A Generation of Local Anchors is Signing Off

[commercial hack]

A trend that may not end.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/business/media/01anchor.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

[wx or not]

Truer, yet sadder, words have never been written.

[Scarlet Termite]

Forgive my naivette, but isn't this an economic situation? I've read alot of you media folks saying that stations replace good people with young folks right out of school because they don't have to pay them as much.

And, honestly, isn't a quarter of a million dollars a bit much? I know you guys work hard and have families to feed but it just seems extravagant to me.

[wx or not]

Forgive my naivette, but isn't this an economic situation? I've read alot of you media folks saying that stations replace good people with young folks right out of school because they don't have to pay them as much.

And, honestly, isn't a quarter of a million dollars a bit much? I know you guys work hard and have families to feed but it just seems extravagant to me.
The actual dollar amount may seem high, but you must consider the relative dollar amount and its buying power in a specific DMA. Denver is not inexpensive. The same $250,000 there would definitely be worth a LOT more in Columbus, Ohio.

[Scarlet Termite]

I see what you mean.

[Pro]

How much is "too much"? Isn't it all relative to what you can negotiate?

[wx or not]

How much is "too much"?
Aw, geez, Pro. Now we're getting into existentialism...:)

[tater]

How much is "too much"? Isn't it all relative to what you can negotiate?

When your dollar amount can't fit into the station's budget.

[Pro]

When your dollar amount can't fit into the station's budget.

Then the station must reduce its offer during the next contract negotiation. And be prepared for the anchor to walk. And if said anchor had any viewer loyalty, be prepared for a ratings drop. That's the business.

[Clever Login Name]

I never begrudge anyone ... TeeVee anchor, athlete, tycoon ... any salary that someone is willing to pay them. Conversely, I see no problem in a business deciding that the same expenditure is not in their best interests and eliminating or reducing that expense.

[Pro]

I see no problem in a business deciding that the same expenditure is not in their best interests and eliminating or reducing that expense.

As long as they don't scream about the ramifications of cutting that expense. But a lot of businesses think they can cut expenses and still do "business as usual"....and when that doesn't happen, they panic and cut even MORE expenses. Til eventually, they go out of business.

[22]

As long as they don't scream about the ramifications of cutting that expense. But a lot of businesses think they can cut expenses and still do "business as usual"....and when that doesn't happen, they panic and cut even MORE expenses. Til eventually, they go out of business.

Bingo! It is that Jack Welsh buisness model that pays no attention to the quality of the product. It is that philosphy that is so prevelent in busness, both small and large. It is a belief that you can increase the bottom line simply by the way you manage the buisness. This discounts the fact that consumers are discerning, and will gravitate to the best product. So when you cut expenses and expect your product will stay the same, you have made the first step to furthering your losses.

This is not only true in television, Too many buisnesses are doing this and it just one of the many contributing factors to our failing economy. Jspanese care makers made better cars. That's how they beat Detroit. Not by cutting their expenses.

The old buisness model said that if you can make a better product, you can beat the competitor. And if you can make it cheaper, so much the better... but first, the product has to be better.

I am always reminded of Rodney Dangerfield in "Back to School"....

[Bubucutti]

CNN International did a great story last month with a Japanese airline, one of the top ten airlines in the world. The CEO cut his own salary down to about $90,000/yr, less than most of his pilots.

After Japan's economic bubble burst, their business leaders say they learned that if the bottom line for their business is strictly generating money, the business model is weak and cannot be sustained. They believe that you save money and invest in building a better business model..then the monetary rewards follow sucess.

http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=fF6lxILnRuE&eurl=http://www.japanprobe.com/?paged=4

Bingo! It is that Jack Welsh buisness model that pays no attention to the quality of the product. It is that philosphy that is so prevelent in busness, both small and large. It is a belief that you can increase the bottom line simply by the way you manage the buisness. This discounts the fact that consumers are discerning, and will gravitate to the best product. So when you cut expenses and expect your product will stay the same, you have made the first step to furthering your losses.

This is not only true in television, Too many buisnesses are doing this and it just one of the many contributing factors to our failing economy. Jspanese care makers made better cars. That's how they beat Detroit. Not by cutting their expenses.

The old buisness model said that if you can make a better product, you can beat the competitor. And if you can make it cheaper, so much the better... but first, the product has to be better.

I am always reminded of Rodney Dangerfield in "Back to School"....

[Clever Login Name]

As long as they don't scream about the ramifications of cutting that expense. But a lot of businesses think they can cut expenses and still do "business as usual"....and when that doesn't happen, they panic and cut even MORE expenses. Til eventually, they go out of business.

Sure ... let them make decisions as best they see fit, and if they suffer ill consequences because of it, then too bad, so sad.

[Ralphie the buffalo]

It is that Jack Welsh buisness model

Do you mean Jack Welch the former CEO of General Electric???
Every year he would fire the bottom 10% performing managers and reward the top 20%.
He cut inventories and tore apart bureaucracy.
Are you talking about "Neutron Jack"?

And anchors make a lot of money because they spend a lot of money.
Simple concept, huh?

[22]

Do you mean Jack Welch the former CEO of General Electric???
Every year he would fire the bottom 10% performing managers and reward the top 20%.
He cut inventories and tore apart bureaucracy.
Are you talking about "Neutron Jack"?

And anchors make a lot of money because they spend a lot of money.
Simple concept, huh?

Yes, I am talking about him. But that buisness model is one he learned AFTER having done it the other way for so long. It is in his second book

[2:30]

One of these days the bean counters will figure out that cheaper talent is a short term fix that inexorably leads to lower ratings and lower revenue.

You have to wonder how many stations they'll ruin first - or whether they'll tank the whole business.

[commercial hack]

One of these days the bean counters will figure out that cheaper talent is a short term fix that inexorably leads to lower ratings and lower revenue.

You have to wonder how many stations they'll ruin first - or whether they'll tank the whole business.

Well it's the end and Hell is freezing over! I agree with 2:30.

[newz2me]

As long as they don't scream about the ramifications of cutting that expense. But a lot of businesses think they can cut expenses and still do "business as usual"....and when that doesn't happen, they panic and cut even MORE expenses. Til eventually, they go out of business.
Sure ... let them make decisions as best they see fit, and if they suffer ill consequences because of it, then too bad, so sad.

Nah, we'll just bail them out. Isn't that what we do these days?

[adam & doctor drew]

I never begrudge anyone ... TeeVee anchor, athlete, tycoon ... any salary that someone is willing to pay them. Conversely, I see no problem in a business deciding that the same expenditure is not in their best interests and eliminating or reducing that expense.

I agree.
and the Denver station mentioned in the article has been in last place forever.
respectfully, there was no reason to keep paying that anchor 250.

[The Fedora]

250k? For A Last Place Station? Huh, I'd Do The Job For Half That...

[Diggin' Bear]

250k? For A Last Place Station? Huh, I'd Do The Job For Half That...

Hmm...$125k in NYC? Chicago at Channel 2, the home of the Bikini Bandit? In DC, at the worst NBC affilliate ever?

Don't think $125k would go far in them there cities. You'd definitely be on NYC Matt's B-list. Maybe even C.

[The Fedora]

No, $125k in Denver.

I'd still do it for $125k in DC. To be able to live near home would be awesome. Plus, Mrs Fedora could get that museum job she wants (and probably make more than me).

[Produce man]

Well it's the end and Hell is freezing over! I agree with 2:30.That IS scary!!:eek: :confused:

[mark the voice]

Interesting stuff from The New York Times. Long but worth it.
December 1, 2008
A Generation of Local TV Anchors Is Signing Off
By BRIAN STELTER

One of the most familiar voices in Denver is about to sign off for the last time.

In October, three weeks after Ernie Bjorkman, an institution in Colorado television, signed a new annual contract worth close to a quarter of a million dollars, he was told he was being let go by KWGN, the CW affiliate in Denver, a victim of consolidation with another station.

In the self-assured baritone of his profession, Mr. Bjorkman, a 36-year television veteran who will be paid through the end of his contract period, said, “I don’t think we’re going to see the anchor people grow old with the audience anymore.”

Across the country, longtime local TV anchors are a dying breed. Facing an economic slump and a severe advertising downturn, many stations have cut costs drastically in the last year, and veteran anchors, with their expensive contracts, seem to be shouldering a disproportionate share of the cutbacks. When station managers are forced to make cuts, hefty anchor salaries are a tempting target.

In Chicago, the 23-year anchor Diann Burns was laid off from WBBM. In Boston, the renowned sports anchor Bob Lobel was let go by WBZ. In Houston, the 26-year veteran Carolyn Campbell was dismissed from KHOU.

When the anchors depart, they take decades of experience and insight with them. “Basically, you replace someone who knows City Hall with someone who can’t find it,” said John Beard, who lost his job at KTTV last December after 26 years as a news anchor in Los Angeles.

Almost all of the country’s 1,300 television stations with network affiliations have a face, or a pair of faces, that represent their news operations better than any logo or commercial can. Many years after signing off, the larger-than-life characters are still fixtures of newscast lore, like Bill Beutel in New York, Fahey Flynn in Chicago and Ann Bishop in Miami.

While some anchors in top markets can still command million-dollar salaries — like Chuck Scarborough and Sue Simmons on WNBC in New York — the positions are becoming more vulnerable to the market forces that are roiling local TV, analysts say.

“There is certainly an erosion of longtime anchors happening at many stations across the country, for a very simple reason: economics,” said Al Primo, a television news consultant who developed the “Eyewitness News” format in the 1960s and 1970s.

Mr. Primo says anchors’ salaries now seem “out of sync with the reality” of budgets. As stations record lower revenue, managers are trying to adjust anchor salaries accordingly.

“We’ve been aggressive in our cost controls,” said Peter Diaz, the executive vice president of the Belo Corporation, which instituted a companywide wage freeze at its 20 TV stations in mid-November. Although anchors have separate contracts, they have been asked to participate in the freeze, and many have agreed, he said.

Local TV, although it lacks the glamour of the network nightly news or the prestige of print newspapers, remains the most popular single source of news in the United States. Slightly more than half of the population watches local news regularly, according to the Pew Research Center for People and the Press, while only 34 percent read a newspaper each day and 29 percent watch a network evening newscast.

But the ratings for the broadcasts have gradually eroded over the years. The typical late newscast now reaches 12 percent of viewers watching TV in a given market, down from 21 percent 10 years ago.

The news departments are not alone in feeling the squeeze. Advertising is falling sharply, partly because of cutbacks in spending by automakers and car dealerships, which represent the single largest category of advertiser for broadcasters.

Until mid-November, a trade association for stations, the Television Bureau of Advertising, had expected total commercial revenue to be flat compared with 2007. It revised the forecast, however, and predicted a 7.1 percent decline. The group expects a 7 to 11 percent decrease in revenue next year. Already, the financial pressures are trickling down to newsrooms.

“The conditions are as bad as I’ve ever seen, and I’ve been on TV since 1980,” said Rich Rodriguez, who is 54 and has anchored newscasts for 20 years, most recently at KSEE in Fresno, Calif. He was laid off in October. When the station’s general manager asked him to take a 25 percent pay cut, Mr. Rodriguez refused. He was fired the same day his first grandchild was born.

“It’s scary for people over 50,” he said.

Many stations — and viewers — still place a premium on the gravitas that older anchors provide. But confronted by the era of always-available news and information on the Internet, local stations are being forced to rethink their mission.

On the Web, users can assemble their own newscast from an around-the-clock buffet of options, making anchors seem somewhat superfluous, especially to younger viewers. Perhaps as a result, station layoffs are in the news almost every day now, said Tom Petner, who edits the television industry newsletter ShopTalk.

“The industry is moving from star players to more of a team sport,” he said.

News is still a profit center for many local TV owners; it represents about 40 percent of an average station’s revenue. But as that revenue shrinks, local news operations have automated many of their technical operations and spread their staffs ever more thinly.

“There aren’t a lot of bodies left to cut, unless you scale back newscasts,” said Robert Papper, chairman of Hofstra University’s journalism department. After surveying 300 newsrooms last summer, Mr. Papper projected that about 360 local TV news jobs had been lost this year. (That represents only a small fraction of the thousands of journalists laid off by newspapers, though TV news operates with a much smaller base of employees.)

Mr. Papper says longtime anchors at top-rated stations in local markets are at little risk of being laid off. But “if I were a very highly paid anchor of a No. 3 station, I’d be really nervous,” he said.

Looking forward, Mr. Bjorkman, the Colorado newsman, says he doubts that many TV anchors will manage to stay in the same market for decades. He expects more mergers, consolidations and cost-cutting as local news grapples with competition online and on digital channels.

His last day in local TV will be Dec. 31. Presciently, Mr. Bjorkman, 57, started taking veterinary technician classes two years ago, acting on a decades-old dream of working with animals. While Mr. Bjorkman has been performing his veterinary internships, some residents have recognized him, and a few have wondered whether he was working undercover on an investigative reporting assignment.

He has explained to them, this will be his new full-time assignment. He finished his course work in September, two weeks before he found out he would lose his anchor job. “I’m ready to reinvent myself,” he said.
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

[Gil]

Welcome to a brave new world. There has been a lot of discussion of the value of anchors here on Medialine and elsewhere, but the facts speak for themselves. We live in a supply and demand world, and right now the demand for expensive anchors is pretty low. You can argue about value... but the value of anything is determined by what someone is willing to pay for it.

[Produce man]

Glad I'm behind the camera now!

[Brooklyn]

Glad I'm behind the camera now!

I'm sure your entire DMA is, too... :shifty:

[Mighty Dyckerson]

Glad I'm behind the camera now!

Janitors usually are...

[Sigonfile]

Expensive, multi-year, contracted anchors are like gas guzzling Cadillacs in a Chevy Aveo "World of Broadcasting.":(

[wx or not]

Expensive, multi-year, contracted anchors are like gas guzzling Cadillacs in a Chevy Aveo "World of Broadcasting.":(
I drive an Aveo. I love it, but my wife can't stand it. (go ahead, this one's open to interpretation....)

[overthehill]

In this new media world of online multimedia journalism, who needs news readers to introduce stories?!? I can pick and choose which stories I want to watch...and I don't need a high priced anchor to introduce the video.

If there's something to cut in the newsroom budget, don't renew the high paid news readers' contracts.

Sure there is the tradition of the credible anchor and there are older viewers who still want the Walter Cronkite-like anchor, but those viewers are dying off.

Anchors who are ONLY anchors will die out fast. Does anyone have anchors who are solely readers anymore? The anchor-reporter/anchor-producer, solo-anchor approach to newscast production is common.

The TV crystal ball at my house predicts fewer anchors, more opportunities for content providers (reporter VJ types) and producers and fewer assignment desk type jobs. Weather jobs will still be in demand, but not sports directors. Local TV sports will face tougher and tougher staffing challenges. The sports reporter may remain though.
When I started in TV news, crews from large markets had a reporter, photog, soundman and maybe a tag-a-long producer. We now frequently see only the photog/reporter. That evolution of newsroom jobs isn't going to end soon.

[RoyMcAvoy]

Also consider the market itself. In this case, with Denver, did KWGN even have enough viewers to justify a salary of that size? It's one thing if it's a 25 share station in Market 18. I don't have any Nielsen numbers with me but if that's a 2 share in Market 18, of course, 250k is far beyond what's reasonable.

I will always believe the key to survivability in this business is to not make the most in any newsroom but try and be able to offer the most to the newsroom. It means more than anchoring -- even if you don't get into the field very often, then learn to post on-line (with video), offer to cut tapes or take on more of the writing responsibility.

The newspaper industry is freaking out right now with the job cuts. Yet so many papers have been bloated for decades and we're now at about 15 years since they all starting giving away their content for free. Ugh...

On top of this, when I worked for the gentleman Mr. "Gil" in the above post on this page, we had two sports guys and the newspaper behind us had 11 people in the department. And that was in a triple-digit market. 11 people! I heard they are now down to 6 full-time and a 1 part time. (Of course, a TV sports department requires less manpower than a sports section that is 6-pages minimum but 11 people?!? And it wasn't even that good.)

I've also had some projects that required me to compile e-mail addresses of various newspaper editors across the nation. On the 'Contact Us' pages, I've come across Book Editors in Toledo, Entertainment Editors in Bowling Green, KY and I wonder how the papers stayed afloat...

We're also seeing this through Gannett. In Wisconsin, the company has a handful of newspapers that are, literally, within 30 miles of each other. As much as I'm all for local coverage, what in the business sense in keeping five reporters between two neighboring papers when the area can probably be covered with three or four? Not saying I like it but I understand it.

I would argue TV has dealt with the job cuts for years with most ownership groups. We are probably less resistant to change from management because TV news is always changing. We're now more Web-based and each of us needs to have that tool set along with the traditional TV side of journalism.

Hang in there, all!

[Roy Hobbs]

By BRIAN STELTER
***Loved him with Stray Cats!

“The industry is moving from star players to more of a team sport,” he said.

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

And there's always room for one more Song Girl once you can the veterans!
http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/7963/songgirls2kk1.jpg

[Roy Hobbs]

Glad I'm behind the camera now!

Yes, but mostly you're a behind :moon:

[s'news]

I still think there's a market for people that you know, and have known for some time, looking you in the eye and reading the news. I think that stations where that happens will have a leg up on the competition.

But yes, I understand the budgetary reasons.

[22]

You can argue about value... but the value of anything is determined by what someone is willing to pay for it.

That isn't quite true. There is an inherint value to good journalism. The public's right to know. The freedom of the press. All of that other stuff that seems to have left the electronic media.

This has nothing to do with ratings or dollars. There is a value to what we all do. Even if you disagree with me... you still have value.

When we started to measure our success in dollars and ratings, we started going downhill.

Who here would not agree that TV (not just news) was better 20 years ago?

So why did we quit doing it THAT way?

Oh yeah... I forgot... the internet.

[adam & doctor drew]

plus there were 5-10 channels then.

[wx or not]

Who here would not agree that TV (not just news) was better 20 years ago? So why did we quit doing it THAT way?
Weather was a lot easier back then as well, but there is the law of diminishing returns. As the broadcasters continued under the old ways, overhead and capital expenditures started to take more and more of a bite out of the revenues. Either expand your revenue base or cut costs. Since no identifiable way exists to expand revenue other than to pass along advertising fee increases, costs had to be trimmed. And the suffering began.

[Jane Craig]

Also, the MBAs started taking over broadcast groups in the '90s, replacing legacy broadcasters who, though most came from sales, had respect for the business beyond a balance sheet.

[TV Dad]

When we started to measure our success in dollars and ratings, we started going downhill.

Who here would not agree that TV (not just news) was better 20 years ago?

So why did we quit doing it THAT way?

Oh yeah... I forgot... the internet.

It wasn't the internet that started this slide. It was the remote control and cable tv. Viewers suddenly had choices and it only took the flick of a finger to exercise those options. So...they did. Fewer eyeballs meant less ad revenue which meant less operating funds which meant SOMETHING had to give.

[TAFKA wacowx]

It wasn't the internet that started this slide. It was the remote control and cable tv. Viewers suddenly had choices and it only took the flick of a finger to exercise those options. So...they did. Fewer eyeballs meant less ad revenue which meant less operating funds which meant SOMETHING had to give.

Agreed. If anything, the internet is/will be the salvation of a portion of the TV stations out there (maybe one or two per market will survive) . Cable is ABSOLUTELY the reason for the downfall of local TV. When you go from having 3-5 choices up to 100s, you will drift away to other things. The internet hasted the demise (you could get info any time you wanted and don't have to wait for the newcast.) but just by comparing newscast ratings from 1975 to 1985 and seeing the drop pre-internet, you will see that something happened. It got even worse in the decade that followed with increased cable penetration and the dawn of sat TV AND the proliferation of channels.

I also agree wholeheartedly with Lou Grant...err...overthehill, that we really do not need anchors. The future will be an on-demand one and therefore, why would there be a need to have a talking head do intros and readers? If I am interested in a story that does not have compelling video (what would be a plain old 'reader' in a newscasts today) I will want to READ about it rather than sit through video of someone reading it to me! The more compelling video will come within packages that will be self-contained without any intro necessary. Delivery to mobile devices and potentially cable, internet and satellite 'TV' boxes will allow an on-demand newscast you can assemble yourself. Those that have to ability to craft self-contained content like that will be the winners. And I also argue that the winners will be the ones that offer more...I mean actually offer more...on their website: in-depth information that cannot be gleaned from these 'packages'. TV stations right now need to learn this. Just copying and pasting the script to the web just doesn't cut it. In order to drive me to your site, you need to offer me more, or else it's a waste of my time.

[overthehill]

Several things have led to the decline we see today in TV news:

1. Deregulation of the broadcast industry. Not holding the owners and license holders feet to the fire on public service. Public service is no longer a station mission. It's sold as a promotional phrase. "We're committed to the community!" Sure you are, he said sarcastically. Today's powerful owners aren't broadcast oriented and certainly not public service minded. They want everything to make a buck or remove it from air. Shareholders come before viewers.

2. Technology. Some of it is internet-related, cable, VHS-DVD, video games, satellite TV. Some relates to our own success in allowing technology (live and SNG, etc.) to dictate the stories we tell. Live for the sake of live. Whiz-bang graphics and other eye candy because, well, we can.

3. Consultants and the GMs who believe in them. We all look and sound alike anymore. Peoria, Pittsburgh, St. Petersburg, Paducah. Our formats, our talent, our graphics look like the other guys.

4. Our own success. As our newscasts became more and more profitable in the 1980s, GMs and NDs added more newscasts, longer morning show. But we had little content with which to fill, so we bought syndicated news, medical reports, consumer stories that were not local and didn't relate to viewers well. We also started covering stories because we could--distant ones, trying to be like network. We lost localism to just fill the added time and sell more breaks.

5. A few high profile screwups. Call it bad reporting, ethical lapses, misconduct. A few bad apples in our industry have ruined our level of trust and credibility with viewers. You know who they are.

6. Advertisers growing influence in the newsroom. Our station bosses have allowed sales and advertisers to sway the way we cover stories, approach the news. That wall between sales and news has grown thinner and thinner.

7. Complacency. Face it. We're pretty content doing today what we did yesterday, not rocking the boat with stronger journalism in our communities. We cover the same ole same ole year after year. Break the mold.

[Calvin]

To overthehill's list I would add consolidation. There are fewer small and/or locally-owned stations or groups. As stations and station groups were swallowed by big companies, profit margins from broadcast were often seen as a buffer against less successful portions of the big company. Even within groups, the more profitable stations were squeezed to help out the struggling ones and a spiral began.

[wx or not]

Calvin, you appear to be on the side of the "doom and gloom"ers. What suggestions, if taken at face value and implementable, would you suggest to save the industry?

[Calvin]

Great question. Wish I could answer it. Every aspect of every operation needs a keen eye toward quality and efficiency. It shouldn't have to be a tradeoff. Find new ways to deliver important and compelling content quickly and efficiently, without breaking the bank -- and without further alientating viewers.

[wx or not]

Great question. Wish I could answer it. Every aspect of every operation needs a keen eye toward quality and efficiency. It shouldn't have to be a tradeoff. Find new ways to deliver important and compelling content quickly and efficiently, without breaking the bank -- and without further alientating viewers.
That is more of a vision statement. Any specific ideas?

[Calvin]

wxornot, if I did, I'd be getting rich off them!

[s'news]

To overthehill's list I would add consolidation. There are fewer small and/or locally-owned stations or groups. As stations and station groups were swallowed by big companies, profit margins from broadcast were often seen as a buffer against less successful portions of the big company. Even within groups, the more profitable stations were squeezed to help out the struggling ones and a spiral began.

Agreed. Which, by chance, is word that can't be spelled without "greed."

[Produce man]

Yes, but mostly you're a behind :moon:Wow...:rolleyes:

[Basically A Nice Guy]

Who here would not agree that TV (not just news) was better 20 years ago?

How in the world was tv better pre-1988?

Today there is more diversity than ever before. That means much more programming. That means much more opportunity for choice.

No way was the olden days better. Unless you're talking about the Honeymooners and I Love Lucy. But then you gotta ignore The Sopranos, The Wire and Sex and the City.

[wx or not]

Today there is more diversity than ever before. That means much more programming. That means much more opportunity for choice.
Quoting Bruce Springsteen, "57 Channels, and nothing's on."

[22]

How in the world was tv better pre-1988?

Today there is more diversity than ever before. That means much more programming. That means much more opportunity for choice.

No way was the olden days better. Unless you're talking about the Honeymooners and I Love Lucy. But then you gotta ignore The Sopranos, The Wire and Sex and the City.

The collective quality of all the shows was better pre 1988. I could drone on endlessly with examples, but you still would be obstinate. If you don't think so... fine. Some people actually like beets. There is no explaining bad taste or ignorance.

But you are correct in that there are some individual programs today that are better than anything in the past.

Did anyone else notice that the Golden Globes are dominated by cable TV?

[Fargin Icehole]

Let me see.....

If your talent actually puts in a hard day's work, then keep them. I would rather have employees that actually work. Reward productivity. "What if they cut news" you ask? Fine. Run "Seinfeld" reruns. I'll still have a job.

So (on the local level) if they cut the high-priced 10-hour-a-week slacker "talent" for a newbie go-getter out of college, phuck 'em.