Once again, I apologize to everyone offended by the comment that made it through, following a previous post. There have been a few comments critical of me and suggestions of other TV personalities who I have criticized in the past that I now have to apologize to. This is the last time I will address this topic. A reader very adequately wrote, "actually the Rebecca comments were just his opinion... the Megan stuff was just plain mean." Once again I didn't write the Megan comments and they were not my opinion, but nonetheless I let them through and I have apologized for that. Comments about others are my opinions of the business about people who, after all are in the public eye. Are they like elected officials and voted in by the people? No not in that official sense. One could argue, though, voting occurs with the ratings' books. But the reporters profit (not with much money) by being in the public eye, so as long as they are not ruthless personal assaults, I think they are game to be praised and criticized in a careful manner. Enough on that. As I was reading the comments, one stuck out. The comment was why I should stop the blog and that my comments are petty. Here is an excerpt:
Some of your criticism's are petty and contrary to what you may believe, the reporters you criticize are still fairly fresh, still learning, and no, they do not make a ton of money. Last thing they need is someone like you criticizing their every mistake.
Those comments tell the tale of the future of local TV news. It tells of a not so bright future for local TV news as we know it, not just here but all over the country. The reader writes, "..the reporters you criticize are still fairly fresh, still learning.." I agree and that is the problem with TV news, not just here in Wichita, but all over. Even just a decade ago if you were graduating from college and wanted to get into the business, it was understood you would have to start in a small market like Corpus Christi, TX; Amarillo, TX; Joplin, MO; Topeka, or even a bureau in Kansas. You would do your time, learn the business and then move here and some would stay here for some time, while others would move on up more quickly. Over a decade ago the stations in Wichita, like much of the country, had a number of reporters, not including anchors who were at their stations for 5+ or more years. They were career journalists in Wichita at their stations. Now do to the economics of TV stations and a psychology in the reporters, being at a single station for a number of years can be looked down upon. Many young reporters out of school today see the glamor of the business in bigger markets and think they can make it to the national level, in part because pay and the quality of life can be tough in smaller markets. Often times when they are looking to move up, being at one station for an extended time can be looked upon as negative, unfortunately. Looking at the stations here in Wichita, I can think of only a couple of reporters who have been here a number of years, know, live and have rooted families in the communities and because of this they do solid work consistently. Kudos to them. I am not criticizing those who use this as a step to a better job, because the nature and economics of the business today have caused this. It has always happened here to some point, but now if you don't leave town, move up or get out of the business after some years, you are the rare exception. To me, many of these young and inexperienced reporters (some I have mentioned before and some I haven't....yet) will only add to a spiraling snow ball that will leave to an unwatchable product and one that I think will eventually kill most of the local TV news in the next decade. Outside of the friendly talk with the anchors and weather guy, why would I want to sit through a clueless inexperienced reporter tell me something, that they clearly know nothing about, when I can just read it now at my own pace on the internet? Its a harsh prediction of the industry's future. And in some cases it is well underway. Thanks to the reader who pointed me to this story off of the Lost Remote blog:
http://www.lostremote.com/2007/08/13/internet-news-audience-critical-of-traditional-news-media/
The premise of the story is those who are increasingly turning to the internet for news are doing so because they do not like TV news. As corporate bottom lines become tougher and tougher to meet, cheap inexperienced and unwatchable talent will be the norm and the audience will tune out to the point it will make more sense for the stations to run an infomercial or a Judge Judy rerun. -Hal
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Lost remote is a website that premotes all things web and bashes TV constantly. If you actually did your research you would know that. They are hardly an accurate or fair source for information.
As for you...why should we care what you think? You say it's just one guy's opinion but you have the nerve to lecture us how to do our jobs? What do you do Hal? What is your background? Where have you worked? If you are going to lecture, criticize and attack people for doing their jobs then we have a right to know who you are. Otherwise you are what a growing number of people here see you as, a hack who couldn't cut it and now attacks people who did make it.
And if you did any checking you would see that most of the reporters here, at all the stations, have come from other stations and smaller markets and have earned their chops. Just because you don't like them personally, think they are just biding their time before moving on, don't like how they look... doesn't mean they aren't good. Again what is your experience to judge others?
Hal is on the defensive.
I actually side with Hal. If You people are so upset then STOP READING. I for one, enjoy the blog. I am not an employee of one of the stations, but do work in media (radio) and find the commentary interesting. You think this is harsh, wait until you younger folks get in the bigger markets. I used to work in LA and some of the anchors/reporters were featured in gossip papers, where it was mean spirted half the time. Hal has every right to do this as long as it remains legal.
If you want to voice your opinion that's fine too, but grow up. Hal isn't going to stop this because someone's feelings were hurt....
although I DO agree on the Strader issue; again that wasn't Hal.
Younger folks? How old do you think we were 18, 19? Most reporters in this market at in their late 20's and this is their second or sometimes third move up.
Unfortunately what Hal states alot of people do not like to read, I personally dont either, but its the truth.
The demographics of people who watch local newscasts and read newspapers is clearly older, and older people aren't just multiplying and a growing population base.
One reason I think he may believe the reporters aren't as good now as they used to be is because of a reason not stated. 10-15 years ago most Fox stations in the US did not have newscasts. Now most do and even many CW stations have newscasts, As a result there are more reporters then ever, and the talent pool is thinner. This effects medium markets alot as they used to hang around here more, they have an easier time going up to larger markets. However, I dont think this trend will last and we will gradually see less stations produce news and try to cut costs.
jon said -
"Older people aren't just multiplying and a growing population base."
Actually this isn't entirely true.
According to US Census projections, the group of people with the largest growth in numbers will be older people. Sure, younger more internet savvy people will continue to grow in numbers as well... but not nearly as much as the older crowd.
After all, the leading edge of the Baby Boomers are hitting their mid sixties. That means continued growth in this age range for at least another 10+ years.
Past that glob of population... I think life expectancy will continue to increase.. and so there will be many more folks living longer, thus accounting for the larger comparative growth in number of older people.
The key for television is to adapt, and not simply continue to doing essentially the same things over and over again.
Hal-I couldn't agree with you more about the state of news.
But I think one thing is to blame: corporations who could care less about the quality of news, buying up stations.
For example, it used to be there would be no hesititation by stations send a crew traveling for a big story.
Now the question is-how much will it cost?
We've become a nation consumed by profit, not quality.
The guy above comparing LA to Wichita is ignorant. LA is a much bigger market and criticism and tabloid stuff comes with the territory, and a heftier paycheck.
Do you want to hold the Wranglers to the same standards of scrutiny as the Yankees?
Stick with radio cause you know nothing about tv.
Post a Comment