|
|
Post by doubleyoubeezee on May 4, 2009 16:40:19 GMT -5
according to NewsBlues.com:
Interesting... I wonder who will get the boot?
|
|
|
|
Post by bostonmediaguy on May 4, 2009 17:55:27 GMT -5
Might that be CBS O&O (singular?)
WBBM/Chicago is having a solo anchor at 6pm and 10pm (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/towerticker/2009/04/wbbmtv-eliminating-jobs.html).
Something worth noting: Newsblues (just like FTV) has little, if any, original reporting. Everything is culminated from other sources (newspapers, blogs, message boards such as this). A free (and far superior, in my opinion) alternative is TV Newsday (www.tvnewsday.com).
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisnh on May 5, 2009 10:57:44 GMT -5
Just using the morning show as an example, couldn't they accomplish the same thing by jettisoning some of those superfluous people like David Robichaud and the 'Traffic Guy?' I'd rather have a duo at the anchor desk but save money elsewhere. Robichaud is a total annoyance, and every Boston channel has their version of him. As for the 'Traffic People,' PLEASE. I don't think I've seen a more blatant example of cost-overrun than that. And say what you will about the 'importance' of weather. Yes, we love our weather here in New England. But we don't need some high-priced person telling us with a dour look that an 'upper-level high will keep the clouds far to our south.' We want to know WHAT the weather will be, not WHY.
|
|
sp113
New Member
Posts: 26 
|
Post by sp113 on May 5, 2009 20:47:19 GMT -5
And say what you will about the 'importance' of weather. Yes, we love our weather here in New England. But we don't need some high-priced person telling us with a dour look that an 'upper-level high will keep the clouds far to our south.' We want to know WHAT the weather will be, not WHY. Chris, you appear to be a frustrated media person who is upset when people are more successful than you. What do you care how much money someone makes? You don't pay it. You get it for free. Just a frustrated armchair expert? |
|
|
|
Post by rbreton on May 7, 2009 18:04:05 GMT -5
I don't think I've seen a more blatant example of cost-overrun than that. And say what you will about the 'importance' of weather. Yes, we love our weather here in New England. But we don't need some high-priced person telling us with a dour look that an 'upper-level high will keep the clouds far to our south.' We want to know WHAT the weather will be, not WHY. Chris, I'm not one to criticize other's opinions here... because I love the open forum and think it's great to hear everyone's perspective. That said, I do agree with the previous poster's comment. And I think that your above comments are ridiculous. So, based upon that post above, you'd rather have some voiceover guy from... let's say California report a brief, not detailed (and, probably not accurate) forecast for our backyards? Call me crazy, but meteorologists are essential to the business, IMO. What drives news ratings? Weather. An experienced, precise, to-the-point weather team. That, again, is my opinion. Have a great one. |
|
|
|
Post by doubleyoubeezee on May 8, 2009 19:13:07 GMT -5
SFLTV.com is reporting that sister station WFOR (Channel 4) canned all their live guys, photogs, and their weekend morning news. WBZ's cuts could be coming soon, and they could be big, very big.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisnh on May 8, 2009 21:40:39 GMT -5
Upon further review, I understand where you're coming from. Weather is and always has been a clear difference-maker for the stations. It is what makes New England unique...our weather. But I still say ditch the inept David Robichaud. If the industry is as financially frail and tight as it seems, there's NO place for his 'talent.' He just comes across as utterly childish and goofy and his little 'stories' get dropped into the morning news without much rhyme or reason...as if his existence is being legitimized somehow.
|
|
|
|
Post by bostonmediaguy on May 9, 2009 6:39:58 GMT -5
SFLTV.com is reporting that sister station WFOR (Channel 4) canned all their live guys, photogs, and their weekend morning news. WBZ's cuts could be coming soon, and they could be big, very big. Doubtful. The South Florida economy is far worse than Massachusetts' and WFOR's ratings are worse than WBZ's. Bad economy and 'bad' ratings = less ad revenue. WBZ's March 11pm sweeps were the eleventh(?) consecutive period winning households, viewers, and key demos. I also believe their web numbers are better than 'FOR's, too. The only other CBS O&O to have cuts recently is WBBM in Chicago whose problems are far too numerous to name here; not the least of which is the new marble bathroom in the GM's office. |
|
|
|
Post by theaguy9 on May 17, 2009 12:02:38 GMT -5
With the exception of Doug Meehan on Fox 25, all of the Tv traffic people in this market work for Metro Networks. The station recieves free traffic reports in return for a running a spot or mention that Metro sold.
CBS has to cut 80 million from it's TV and radio budget. I can't see how the Bosotn market will be spared from further cuts.
|
|
|
|
Post by rogertv on May 18, 2009 10:43:46 GMT -5
I want to know when they are going to eliminate the studio microphone echo. LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by seeveebee on May 18, 2009 15:39:31 GMT -5
A previous post mentioned the South Florida Economy's deep troubles. Very true.
But Boston TV revenues are TWICE AS BAD as the very weak national average (as just reported by Johnnny Diaz in the Globe). Boston TV is in a Depression. Maybe not Miami or Detroit--but worse than ANYWHERE outside FLA/Michigan/Cal/Phoenix.....stay tuned.
|
|
