"Coverage" Threads

[Weeters 1805]

Concerning "Coverage" threads:

 

Please do not create this type of thread to simply log times. A lot of us here want to know how a station covered something. Did they have tag-team weather coverage? Did they interview someone over Skype? Was Twitter used? These are the kind of things we'd like to see in "coverage" threads from now on.

 

We're not doing this in an attempt to limit discussion, we're doing this to try to encourage quality discussion about broadcasting. A thread that starts with people posting how stations covered something does this, while threads only listing times quickly dry up and fall to page two.

 

Habitual offenders may find themselves in a situation as outlined in the official site guidelines.

[ProButtonPusher 230]

I wish this was on Facebook so I could "Like" it.

[wabceyewitness 767]

First, let me call into question your news judgment. A tornado and 75-100 MPH winds tearing through a major metropolitan area and leaving multiple paths of destruction is quite significant.

 

Secondly, while you may personally deem writing about hours long special coverage as not "useful", the appearance of them and the replies to them are obviously clear evidence that the visitors and members of this site, whom you serve, are in fact interested in them and think of them as somewhat important.

 

Television news critics often write about and review networks' and local stations' coverage of breaking news events which we are always interested in reading those reports. I would think that if a newspaper feels the general public thinks readers would be interested enough in that type of coverage, then the administrators of this board would feel that the opinions of TV news fans on breaking news coverage would be especially interesting to this site's visitors.

 

The more and more "you CAN'T write about XXX" rules the administrators of this board create, the less and less interesting it becomes to visit. Why don't we encourage the age old rule of "if you don't like it, don't watch it" and in this case, if you don't like it, don't click on it.

[Weeters 1805]

First, let me call into question your news judgment. A tornado and 75-100 MPH winds tearing through a major metropolitan area and leaving multiple paths of destruction is quite significant.

 

Secondly, while you may personally deem writing about hours long special coverage as not "useful", the appearance of them and the replies to them are obviously clear evidence that the visitors and members of this site, whom you serve, are in fact interested in them and think of them as somewhat important.

 

Television news critics often write about and review networks' and local stations' coverage of breaking news events which we are always interested in reading those reports. I would think that if a newspaper feels the general public thinks readers would be interested enough in that type of coverage, then the administrators of this board would feel that the opinions of TV news fans on breaking news coverage would be especially interesting to this site's visitors.

 

The more and more "you CAN'T write about XXX" rules the administrators of this board create, the less and less interesting it becomes to visit. Why don't we encourage the age old rule of "if you don't like it, don't watch it" and in this case, if you don't like it, don't click on it.

 

Yes, a tornado in a major metropolitan area is important. However, in the thread posted yesterday, there are six posts doing nothing except chronicling when stations broke in and went back to regular programming. There was no discussion about the content of the cut-ins, just the times and lengths. I'd much prefer to hear how a station was covering an event over how long they covered an event.

 

We've all seen severe weather coverage. We've probably all seen the long-awaited ruling in that big court case come down. We all know how cut-ins work. Unless a station is doing something new and exciting or something out of the ordinary, I don't want to see another coverage thread listing times and lengths.

 

Yes, we're banning threads we're tired of. Because this is a discussion forum, not a database. I think the TV industry has all of it's necessary databases (NewscastStudio/Set Studio, the NMSA, our own graphic/set image repository, ect.) so until there's enough interest to start Cut-InDatabase.com, any threads started that do nothing but list dates and times will be deleted ASAP.

 

tl;dr version: You're welcome to create "coverage" threads as long as they provide discussion on the content/quality of coverage over anything else. And quality does not mean how long it lasted for.

 

[Geoffrey 779]

I'm just going to chime in and say that I like those threads you're banning. I like knowing when stations do special reports and extended newscasts. It's rare that network evening newscasts are bumped here and I find it interesting.

 

Sure, maybe we could be a little more descriptive of the anchors and reporters and specific notes about the special reports but I see nothing wrong about noting the times. We're news junkies and that's what we talk about. Plus, I'm pretty sure some of the local media writers refer to this very board for that kind of stuff.

[Weeters 1805]

I'm just going to chime in and say that I like those threads you're banning. I like knowing when stations do special reports and extended newscasts. It's rare that network evening newscasts are bumped here and I find it interesting.

 

Sure, maybe we could be a little more descriptive of the anchors and reporters and specific notes about the special reports but I see nothing wrong about noting the times. We're news junkies and that's what we talk about. Plus, I'm pretty sure some of the local media writers refer to this very board for that kind of stuff.

 

Noting times is fine as long as that's not all that's going on.

[wabceyewitness 767]

Noting times is fine as long as that's not all that's going on.

 

I have to agree with Geoffrey. Noting times is interesting to us news junkies, even if it comes without further comment. Just stating simple facts as to when each station began and ended coverage is not uncommon on professional websites such as TVNewser which, as we all know, covers the news industry. That information can also prompt further and, perhaps what you deem "useful" conversation, from readers who may have not all been able to monitor each station's sign off time but can now add more to the conversation themselves based on those facts being available to the rest of the board.

 

Besides that, there has been no outcry from members asking for these types of posts to end. Members have not been replying en masse criticizing the existence of such posts. I believe, and I am sure many other members agree, that it is a step in the wrong direction for an online community that follows an industry borne out of the principles of free speech and a free press to begin limiting what type of news, information and facts can and can't be written about.

[Vlad 276]

I gotta agree with wabceyewitness and Geoffrey on this one. The forum shouldn't be designated only to discuss news about the stations, but it should be utilized to discuss the actual news coverage of events that are actually happening and how the stations are covering these events. Which is what Weeters pointed out and i do agree with him on that aspect as well. Overall i think these coverage threads are incredibly important. As Geoffrey and wabceyewitness pointed out, as I'm sure that there are some news stations and silent official viewers that actually do observe websites like this one, and if they see "news junkies" like us rate and critique their coverage perhaps they can improve the situation and implement changes the next time there is a significant event to cover. Who knows some of our members may be official news journalists themselves who could bring these discussions to light at their respective stations.

 

There is really no written rule here that states that we can't discuss the coverage of the actual news events and stories that local stations are covering. So I don't see why that should be banned. And Im gonna have to agree that this new rule is a major step in the wrong direction. Basically if it isn't a problem for the majority of New York users who post here, then it shouldn't be an issue to the administrators as well. As long as the posts are informative and aren't studs and one word posts shouldn't be a reason why these types of discussions are an issue.

 

Being that so many people do not have an issue with these types of threads you wonder if any action should be taken. Perhaps what we can do to simplify things is to keep one big news event in one thread instead of starting many threads about the same topic to keep things more professional and clean. Also I think users should add more input or add their thoughts and ideas to the discussion, instead of short meaningless posts and one word posts that do not contribute anything to the conversation.

[Weeters 1805]

Updated original post to better reflect what we're looking for.

[Geoffrey 779]

Updated original post to better reflect what we're looking for.

 

I appreciate the update and I'm sure others will as well. Talk about customer service! :-)

[Vlad 276]

Much better explanation Weeters! And I agree with that 100%. Future threads should be more like that to make them more informative and interesting. If there is nothing to say, then chances are the break in was not as important or pehaps its a light news story and that would understandably yield a deletion from and admin.