more people hurt or worse.

Not all sweeps pieces are stunts. Yes, some/many are. But not all.

Part of the reason web content is the way it is is pretty simple. No money is being made off it. The tv side is paying for everything and the web still can't generate a dime to really pay for real news coverage all by itself. That won't be the way it is forever but right now that's the reality. It also plays into who gets to run the information first. Web or broadcast.

[NewsguyMark]

Sweeps stories that are produced for broadcast should be used for broadcast, then posted on the web after they air.

However, you can work together...

For example: One of our anchors was producing a stolen car series for broadcast. During the series, I ran a stolen car story (as they happened to occur) and ended it with a promo for her stolen car series. I did a similar thing when there was a recovered car, and promoted her piece on stolen cars that are recovered.

You should use the web and broadcast together, not as competitors.

[interloper]

No doubts here the web is the future.

The one shining moment I'm waiting for with all this change is the end of sweeps as a whole. I don't see them being around once the internet takes hold and lots of these issues will become unimportant about who, computer or tv side of a newsroom, gets what first. I don't know how long that is going to take to happen though.

[Sigonfile]

Our station even has e-mail and paging options besides the web additions. We really want you to know if we had it first.

[DoneThatToo]

. . . Part of the reason web content is the way it is is pretty simple. No money is being made off it. The tv side is paying for everything and the web still can't generate a dime to really pay for real news coverage all by itself. . . .

I have yet to see a news room that supports all of the expenses it generates. Yes news if very important when it comes to local sales but it is far from self supporting financially.

Web sites can and do make money.

In fact they may make a bigger percent return on each dollar spent then broadcast. In the current environment where most of the web content is generated by people already on the clock for broadcast and pushed to the web by people already on the clock you incur very little overhead. Sure some stations have A (read one) person on payroll as a 'web editor' but do you think they are making more then other producers? Are your producers well paid?

Our web management receives a budget just like other departments, and is expected to generate X amount of revenue too. In the last 3 years since we really started paying attention to the web the monetary returns from sales have grown several hundred percent. Still not a money making beast but it receives the attention of all departments which only makes it better for the audience and thus easier for sales to, well sale.

Now as for the original question. Do we break news on the web? We've been known to. It is a decision that has to be made and is currently made for each breaking event as they come up. No set policy yet but the times they are a changin'. Don't ignore your web exposure. We push folks to our page several times each newscast. For links to others sites, more frequent weather updates and the ever popular 'more details' where we actually have more details and extended interviews.

[Bureau Chief]

How will it not work?

You condition the viewers to learn your website's address and always go there--you don't give them a new place to remember (or have to call and ask you desk about) every time you do a story with a website involved.

It's pretty clear your shop hasn't yet understood the idea that you aren't a "TV newsroom;" your folks think you do TV and have a website, too. That attitude's going to kiill you if you don't wise up soon.

Our demographics are a bit different than most markets...we are becoming a retirement community almost. On-line numbers are lagging a bit behind the rest of the country but we will be changing our arrangements as things get geared up for net news. Our station is also way behind the tech curve, hell, we still edit on tape!

[interloper]

I have yet to see a news room that supports all of the expenses it generates. Yes news if very important when it comes to local sales but it is far from self supporting financially.

Web sites can and do make money.

In fact they may make a bigger percent return on each dollar spent then broadcast. In the current environment where most of the web content is generated by people already on the clock for broadcast and pushed to the web by people already on the clock you incur very little overhead. Sure some stations have A (read one) person on payroll as a 'web editor' but do you think they are making more then other producers? Are your producers well paid?

Our web management receives a budget just like other departments, and is expected to generate X amount of revenue too. In the last 3 years since we really started paying attention to the web the monetary returns from sales have grown several hundred percent. Still not a money making beast but it receives the attention of all departments which only makes it better for the audience and thus easier for sales to, well sale.

Now as for the original question. Do we break news on the web? We've been known to. It is a decision that has to be made and is currently made for each breaking event as they come up. No set policy yet but the times they are a changin'. Don't ignore your web exposure. We push folks to our page several times each newscast. For links to others sites, more frequent weather updates and the ever popular 'more details' where we actually have more details and extended interviews.



With all due respect, most of what you put on your local news station web site is shot and produced by others. Either in house or elsewhere. The salaries for those people who are going out to produce the stories, shooting, editing, physically going there in company vehicles, does not come out of the web dept. budget.

To compare budget for budget, news department to web department, and then make a claim of success does not seem quite honest to me. But maybe your budget is different than most other places. Does your web department pay the reporters, photogs, editors too?

Eventually all of that will happen in the future when everything gets more entwined financially.

[Chicago Dog]

My favorite part of internet newscasts is that I get to watch it in all its postal stamp sized glory!

It really makes me regret buying a 51" HDTV.

[DoneThatToo]

With all due respect, most of what you put on your local news station web site is shot and produced by others. Either in house or elsewhere. The salaries for those people who are going out to produce the stories, shooting, editing, physically going there in company vehicles, does not come out of the web dept. budget.

To compare budget for budget, news department to web department, and then make a claim of success does not seem quite honest to me. But maybe your budget is different than most other places. Does your web department pay the reporters, photogs, editors too?

Eventually all of that will happen in the future when everything gets more entwined financially.

Read again.

I clearly said most of the web content is produced by people already on the clock for broadcast. That is what allows web commercial sales to generate a better ROI. We have a single dedicated web person only working M-F who contributes other content. And that content is generally pulled from other sources (CNN/AP) so the unique cost for that is the $/hr for the body sitting in the chair, since these sources are already being covered by the normal broadcast expense budget.

Our web editor is technically under the general News expense budget but listed as a separate line specifically as 'Internet Content Manager'. Remember that budgets also cover revenue. That is the part that dictates that internet revenue should grow by x percent. Web revenue is tracked through sales and is part of our overall station revenue projection.

So I am comparing apples to apples. I just took a little offense at your statement that web sites don't generate money and that broadcast is paying for everything. It just ain't so. Besides, if you don't start paying attention to your web page how do you expect it to EVER start making any money?

[adam & doctor drew]

To compare budget for budget, news department to web department, and then make a claim of success does not seem quite honest to me.

you mean some stations have 2 different departments?
I thought most just had the same staff work on both. :frustrated:

[interloper]

you mean some stations have 2 different departments?
I thought most just had the same staff work on both. :frustrated:

Where I work, the web folk are in the newsroom but seperate. They get material sent to them by reporters and crews in the field. They even do some of their own story creation but the majority comes from the news crews or from the mother ship in New York.

In the future, yes without a doubt, it will all be one big happy family.

I have to shake my head at Done That Too.

In one breath he claims the web made all kinds of profit with just their budget, in the next, admits the material was created and produced by other employees in the news department NOT a part of the web team.

Two teams, with one using material they created to make a profit and the other, the web, using material they DIDN'T create, claiming a profit but not including product production in their budget. I guess the janitor can claim they are profit makers too for the company with that thinking!

Then wanting to claim the budget difference is better with the web.

I suggest accounting 101 would be of help in the future.

Think of it this way. Is the web side still going to make money when they have no product to put on their web site if it's not supplied by the news crews? Nope! If they want content, then they'd have to pay for it and THAT would come from their budget.

Claiming a profit for the web in this case is like claiming a profit for the lighted sign in front of the building. The web is the future butt it needs to become a realistic money making business model to do it. So far that hasn't happened unless someone else is paying the bills to keep them afloat.

Once the web team becomes a part of the entire news department, and their budget, then the claim of profit will have a basis in reality. But then, it won't be just the web folk any more, it will be all the news employees. Which means, in some ways, we'll all be web employees too.

How many of the newsrooms out there really consider the web people part of the news department. They should. But I have to admit in my shop that way of thinking has yet to happen for everyone in the newsroom. From tech people to many managment people at all levels. The web is looked at as an add on They will eventually.

A good idea would be to not give the web people their own budget. They should be a part of the whole newsroom. It's got to happen so why the wait?

[adam & doctor drew]

I was mostly kidding.

in our new "multi-tasking" world, most stations are just having the field crews also generate stuff for the web, as "part of your day."

there might be one guy back at the shop who loads it all in.

but the idea of a separate web staff doesn't really fit the current tv news "model."

[southwesternguy]

I am really starting to think that this whole "backpack journalist" thing is going to take off soon. I used to disagree with it completely, but I know that it is inevitable.

I work in a big market shop. Let's say we have 20 reporters, and 20 photogs. In the future, there's going to be 40-50 reporter/photog's. The web and broadcast will be merged, and everything will be digital. There will be almost no distinction between broadcast and web. The journalist will upload their stories to the web, and also send them to the server for broadcast. Their vehicles will be state of the art, with wi-fi, and digital live shot capabilities. Digital/HD television/WWW will be one, and able to be seen on tv, web, smart phones, and elswhere. Everything will be "pick and click". No more waiting around for 6 or 10pm, people will get stuff when, where and how they want it.

It's not going to happen tomorrow, but it will happen, I believe. I'm not fond of the idea, and even though I haven't shot video in about 5 years, I can do it, and if the digital revolution happens during my time in the biz, I'll be ready.

[adam & doctor drew]

I am really starting to think that this whole "backpack journalist" thing is going to take off soon. I used to disagree with it completely, but I know that it is inevitable.

I work in a big market shop. Let's say we have 20 reporters, and 20 photogs. In the future, there's going to be 40-50 reporter/photog's.

if it were to really happen that way, then yes it would be nice.

but my cynical side suspects 20 of those people will be gone and the 20 who remain will be OMB, and low-paid ones at that.
hope I'm wrong.

[The Mockingbird]

I think you're going to see the end of multi-shop local news in all but the largest of markets.

[!]

if it were to really happen that way, then yes it would be nice.

but my cynical side suspects 20 of those people will be gone and the 20 who remain will be OMB, and low-paid ones at that.
hope I'm wrong.
That's exactly right.

For all the altruistic talk about 'more people on the streets,' the sole reason for OMBs is to save money, not to do better journalism.

[interloper]

I was mostly kidding.

in our new "multi-tasking" world, most stations are just having the field crews also generate stuff for the web, as "part of your day."

there might be one guy back at the shop who loads it all in.

but the idea of a separate web staff doesn't really fit the current tv news "model."

I do believe the wall between web and newsroom regulars will have to come down eventually. I don't believe it has to be some kind of backpack journalist end result. Those places with smaller dollars will go the backpack route and even in big markets there's space for backpackers. But the future is not just for backpackers. They can't deliver the quality in volume needed for the internet and users who want new things every time they log in.

Management is going to be stripped down. We don't need as many of them around. Lots of jobs will be less important or just disappear. But the jobs that count, the ones that make news content by going to the places news is happening and talking to the people involved will survive.

In house there has to be a big change in the way they think. Web and broadcast have to become one if for no other reason than to save money. If both are trying to cover the news you don't need two deparment heads for two seperate departments doing the same job for the same company.

[DoneThatToo]

I have to shake my head at Done That Too.

In one breath he claims the web made all kinds of profit with just their budget, in the next, admits the material was created and produced by other employees in the news department NOT a part of the web team.


Nope, never said the web made a profit. I did say that it has a better ROI based on the amount of money spent directly on web products. I also said that the overall web based revenue increased. Revenue increase does not necessarily mean profit.

Again, it gets back to the statement made that indicates that newsrooms pay for them selves. They don't. They do greatly help the overall station revenue but are not self sustaining. And again if you don't invest in your web page it will never be able to contribute to your station revenue.

Either I didn't clearly state my position or you read between the lines and draw your own conclusions. I have since my first post said that most web content is created by people already on the clock for broadcast news. You can't count the full cost of that product against the web budget. It is the same as adding that half hour newscast. Staff is in place and the product is created by people already being paid to be there. Any money generated is basically bonus to the revenue budget.

Does your station have a sales person dedicated to sales for your web page? We do. That person is paid base plus commission. Again we are making enough off of web sales to support that position and the web editor. And revenue will be expected to grow there just as we expect to increase it on the broadcast side.

Win-win.

[interloper]

Nope, never said the web made a profit. I did say that it has a better ROI based on the amount of money spent directly on web products. I also said that the overall web based revenue increased. Revenue increase does not necessarily mean profit.

Again, it gets back to the statement made that indicates that newsrooms pay for them selves. They don't. They do greatly help the overall station revenue but are not self sustaining. And again if you don't invest in your web page it will never be able to contribute to your station revenue.

Either I didn't clearly state my position or you read between the lines and draw your own conclusions. I have since my first post said that most web content is created by people already on the clock for broadcast news. You can't count the full cost of that product against the web budget. It is the same as adding that half hour newscast. Staff is in place and the product is created by people already being paid to be there. Any money generated is basically bonus to the revenue budget.

Does your station have a sales person dedicated to sales for your web page? We do. That person is paid base plus commission. Again we are making enough off of web sales to support that position and the web editor. And revenue will be expected to grow there just as we expect to increase it on the broadcast side.

Win-win.


Sorry if I misunderstood your point of view earlier. I appreciate your clarification.

I guess we work in different markets. Where I work, the news department does pay for itself. Believe me, if we weren't making a profit and relying on other deparments of the station to subsidize us, we'd have a lot fewer folks working here. It must be different where you work.

Yes, we do have a dedicated salesperson for our web side. It's interesting to watch because, unlike the tv side/sales relationship, the web/sales relationship seems much more important day to day. Not just tied to sweeps periods as has been the historical norm. This should be no surprise to me since it's an indication of the ever growing joining of the two in our newsrooms between web and broadcast.

How do you feel the web is helping the overall revenue of the station? I ask that with honest curiousity. Does the money spent on employees to run and keep the web site up to date actally turn into profit dollars? How?

After you add up the salaries for those in the web, how is more money coming into the station to offset those salaries and leave extra left over? Are sales for your web site ads paying for all the salaries and then some?

Good analogy comparing the web side to adding an extra news cast. That's something I hadn't thought about comparing it to.

[Chicago Dog]

but my cynical side suspects 20 of those people will be gone and the 20 who remain will be OMB, and low-paid ones at that.

It's already happened. Remember WKRN, KRON, and KGTV? Nobody wants to follow in the footsteps of those failures.

Everyone watched those disasters unfold -- and unfold they did. Everyone understands how stupid it was to create an all-OMB/VJ newsroom. Everyone understands how idiotic it was to listen to a guy with no newsroom experience whatsoever.

Careful! Disagreeing with him might get you labeled as an anti-semitic communist!

[DoneThatToo]

Sorry if I misunderstood your point of view earlier. I appreciate your clarification.

I guess we work in different markets. Where I work, the news department does pay for itself. Believe me, if we weren't making a profit and relying on other deparments of the station to subsidize us, we'd have a lot fewer folks working here. It must be different where you work.

Yes, we do have a dedicated salesperson for our web side. It's interesting to watch because, unlike the tv side/sales relationship, the web/sales relationship seems much more important day to day. Not just tied to sweeps periods as has been the historical norm. This should be no surprise to me since it's an indication of the ever growing joining of the two in our newsrooms between web and broadcast.

How do you feel the web is helping the overall revenue of the station? I ask that with honest curiousity. Does the money spent on employees to run and keep the web site up to date actally turn into profit dollars? How?

After you add up the salaries for those in the web, how is more money coming into the station to offset those salaries and leave extra left over? Are sales for your web site ads paying for all the salaries and then some?

Good analogy comparing the web side to adding an extra news cast. That's something I hadn't thought about comparing it to.

Congratulations on having a newsroom that supports itself. Do you do that solely on your newscasts or are there other newsroom produced products that help out? Specials topic shows such as hurricane / year enders / sports (HS, College, Pro) or talk-interview formats? Any way you do it is a good thing! Our newsroom helps local sales but is not self supporting. And trust me; staff size has changed to fit the economic times. Fewer dollars = fewer bodies, everywhere.

As for our web site adding to the overall station revenue I would have to say the percentage is negligible. But it does cover the cost of the two bodies associated with it, sales and content manager. Two positions that would not exist if it wasn't for our dedication to building our internet exposure. It took a few years to get to this point to be sure. As with most start up business, and that is how we view it, it takes awhile to build the customer base.

The thing about sales and web working closely on a daily basis is pretty easy to understand. Here at least it is. Our web content guy is the go between for all departments locally and the corporate side of web management. Yes or corporate owners have a separate staff just to manage web sites for all their properties.

Sales wants to add a client to the web. So the product has to be designed, is it a banner and animation or an embedded video? Web man has to coordinate build of the product depending on what type of product is going up, make sure that the page layout can accommodate the product, and deliver the product (FTP is great!) to our server, then make sure the product runs as sold. So basically the web manager is the same as the traffic department for broadcast.

Throw in the bonus that we can give you total page views and unique page views and what pages those views were on at any given time you have instant numbers to hand to sales. We are not a metered market so we can't do that for our broadcast. That is why your internet sales person has to understand the internet, what pages viewed represent and how to explain that to a potential client.

Oh and if you are doing news specials, you do post them to the web for folks to watch don't you?

Dam* I didn't mean to write a book! :rockon:

[interloper]

Thanks for the book. Informative and I appreciate it. We have eight people dedicated to our web department that cover web needs 24/7/365. Plus an additional person from sales working the usual 9-5, M-F sales hours. One of the eight is the web department head but he is not the IT for our station. He is however similar to a second news director around the newsroom. IT duties are a three other people based in engineering and show up rarely in the newsroom unless someone is having computer difficulties.

More and more our photogs are coming back and making sure they know raw video is in and the web folks either put some raw video up pertaining to the story, with the actual aired story up on the site as soon as it is broadcast. They are also making slide shows from raw video as well. Not lots of slide show but one or two a day with ten or twelve stills pulled from the video and promoted in a special section on the station home page.

The photogs seem to be more inclined to deal one on one with the "web head" coordinating just-in video but our assignment desk is the real gem so far. Keeping the web people up to date on crew and story status plus the head AE does a web tease of the upcoming stories for the evening news shows.

Thanks for helping me better understand how your place works.

[WeatherSlave]

Let's face it - if the station "does news", then it's no longer just a "TV" station. These places are "Information dissemination stations" and as such should be working to do local broadcasts, but also maintain staffs to do local web and podcast updates. The web allows and demands instant/round the clock updates on big stories cause we know we can't just wait for the 6 o'clock news to bring people big news from the community. Webcasts and updates can be prepared very quickly, if not completely, and should be promoted. It's the "web-age" if you will. And, if you won't, then be prepared for YOUR "tv news station" to just fade away!

With the web, every tv news organization should find a little CNN in them and be prepared to do webcasts at each point where substantial new information becomes available to warrant it. Waiting for the next newscast to deliver the goods is just another way to slowly dig your own grave. And, maybe this will finally kill the practice of doing half the story at 5, and saving the rest for 6 just to get a good tease out of it. If you can't tell me the whole story now, I'm going someplace else. You do news so do it,,, don't hold it. On the air or on the web offer it to your audience as hot as possible once you get it out of the info oven!!!