I've never understood the TV angle here; help me out.
On radio, yes, I can understand "traffic on the 8's" because, well, if there's a big-rig bop on the bridge and I'm at the maze, then its good I know what I'm in for, but at home, even if I'm on my way to the office, chances are by the time I get to my car, the next TV report does me no good. Hello? Am I missing something?
Don't get me wrong, we have some of the best traffic and weather reporters in the biz here, among them, Sal Castaneda at KTVU, Mike Nicco at KGO-TV/ABC7. But the consultants rule the world and we're now reduced to what amounts to virtually news-free, weather-channel-traffic enfuego the entire AM TV news block. Wonderful.
This is annoying to me. This is what they feed us. And yeah, I know that everybody else does it, but does that mean its ok?
Hey, consultants, I have a novel programming concept: anchor reads lead story, then another, and another; how about one or two in-studio guests, a live shot from the fire, and then a, yes, ok, copter shot over the scene, and then back to news? Quick, simple, easy, fast, we know its cloudy outside and there's a pretty good chance of rain, but we don't need it six, seven times an hour; I'm generalizing, of course, but you get my drift.
And here's another thing or two to chew on: what if it worked!! and say the ratings spiked? Damn, I'm a genius!
The formula stuff is so tried and boring. Talent would love it; more air-time, less minutiae. And in this economic climate, it'd be cheaper, (did you hear that, mgt?) and morale would pick up big time, and even better, people, lots of people, may watch more--believe it or not, TV is a visual medium.
They might even, god forbid, stay off Facebook for an extra five minutes and check out the 8: 30 tease!
Tweet that!
