Why are CBS local newscasts so bad?

[CircleWXYZ 173]

3 hours ago, Breaking News said:

Running away #1 12,4,5,6,11pm news.  WTAE #1 in the morning.  WTAE & WPXI fight for #2 and sometimes one out do the other in different parts of the day.  ABC seems to have a weak lead-in into11pm so 11 usually beats 4 at 11pm.

Both those branding names are trash! CBS11 was good for KTVT. CBS4 was standard, but seem to have a better branding during their NBC days.

This is why I think WWJ needs to follow the KDKA model.  KDKA and KPIX are among the better performing CBS O&O.  Though WWJ has come. Long way in gaining an audience, they need to fix a couple more things.  The biggest thing is finding a sports anchor and do it soon.  They are able to get by for now but they will definitely need one by the NFL Draft.  The hey also need the hire an anchor to replace Terrence Friday on the noon and 4 pm newscasts.  Do that and they are good to go.  I think their newscasts have improved since KPIX came to help them months ago but again, they need more people.

 

Hiring Troy Bridges from Orlando was a huge step in the right direction.

Edited February 26 by CircleWXYZ

[nycnewsjunkie 1395]

2 hours ago, CoopInTheHouse said:

I mean, given that those 2 stations are the only CBS O&O’s in their states (Colorado and Texas, respectively), you can’t really blame them.

I understand Colorado (the Denver market covers a majority of the state geographically), but given that Texas is also home to a big city like Houston and growing cities like Austin and San Antonio, the brand just doesn’t work IMO.

[CircleWXYZ 173]

As for why CBS O&Os are struggling, I just think many of them lost their identity.  

Edited February 26 by CircleWXYZ

[nycnewsjunkie 1395]

6 hours ago, tyrannical bastard said:

How is Pittsburgh doing these days?  Even though the newscast is pumping out the same garbage that all the other CBS markets are, they're allowed to use the ugly black and yellow to cater to the "Stillers" fans, and probably get a lot more traction by doing so!

I don’t mean to offend, but I really don’t understand why this bothers people. They’re not my favorite colors either, but we’re talking about Pittsburgh here. Sure, there are better ways to execute the black and gold look, but is it so bad that a station’s visual identity reflects the city it serves?

Edited February 26 by nycnewsjunkie

[tyrannical bastard 3444]

8 minutes ago, nycnewsjunkie said:

I don’t mean to offend, but I really don’t understand why this bothers people. They’re not my favorite colors either, but we are talking about Pittsburgh. Sure, there are better ways to execute the black and gold look, but is it so bad that a station’s visual identity reflects the city it serves?

At least it looks better with the new package then it did with the other one.  And the team colors are also used by the Pirates and the Penguins, so they do transcend beyond the Steelers to being more of a "Pittsburgh" thing.

 

I like Pittsburgh, But being from Northeast Ohio, you get the idea .

[nycnewsjunkie 1395]

14 minutes ago, tyrannical bastard said:

At least it looks better with the new package then it did with the other one.  And the team colors are also used by the Pirates and the Penguins, so they do transcend beyond the Steelers to being more of a "Pittsburgh" thing.

 

I like Pittsburgh, But being from Northeast Ohio, you get the idea .

All good lol

(And in fairness, man do those colors look ugly…)

1 hour ago, carolinanews4 said:

For the CBS owned stations, I think comes down to a lack of budget and the resulting lack of identity. CBS O&Os historically have spent less than their ABC and NBC counterparts leaving them with fewer resources. To play catchup stations like WCBS and WBBM have gone through numerous rebrandings.

 

From a corporate standpoint, CBS has undervalued the "presentation" portion of TV news which has been reflected in the way they fund their local stations. They live in the Walter Cronkite era of storytelling. Admirable? Sure. But television is a visual medium and newscasts are built on a relationship with the viewer. I don't feel like CBS has ever truly embraced either of those things. The lack of investment was easier to hide in the 70s and 80s because everyone's presentation was crude. But as technology has evolved, CBS always seems to be playing catch-up. 

 

When Jeff Zucker cut NBC budgets in the early 2000s, WNBC went into their "WCBS era" where they lacked identity and money. The NBC O&O group launched Daily Connection which was a "newscast" that featured repurposed content from across NBCU properties. The pieces of the show were assembled in NYC and then fed to stations to be produced with local talent. (Sound similar to the equally generic CBS News Now broadcast from Texas?) Cost efficient? You bet. Compelling tv? Not at all.

 

WNBC eliminated Live at Five in favor of News4You and Extra. When that didn't work, WNBC played musical chairs with timeslots, anchors, and formats for years. WNBC their newsroom into a "Content Center" which was nothing more than a gimmick, like the gimmick WCBS tried in launching the short-lived CBS 2 Information Network. It was during this time when WCBS was able to move up to #2, not because Channel 2 was doing anything particularly compelling but because they offered stability where WNBC didn't.

 

Valari Staab, formerly with the ABC O&O group, has spent over a decade rebuilding the newsgathering resources of the NBC group. New radar technology, studios, increased digital resources, heck even new buildings have been added. CBS meanwhile appears to continue the "more with less" mantra that has been in place for over 40 years. While NBC was rebuilding, the ABC stations, with their well-defined local identities, have steamrolled everyone with a consistent and well-funded product. Meanwhile the FOX O&O group, with seemingly endless hours of local news, generates strong local revenue. 

 

What has CBS done? Slapped the last-place 'CBS News' brand onto their local stations. Most of the CBS stations lack the type of true community investment it takes to be a strong player. With audiences for linear TV newscasts continuing to shrink, one could argue it Is way too late for them to catch up. 

I think you nailed it. I’ll continue to give CBS credit for launching the best/most watchable local streaming newscasts, but even aspects of that whole endeavor (like CBS News Now) were seemingly done on the cheap.
 

I would just add that Paramount’s current financial situation probably isn’t helping either. IIRC, the O&Os were hit with layoffs in June and December, and CBS News laid off 20 people this month as part of company-wide layoffs.

[MediaZone4K 1510]

2 hours ago, carolinanews4 said:

For the CBS owned stations, I think comes down to a lack of budget and the resulting lack of identity. CBS O&Os historically have spent less than their ABC and NBC counterparts leaving them with fewer resources. To play catchup stations like WCBS and WBBM have gone through numerous rebrandings.

 

From a corporate standpoint, CBS has undervalued the "presentation" portion of TV news which has been reflected in the way they fund their local stations. They live in the Walter Cronkite era of storytelling. Admirable? Sure. But television is a visual medium and newscasts are built on a relationship with the viewer. I don't feel like CBS has ever truly embraced either of those things. The lack of investment was easier to hide in the 70s and 80s because everyone's presentation was crude. But as technology has evolved, CBS always seems to be playing catch-up. 

 

When Jeff Zucker cut NBC budgets in the early 2000s, WNBC went into their "WCBS era" where they lacked identity and money. The NBC O&O group launched Daily Connection which was a "newscast" that featured repurposed content from across NBCU properties. The pieces of the show were assembled in NYC and then fed to stations to be produced with local talent. (Sound similar to the equally generic CBS News Now broadcast from Texas?) Cost efficient? You bet. Compelling tv? Not at all.

 

WNBC eliminated Live at Five in favor of News4You and Extra. When that didn't work, WNBC played musical chairs with timeslots, anchors, and formats for years. WNBC their newsroom into a "Content Center" which was nothing more than a gimmick, like the gimmick WCBS tried in launching the short-lived CBS 2 Information Network. It was during this time when WCBS was able to move up to #2, not because Channel 2 was doing anything particularly compelling but because they offered stability where WNBC didn't.

 

Valari Staab, formerly with the ABC O&O group, has spent over a decade rebuilding the newsgathering resources of the NBC group. New radar technology, studios, increased digital resources, heck even new buildings have been added. CBS meanwhile appears to continue the "more with less" mantra that has been in place for over 40 years. While NBC was rebuilding, the ABC stations, with their well-defined local identities, have steamrolled everyone with a consistent and well-funded product. Meanwhile the FOX O&O group, with seemingly endless hours of local news, generates strong local revenue. 

 

What has CBS done? Slapped the last-place 'CBS News' brand onto their local stations. Most of the CBS stations lack the type of true community investment it takes to be a strong player. With audiences for linear TV newscasts continuing to shrink, one could argue it Is way too late for them to catch up. 

Thank you for clarifying that the WNBC situation was budget cuts. I wondered why they would wreck their solid news product in the mid-2000s, for all the crap you listed coupled with a sub par studio and worse graphics. News 4 really improved in 2012! 

 

I do however appreciate that CBS O&Os don't have a billion hours of news compared to their counterparts.

[mre29 1340]

So, is everyone only interested in talking about the CBS-owned stations? The original poster never specified that...

 

[MediaZone4K 1510]

5 hours ago, mre29 said:

So, is everyone only interested in talking about the CBS-owned stations? The original poster never specified that...

 

True...but the o&o have a single owner and the same format so it's easy to pinpoint what their issues are.

 

For the affiliates which have multiple owners, and multiple factors at play, it's more difficult to pinpoint why they aren't successful. Some posters have said it harkens back to the '94 realignments. Others have pointed out CBS affiliates do well in small and rural markets.

[CoopInTheHouse 63]

On 2/25/2024 at 6:23 PM, nycnewsjunkie said:

I understand Colorado (the Denver market covers a majority of the state geographically), but given that Texas is also home to a big city like Houston and growing cities like Austin and San Antonio, the brand just doesn’t work IMO.

It’s important to note that CBS did something with its CBSN Local brand (before it was called CBS News Local, but whatever), which included revamping all local newscasts of O&O’s. This included KCNC and KTVT. These became CBSN Denver and CBSN Dallas-Fort Worth respectively before they decided not to do that, switch back to the old graphics, then hit them with the “new thang”.

[ABC 7 Denver 1552]

On 2/26/2024 at 7:30 PM, CoopInTheHouse said:

It’s important to note that CBS did something with its CBSN Local brand (before it was called CBS News Local, but whatever), which included revamping all local newscasts of O&O’s. This included KCNC and KTVT. These became CBSN Denver and CBSN Dallas-Fort Worth respectively before they decided not to do that, switch back to the old graphics, then hit them with the “new thang”.

Ironically, the Nielsen boxes are only in the city & county of Denver regardless of how much KCNC covers, though CBS knows this. My frustration that the Denver DMA really could and should be split into two markets it's too unwieldy to reasonably be covered by Denver stations.

Edited February 29 by ABC 7 Denver

[Megatron81 179]

I'm surprised that CBS hasn't sold the TV stations that are now indies in ATL, Tampa, Seattle, Indy that is Start TV station I don't know if those are the only indies they have thou.

 

WWMT is a strong CBS station in West Michigan I'm guessing it's because they cover more Kazoo than the other TV stations that are all in GR although Wood TV does have a news burro in downtown Kazoo for a few years now. But with the cuts by Sinclair for WWMT they hub the Sat newscast at 6PM & 11PM with only weather & sports being from the station I wonder if it is coming out of South Bend? Wood TV is number 1 when it comes to news then WWMT. Sorry going off topic.   

[Geoffrey 779]

It has a lot to do with lead-ins. WCBS had Judge Judy at 4 and the 5:00 was doing well. Then they lost Judge Judy and immediately fell. They picked up the show again and shot back up to #2.

 

WABC had Oprah at 4 and those viewers made them #1 at 5. The winning allowed the station to remain stable in terms of talent and presentation. When Oprah ended her show and WABC replaced it with a newscast, viewers were already so accustomed to Eyewitness News that they largely stayed with them.

 

Syndicated and network lead-ins are huge, along with stability (which is often a chicken-or-the-egg-type thing with winning).

[mre29 1340]

So, how are local newscasts on various CBS affiliates (not the O&Os), anyway? How are the newscasts on Hearst's KCCI and WLKY? What about Graham's WKMG? Scripps's WTKR, WTVR, WTVF, and MTN stations? Tegna's WBNS, KHOU, KFMB, etc? Weigel's WDJT? The many affiliates owned by Sinclair, Nexstar, and Gray? (I'm particularly interested in Gray's WFSB and Sinclair's WGME.)

 

 

[Abraham J. Simpson 303]

4 hours ago, mre29 said:

So, how are local newscasts on various CBS affiliates (not the O&Os), anyway? How are the newscasts on Hearst's KCCI and WLKY? What about Graham's WKMG? Scripps's WTKR, WTVR, WTVF, and MTN stations? Tegna's WBNS, KHOU, KFMB, etc? Weigel's WDJT? The many affiliates owned by Sinclair, Nexstar, and Gray? (I'm particularly interested in Gray's WFSB and Sinclair's WGME.)

 

 

That’s both subjective of course, and unwieldy to try to put into simplistic terms. So many variable that “how are they” has no concise answer. 

[tyrannical bastard 3444]

O&O wise, CBS lags in the largest markets while ABC dominates.  NBC varies, but seems to be in the middle.

 

Of the top 5 markets, Chicago is where Fox gets their clock cleaned by WGN on a consistent basis while NY & LA seem to be doing better, WNYW does way better than WPIX and what's left of WWOR (but does KCAL and KTLA outrank KTTV?)

 

Generally, ABC has held up the best as the network owners have "borged" their stations.  CBS took a hit in the 80s from the Tisch era and Jeff "Zucked" the NBC stations during his disastrous tenure.

[nycnewsjunkie 1395]

7 hours ago, tyrannical bastard said:

O&O wise, CBS lags in the largest markets while ABC dominates.  NBC varies, but seems to be in the middle.

 

Of the top 5 markets, Chicago is where Fox gets their clock cleaned by WGN on a consistent basis while NY & LA seem to be doing better, WNYW does way better than WPIX and what's left of WWOR (but does KCAL and KTLA outrank KTTV?)

 

Generally, ABC has held up the best as the network owners have "borged" their stations.  CBS took a hit in the 80s from the Tisch era and Jeff "Zucked" the NBC stations during his disastrous tenure.

In LA, KTTV actually doesn’t perform as well as its competitors. In the mornings, KTLA is in first both in the demo and total households. At 10pm, KTTV is behind both KCAL and KTLA.

 

Getting back to CBS, one silver lining for them is that KCAL is still doing well (they actually won both the demo and total households at 10pm). Unfortunately for them, it doesn’t seem to have translated to ratings growth at KCBS.

 

https://www.nexttv.com/news/local-news-close-up-la-news-battle-begins-before-sunrise

Edited February 28 by nycnewsjunkie

[GodfreyGR 493]

Does anyone know if the needle has moved in Chicago since Jennifer Lyons took over WBBM?

 

That said, how has WGN fared since she left there?

[MediaZone4K 1510]

WCBS is making big changes with Dick Brennan and Dana Tyler being booted from the 6pm news as 5/11pm anchors Maurice & Kristine take over. Dick will go back to reporting as Dana is reduced to a fill in anchor or special contributor. Bad move.

 

https://www.nexttv.com/news/wcbs-new-york-changes-6-pm-team

 

I can only speculate if ratings are the issue. IMO Dick and Dana are good together so the national CBS O&O format is what I'd say the real issue is.

 

Let the record state that Andrea Grymes was also bumped from weekends.

 

Is WCBS doing that badly? Much like WNYW isn't the strongest Fox station despite being the flagship what CBS o&o's would you say are in better shape than WCBS.

Edited February 29 by MediaZone4K

[MorningNews 1290]

23 hours ago, Geoffrey said:

It has a lot to do with lead-ins. WCBS had Judge Judy at 4 and the 5:00 was doing well. Then they lost Judge Judy and immediately fell. They picked up the show again and shot back up to #2.

 

WABC had Oprah at 4 and those viewers made them #1 at 5. The winning allowed the station to remain stable in terms of talent and presentation. When Oprah ended her show and WABC replaced it with a newscast, viewers were already so accustomed to Eyewitness News that they largely stayed with them.

 

Syndicated and network lead-ins are huge, along with stability (which is often a chicken-or-the-egg-type thing with winning).

This. Houston is a great example where the CBS affiliate historically struggled behind ABC and NBC stations until Oprah bolstered them into a competitive and then (although brief) a market leader. WFAA's lead in Dallas started to slip when Oprah ended her show.

 

Outside of that, it was always puzzling to me why CBS News and CBS stations generally performed so badly despite having the dominating entertainment division.

[GodfreyGR 493]

2 hours ago, MediaZone4K said:

what CBS o&o's would you say are in better shape than WCBS.

KDKA, WJZ, WCCO come to mind. Does anyone have a pulse on WBZ or KTVT?

 

I agree with your previous hypothesis that the CBS O&O format might have some merit. Does not help that Evening News and Mornings do not provide much of a support to any of the CBS affiliates. 

[24994J 5269]

6 hours ago, GodfreyGR said:

Does anyone know if the needle has moved in Chicago since Jennifer Lyons took over WBBM?

 

That said, how has WGN fared since she left there?

 

No idea about ratings, but Lyons is a stabilizer. WBBM is competently-staffed, and puts out a quality, if little-watched product. As a viewer and news junkie, that's as important as building the ratings. As for WGN, they didn't miss a beat. They're in the WLS club of Don't Actively F#ck It Up & You'll Do Great.

[techteacher50 26]

On 2/28/2024 at 9:49 AM, tyrannical bastard said:

O&O wise, CBS lags in the largest markets while ABC dominates.  NBC varies, but seems to be in the middle.

 

Of the top 5 markets, Chicago is where Fox gets their clock cleaned by WGN on a consistent basis while NY & LA seem to be doing better, WNYW does way better than WPIX and what's left of WWOR (but does KCAL and KTLA outrank KTTV?)

 

Generally, ABC has held up the best as the network owners have "borged" their stations.  CBS took a hit in the 80s from the Tisch era and Jeff "Zucked" the NBC stations during his disastrous tenure.

Well it seems that KTTV doesn’t do as well as they have no morning weekend news at all. This only happens when it’s not worth competing with other stations.

12 hours ago, GodfreyGR said:

KDKA, WJZ, WCCO come to mind. Does anyone have a pulse on WBZ or KTVT?

 

I agree with your previous hypothesis that the CBS O&O format might have some merit. Does not help that Evening News and Mornings do not provide much of a support to any of the CBS affiliates. 

It seems that CBS O&Os do better in markets where there are non owned and operated stations to compete with. WJZ in Baltimore does very well ratings wise there as WMAR has been in last place since the 1960s and WBFF Fox has opinionated news stories from Sinclair. Only WBAL TV NBC from Hearst directly competes with WJZ for #1 in the Baltimore DMA.

[GodfreyGR 493]

42 minutes ago, techteacher50 said:

It seems that CBS O&Os do better in markets where there are non owned and operated stations to compete with. WJZ in Baltimore does very well ratings wise there as WMAR has been in last place since the 1960s and WBFF Fox has opinionated news stories from Sinclair. Only WBAL TV NBC from Hearst directly competes with WJZ for #1 in the Baltimore DMA.

Interesting hypothesis- and it makes sense. Of the stations I identified, the only one that has a single O&O to compete against is WCCO (KMSP is Fox O&O).

[kdex86 48]

On 2/29/2024 at 11:04 AM, techteacher50 said:

Well it seems that KTTV doesn’t do as well as they have no morning weekend news at all. This only happens when it’s not worth competing with other stations.

It seems that CBS O&Os do better in markets where there are non owned and operated stations to compete with. WJZ in Baltimore does very well ratings wise there as WMAR has been in last place since the 1960s and WBFF Fox has opinionated news stories from Sinclair. Only WBAL TV NBC from Hearst directly competes with WJZ for #1 in the Baltimore DMA.

 

In Boston, Baltimore, and Pittsburgh, a CBS O&O competes with a Hearst owned station.

Boston and Pittsburgh are unique in the fact that both markets have CBS O&O's, Hearst owned ABC stations, and a Big 4 station owned by Cox Media Group.

 

WBZ has actually fared well in Boston TV news ratings.  I haven't seen any official press releases for Boston station ratings in recent years, but they've consistently been #2 behind WCVB, sometimes winning a timeslot here and there.  The fact that WBZ has been around since 1948 also helps it be a strong station in the market.