Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 06/04/22 in all areas

  1. To be fair, we have only been asking for CNN to cut back on “Breaking News” since this
    4 points
  2. New President Chris Licht says he wants to cut down on using the "Breaking News" chyron. Personally, I support this completely.
    4 points
  3. Since when does CBS daytime have anything to do with “Nexstar buying The CW”? Seems like that discussion should take place anywhere else. As for rebranding, if they decide to change their target audience to “middle America,” as some articles speculate, then I could see a name change. But then again, name recognition is one of the hardest things to earn. Maybe they would consider “WGN America.” It has some recognition and the name was recently vacated by their new corporate owners… /s
    3 points
  4. I used to enjoy prior versions of The Talk, as it was a more lighthearted version of The View that did not focus exclusively on politics. But my favorite hostess was Sharon Osbourne and I felt it was wrong they forced her off the program. Not a fan of identity politics or the cancel culture. She may be eccentric, elitist, and a bit arrogant, but she is not racist. She only stood up for Piers Morgan and his right to state his opinion. She should have perhaps been suspended for hostile demeanor but certainly not fired from the program. Now it has moved in a new direction with the male hosts, and I really only appreciate Natalie Morales but would rather see her talents utilized in the CBS News division, as NBC had demoted her on Today.
    2 points
  5. I remember when Les Moonves first announced the CW name, even back then industry insiders thought the name was stupid. But executives felt it didn't matter; they were already full steam ahead, and they had no choice but to keep it. I can see the same thing here, and if anything, there's probably even less incentive to change it; unlike back then, The CW as a brand is firmly established. People know what it is, so why risk confusing the public with a new name? It was actually the same logic used by Nickelodeon executives when they decided against renaming it as part of their move to bring it up from the bottom of the cable ratings back in the mid 80s. Even though it didn't make much sense to the target audience (being inspired by a format that hadn't been relevant since before movies had sound), it was already known to the public, and in the long run, it didn't matter - Nickelodeon, as we all know, saw its ratings skyrocket, and was one of the highest rated networks on TV before streaming came along.
    2 points
  6. Although unlikely, it would be neat if NexstarCW became more of a full network. With a nightly NewsNation block once or twice a day. Maybe other cheap programming cobbled together from their various resources. Although unlikely, it would be neat if NexstarCW became more of a full network. With a nightly NewsNation block once or twice a day. Maybe other cheap programming cobbled together from their various resources. Nexstar being in a unique position of being able to own many of their stations. Would Nexstar have to swap their network affiliates? Seems like it would be awkward running affiliates for other networks. Also,is there any possibility this doesn't become WGNA 2.0. Trib wanted to compete on the scale of USA and TNT and failed big time.
    1 point
  7. Agreed! "Happening Now" works just fine if newscasts need some false urgency. While we're at it, can we stop overusing "breaking overnight", speaking in half sentences, overdramatizing "severe" weather that happens all the time and using the present tense for everything. Don't get me wrong, news always needs a little spice of drama but these days we've just gone over the moon.
    1 point
  8. I came up with a new word to describe partisan political pundits of any stripe ranting into a camera-- "preachitics." Why did I come up with that word? Two reasons: a. Those who are employed in it preach loud and long and incessantly about whatever political grievance(s) they might have (whether it's masking in COVID, the need for more and more and more guns, the "media" being far too liberal, etc.); b. Those who enjoy such rantings and listen to them for most of the day oftentimes yell "preach it!" at the television, because they love hearing their favorite ranters going on and on and on.
    1 point
  9. Actually thought about this before you brought it up. Could see them going with a shorter version, like Star Network, with stations branding as Star ##.
    1 point
  10. On a separate note, Johnny Archer has anchored alongside Tracy the past two days, and I must say they work really well together. 10 should think about pairing them together for either 11am and 5pm, or 4pm and 6pm.
    1 point
  11. CW would just be another name, despite any future obsolescence. Even with CBS (Columbia Broadcast System), it doesn't really mean anything anymore, since the "Columbia" it was a part of (the record company) was sold off in 1988, and it, along with the unrelated "Columbia Pictures" were both sold to Sony in 1987 and 1989.
    1 point
  12. They just interspersed about 3 minutes of live coverage from WSVN into their coverage. Pleasantly surprised to see them taking video from a non-O&O. Thanks for going the extra mile to look up the model of TV. Yeah, that TV is laughable. Haven't seen them use it since yesterday afternoon. Maybe they realized how bad it looked on the air and are now rethinking their purchase.
    1 point
  13. I’m thinking back to logos I’ve done at stations, I don’t believe Fox had guidelines. I think ABC is the only station that has any sort of attempt at co-branding guidelines. I’ll be honest though, there’s really nothing stopping a station from doing whatever they want (for the most part).
    1 point
  14. The resurrection of CNN has officially begun.
    1 point
  15. I only agree with breaking news if it's truly recent, not something from hours or a day ago. Not trying to go too off-topic but on NBC Nightly News, every story until the first commercial break is breaking news. It's a decent newscast overall, but come on!
    1 point
  16. A channel filled with reruns may not work as well in today's age with on-demand streaming. The only ones that do well are the ones that are niche or are available OTA.
    1 point
  17. The FCC is asking the parties for new information in regards to this transaction. From Bloomberg:
    1 point
  18. All the replies above this are spot on, couldn’t say it better. I think the gem of this article is: “As previously reported by The Post, O’Donnell’s predecessor Jeff Glor was making a modest $2 million.” So Jeff did it for $2M, they fired him, signed Norah for $8M for the same result, now have Norah at $3.8M. Seems like Jeff really got screwed.
    1 point
  19. Solid move. We all need less fake "Breaking News" in our lives.
    1 point
  20. I wish networks industry wide could just take a stand and make all content hard factual news, so audiences have little option but to consume it. But I guess that won't happen so here we are...
    1 point
  21. It’s going to be an uphill battle on two fronts. First, ratings. Many of us (myself included) wish CNN could transform into its 1990s self and just do the darn news instead of running whatever hyper-partisan narcissism they ran under Zucker. I’d also like to see long-form reporting/documentaries on “investigations or far flung human dramas.” However, straight news and in-depth reporting don’t make for high viewership on a rolling news channel, and documentaries are more expensive to produce than shows where pundits rant into a camera. There’s a harsh reason why every cable news channel (including the zombie that is NewsNation) ends up as some variation of Fox News instead of France 24: many Americans (regardless of party/belief) would rather be coddled to instead of seeing politicians questioned rigorously. Second, reputation. Over the past decade or so, CNN has become known for catering to Northeastern middle/upper-class liberals. That image has become especially problematic under Zucker, and it won’t be easy to erase. CNN would have to completely overhaul opinion programming and clearly separate it from the news division before it even begins to shed Zucker’s influence. Here’s hoping Licht & Co. pull it all off, but there is a long road ahead.
    1 point
  22. I wish CNN would go back it’s Roots in Atlanta and back to the hard news format that made it a household name. When CNN moved majority of its shows to NY that was the beginning of the decline. It’s probably wishful thinking, But I would love to hear Live from “The CNN World Headquarters in Atlanta”
    1 point
  23. Oh...that would be MAGISTERIAL
    1 point
  24. Anything short of creating a new theme that evokes a certain famed six-note signature for the Texas Cox acquisitions (and in the case of WFAA, reverting to News 8 and calling the 10pm newscast the “Update”) would be a huge disappointment…There, I said it! ”Working in the Spirit of Texas…this is the News 8 Update!” And for the record, this thread belongs under Corporate Chat…
    0 points
This leaderboard is set to Chicago/GMT-06:00
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using TVNewsTalk you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.