This is the point where I ask "SoonerBorn1973" to once again bless us with ratings info on how our local newscasts did in the sweeps month that just ended.

I look forward to seeing how my favorite teams did. Thanks!

I know KWTV is #1 in the nation again at 10pm. (by whatever standard they usually go by)

If KWTV is claiming this, it is WRONG! Most TV markets still use the write in diaries for ratings, and it takes several months for that info to be compiled and released.

KWTV is #1 based on their Nielsen number, which is a percentage of households that are viewing. Their percentage is higher than anyone else's in the nation, but that's just a percentage; it does not mean more viewers than say, New York City.
Wikipedia has a pretty good explanation of it.

KWTV's claim is based on what I believe they call the "Nielsen Overnights", something like that, where they use instrumented television sets to gather the data. That gives stations overnight feedback, but yes, you are right about the diaries. It takes time for those to come in to make it "official".

Notice that everyone who won a given period had their new promos running the very next day! They just can't wait to brag.

Very deceiving, and downright wrong from KWTV. According to Nielsen, the top 56 markets are metered, and have overnight numbers.... so KWTV may be #1 in terms of the top 56 markets, but there are 210 markets across the US. 154 TV markets do not have overnight numbers, and the ratings will not be available for some time. Apparently, KWTV does not recognize 2/3rds of the TV markets in the US.

Well nobody cares about Wichita Falls...

Advertisers don't look at the diary numbers for metered markets. They look at the overnights and the actuals that come out a week or two later.

I had the numbers for the last couple of days and I'm just now getting time to post them. But guess what? Now I can't find the numbers.:laughing_

I can basically give you an idea. KOCO was the big winner this book taking both the 5pm and 6pm (I wonder if the double female anchor hotness has anything to do with their jump). KFOR got their tails handed to them in those slots coming in third both times. KWTV is just a smidgen ahead of KFOR in those slots.

KFOR and KWTV continue to go back and forth for the top spot in the morning show timeslot. The overnight numbers are updated every 15 minutes and the lead pretty much changes every update. Pretty weird. KOCO is still not a factor in this two horse race.

KWTV is still holding a strong lead for the 10pm timeslot. I hate to beat a dead horse, but you can really attribute their stranglehold on the 10pm crown to their lead-in. If I remember correctly, their average lead-in for a weeknight 10pm broadcast is around a 20 while KOCO (ABC) and KFOR (NBC) have to play the hands their networks deal them and average about half as many viewers leading into their 10pm shows. Just for the record, KFOR was second in this timeslot and KOCO was 3rd.

If I fine my sheet I'll update my post. Sorry.

I rarely watch local news. I read the Oklahoman, The Oklahoma Gazette, follow a few local blogs, these forums, etc. I find local news insulting to my intelligence and all the sensational crap that come around sweeps time is, quite frankly, silly. I am not the only one as I talk to people who say the same thing. Someone just the other day said they felt local news relates to, "the least common denominator," and I think there may be some truth to that. At 6:00 I am watching Hardball on MSNBC and at 10:00 I am reading or watching something with a little more substance than local "news." Besides, there are so many better things on television on cable at 10:00 if I wanted to watch TV. So, reading that so many people seem to care who the hell did what in the local TV news ratings, is strange. I have a feeling we have a few here who work in the industry. Let's be honest -- nobody else gives three rips.

I find local news insulting to my intelligence and all the sensational crap that come around sweeps time is, quite frankly, silly.

No kidding! Last week channel 5 news (I think that's the ABC station) broke into Charlie Brown and the next day The Grinch with "move your children away from the TV, we have some disturbing news...." it was ridiculous and it could have waited. Way to ruin my Charlie Brown good time Christmas vibes channel 5. Good job.

What was the disturbing news?

One day it was that a murder suspect had been arrested and I don't remember what the next one was, a car crash or something? It could have waited until the regular news, and the dramatic "move your children from the TV" was uncalled for during a cartoon children's holiday special.

If you don't care about local news ratings, then don't read this thread. That's why I don't read football threads or threads on politics. It's boring to me, but local news and the ratings equation is fascinating to me. I have my hobbies, you have yours.

Thank you "SoonerBorn", I was starting to worry about you! Great to hear KOCO is kicking some tail, and the KWTV 10pm dominance remains a puzzle. I'd love to see the demographics of the viewers broken down by all factors, including gender.

Since you mentioned "hotness", I wonder how many male viewers are watching Maggie at 6pm (just arriving home from work) and are using the 10pm KWTV broadcast as the only remaining chance to watch Amy for that day. Heck, I'd rather believe in the ability of a female anchor to pull in viewers than I would lead-in.

The puzzle remains fascinating as always. I also look forward to seeing the effect that Gary England's departure someday will have on KWTV's ratings. We'll see if he's really the ratings draw that his salary indicates.

If you don't care about local news ratings, then don't read this thread.

Maybe we can have lunch today. I made you a nice big plate of SUCK IT.

LOL, just kidding, I couldn't resist :)

If you don't care about local news ratings, then don't read this thread. That's why I don't read football threads or threads on politics. It's boring to me, but local news and the ratings equation is fascinating to me.

I'm fascinated by your fascination with local TV news.

A newscast is the ultimate "human-factors" puzzle, a combination of journalism, on-air personalities, and presentation graphics. To a psychologist, it's interesting to watch the stations make changes in an effort to increase their ratings.
(Don't make me tell ya again!) :-)

Sometime, sit and really think about why you like a certain show over another one. It's an interesting exercise, and to me, it beats the heck out of watching an NFL football game, buy hey, "I'm just saying..."

Now excuse me, I'm having lunch with Misty...she made my favorite meal! :-)

My, my but that Misty is one busy little bee . . . from cooking up batches of SUCK IT to making little monkeys dance. Where does she find the time to chat?:bow:

I'm fascinated with Misty's choice of wording for her lunch offer. LOL.

Of course it's sensationalized...if they just sat there expressionless and read the headlines nobody would watch! Would you? How boring. I can read the headlines myself, I don't need a robot to speak them for me.

People and their complaints fascinate me too. It seems everyone has a gripe but no one knows what it is they want. Some people just don't know how to communicate without complaint I think.

This somehow reminds me of the people who complain about wrestling being fake. This is the scenario in my head as it plays out -
Guy sits on couch and is watching Wrestling. Girl comes in and takes remote away. "We are not watching that fake crap." She then turns the channel to Desperate Housewives.
???
Isn't that show fake too? :Smiley112

A newscast is the ultimate "human-factors" puzzle, a combination of journalism, on-air personalities, and presentation graphics. To a psychologist, it's interesting to watch the stations make changes in an effort to increase their ratings.
(Don't make me tell ya again!) :-)

Sometime, sit and really think about why you like a certain show over another one. It's an interesting exercise, and to me, it beats the heck out of watching an NFL football game, buy hey, "I'm just saying..."

Now excuse me, I'm having lunch with Misty...she made my favorite meal! :-)

Quickly to KMF563: It's not a complaint. Nobody is complaining. It's just a bizarre thing to anyone old enough to remember when local TV actually covered real news.

Drums: There are a lot of things to analyze in this crazy world of ours. I have to agree with Matt, I guess I am fascinated at your fascination with the psychology of local TV news. Yet, you wrote you don't like politics. In this day and age, I am amazed you think you can find more psychological interest in local TV newscasts than in the manipulation of the people by the powers-that-be in government and by candidates that hope to be sitting in the seats of power. Now, there's your "interesting exercise." I'm also a bit dazed by the fact a psychologist could call this a "hobby." Your past posts run way over 50% (probably much more) about the inner workings and inside-baseball of the local TV industry. You write about salaries, rumors, etc. As one of your Barbie-bot news readers might say, "There's more to this story."

Good grief people, all this interest in me! I guess I'm flattered. And to think all I wanted to know was just how the freaking ratings turned out. ;-)

Everything I do is a "hobby", because I'm retired.

I do hope SoonerBorn will swoop in soon and save me from this lynching. :-(

I must admit though, the plate of "Suck It" I had with Misty tasted pretty good. Actually, I smiled about that on the way to WalMart this afternoon. I even looked for it in the frozen food section and didn't find any.

Maybe we could all come over to your house drumsncode and watch you watching the news, I'll make SUCK IT for everyone! Oh, and you can't find it in the frozen foods section. SUCK IT is best served fresh and then washed down with some Smithwicks that my dancing monkey Oh Gawd will serve us.

Glad I made you laugh, I crack myself up all day :)

Sometime, sit and really think about why you like a certain show over another one. It's an interesting exercise. . .

I watch whatever station has the hottest chick on, which is about as far away from "interesting" a reason as it could possibly be.

I have a feeling we have a few here who work in the industry. Let's be honest --

I used to work in the industry, and the only reason I check out OKC Talk is to see what you folks are saying about my former co-workers.

I watch whatever station has the hottest chick on, which is about as far away from "interesting" a reason as it could possibly be.

How interesting! ;-)

I like to watch the stations talk out of both sides of their mouths when it comes to promoting themselves. They tell us that it's all about quality journalism (especially KWTV, which is the most hypocritical of all), yet they hire the hottest women they can find and load them into the most important timeslots.

If it's all about journalism, why not put a hard-nosed journalist, Gan Matthews into the anchor chair instead of Amy? And yes, I find that interesting. ;-)

I was having a complete gas watching the "Anchor Woman" series on FOX, but it only lasted one show. It was a cool glimpse into what they're really thinking behind the scenes.

They should put me on there.

I'll go head-to-head with, and embarrass, Ogle and his $0.02.

I'm kind of a jerk though...I'd have to be on Fox.

One of the most compelling statements I hear on a regular basis is "I don't watch local news." Often times the reason is that the news is "sensationalized", but no one can really expound on what they considered was blown out of proportion. If you ask me, it's all about perception. I can't count the number of times I've been in a newsroom and heard one viewer call and accuse the media of being the most left-wing, liberal @#$*&^ that ever walked the face of the earth. The next minute, that same newsroom will get a call ranting how all the media does is try to influence the public with their right-wing, neocon journalism. The fact of the matter is you heard something and you might not agree with it. That doesn't necessarily make it untrue, but human nature means you would rather "shoot the messenger".

That being said, I would be the first to tell you that broadcast journalism, especially in television, HAS changed. It had to. And you can give all the credit to something you're using right now. We'll tell you, tonight at 10pm...

Just kidding, it's the internet. Your resources in finding whatever news, weather, scores, etc. you want could never be matched by television. Whatever you need is just a click away, for crying out loud. So journalists HAD to change the way they deliver news. Maybe you call it "sensationalism" but I call it "more viewer friendly". It is easier to watch a newscast nowadays. And you know what? It shows. More people are watching local news than ever before. That's a fact. Ratings for every station are higher than they've ever been. How can you explain the fact we live in a day and age where most homes have hundreds of channels to choose from, at least one computer in every home, and gaming systems that allow anyone to be a "Guitar Hero" for hours on end but more people are watching their local newscasts? Because the media has changed how they present the news, that's how. And furthermore, it was YOU who changed US. Not the other way around.

So I don't really blame drumsncode for being fascinated with TV ratings. When all you hear is people saying they don't watch local news but statistical facts show that couldn't be more untrue, how could you not be fascinated?

Great post SoonerBorn. We've been getting a lot of cool insights here lately, and I assume you read Aaron Tuttle's post too. Very cool.

I think it would be an amazing job to be the News Director of a station in charge of increasing the ratings. I would love to be a fly on the wall at KOCO, trying to figure out how to bump their 10pm share, when they've been so successful at 5 and 6pm.

Maybe they just need Misty to cook up a big plate of "Suck It" and send it to KWTV. Personally, I think the two pivotal ratings chess pieces at KWTV are Amy McRee and Gary England. We will see what happens when each moves on someday.

And KFOR is simply the biggest puzzle to me in the world.

SoonerBorn1973

Sensationalism? If nobody can give you examples, I'll give you a few:

- You joked about it, but that "teaser" crap goes too far. "We'll tell you at 10" is one reason I won't tune in at 10. I actually remember the days of those quick newsbreaks actually being newsbreaks and not marketing snow jobs.

- Crime! Crime!!!! CRIME!!!!!!!! A robbery may have occurred at 9:00 AM at so and so location. Yet, at 10:00 PM the news trucks are broadcasting LIVE!!!! from the location. Can they tell us better from the location than from the newsroom? I'm talking simple little crime stories. Slow news days bring out the need to sensationalize all the more.

- SEX! SEX!!! SEX!!!! If it's about "Kiddie Porn" or "Kiddie Sex" or "Teens Online" - all the better! Because remember, your children are in DANGER!!!

- Not enough sense to come in out of the rain. I saw a couple of years ago a news story from a LIVE! location where the reporter was in the wind and rain doing the story, when he could have just done the report from the foyer of the building where it was dry. I guess it makes it look more LIVE! LOCAL! and LATE BREAKING!!!!!!

The Internet has changed local news coverage? I know it's changed national and international coverage, but could you explain how the Internet has change local news coverage? The Internet can give us a lot of information, but local is the weakness, not the strength. And don't point to this site. MalibuSooner can tell you the traffic to this site comes nowhere close to competing with even a local radio music station. Some of us interested in local building, preservation, etc. may love it here, but it's not exactly news for the masses. So, I would LOVE to hear how the Internet has changed local news coverage.

And if you really don't believe people are turning away from local news in droves, you are fooling yourself. What you call "Statistical Facts" must come from the same mathematical lab that KWTV uses to tout their "Most Watched Newscast In The Nation" BS.

Solitude, you make some excellent points. A lot of us have complained about these very things over the past year. The teasers are infuriating, and the "live shots" with no purpose whatsoever are what really burn me.

I've seen KOCO do a "Live Shot" from the breakroom of their studio on several occasions, just so they could do a story and put LIVE on the screen.

I see it on FOX a lot too. The story is filmed in the daylight, yet the reporter is LIVE in total darkness just for the sake of saying LIVE. It must really chap the reporters during the winter time to stand out in the cold for something so pointless.

I'll do my best to answer all of your questions. The only problem is the tone of your post rings loudly, and I don't think I could ever convince you that the media is not this evil empire that is trying to take over the world (as seems to be the popular perception nowadays). Here ya go:

- Those 10pm teasers you see are usually shot between 4pm and 6pm, so the fact of the matter is the newsroom, in most cases, still doesn't have ALL of the facts when they are shot. The anchors are given the assignments that the reporters are working on and they give a broad description of the story. For instance: they may be told that we're doing a story on a man that attacked some people at local parks, but police are still trying to determine if an attack at a different park might be related. Bam! Here's your tease: "A man is accused of attacking women at a local park that could be by your home. We'll tell you where, tonight at 10pm."

- What is one news topic that effects more and more people on a regular basis? Crime. The chances of you, or anyone on this board, being the victim of a crime today are greater than that of you being a winner of a local contest. Crime effects everyone. Period. So, yeah, you're going to see more crime reports than anything. I know we all love the idea of a soldier coming home for the first time in a year to see his newborn baby, but does that really affect you? Can you pull something from that to make you better prepared for what you might face tomorrow? No. But, if you hear that (fake) predator I mentioned above was stalking women at a park your wife likes to go jogging, that's defnitely information you can use.

- I'm still trying to figure out why you're so upset about the media's "obsession" on getting out information about child sex crimes. My two children are the most important things to me in the world and if they're in danger, I sure want to know about it. No need in having to "sensationalize" this subject. We live in a day and age where our children are not safe. Whatever information I can be given to safeguard my children, I'll take it.

- Believe me, most reporters would agree with you on weather coverage. None of them like it. But does it not lend a little credibility to the reporter, and the story for that matter, if they are braving the elements that they're warning you about? If you had two reporters, and one was standing on a foyer and shooting out of a window saying "Look what the wind is doing to these trees" and the other was actually out standing in this storm with their hair and jacket whipping in the wind, which one would you watch? Personally, I want to know what I would be dealing with if I was thinking about slipping outside to run to the store. I'm not sure I could gather that information by watching some trees or flagpoles.

- The internet has changed local news MUCH more than you're giving credit for. People are going to local news websites for their information because THEY can determine the pace and content of their news. It's no secret that KOCO and KFOR have spent a load of money to spruce up their websites (KWTV seems to be missing the boat on this one by allowing The Oklahoman run their website). And you know what? It shows. These websites are getting thousands of hits a day. But in the end, what stations really want is for you to watch the TV newscast because that's where all of the advertising dollars are. So, while we want you to check our website while you're at work, we really want you to watch our newscast when you get home. For better or worse, this has changed the way the news is presented. Period.

- And if you really think that more people aren't watching local news, then you sir/ma'am are the one whose fooling yourself. More and more homes are accepting meters in their homes that are attached to TV's and electronically log everything they watch. More families are volunteering to become "Nielsen Families" and log everything they tune in to. The facts are there. If you want to pish posh the facts because you refuse to believe them, that's on you. But this research is paid for by advertisers, not the media outlets.

Hope I answered all of your questions. I don't expect you to believe any of them, but that doesn't change the truth of the matter. I just want to hammer home that news stations change their presentation to accomodate the viewer because they know they can't change your habits for you. So if you don't like what is on the news, take a look at the person in the mirror.

:congrats: :congrats:

very well put my friend. I'm sure it will fall on deaf ears though.

Great post SoonerBorn. interesting and articulate. And remind me never to make you mad! :-)

SoonerBorn - I don't think I ever suggested the media was an evil empire that was out to take over the world. I said local news is terrible.

As for your response "falling on deaf ears" etc., what is meant is that there probably won't be answers that satisfy me. This is true, as every answer you gave was ridiculous and sounds like it was written in the marketing department of one of the local TV stations.

Let's look at them...

1) The teasers rarely are "teasers only" because of lack of all the facts. You know that and I know that and trying to say otherwise is an insult to our intelligence. The teasers are almost always "teasing" something that we must tune in at 10, so we'll tune in at 10! For example (and these are made up), "A presidential candidate calls Oklahoma a bad name - find out who called Oklahoma what at 10," (All the facts are known - the person could have just as easily said, "Senator Joe Bill calls Oklahoma a "trailer state" - harsh words, more at 10." Another example, "A big name is selected to be Grand Marshal of the Tulip Parade - we'll tell you who it is - at 10." Lack of facts? No. This goes on repeatedly through the evening. You know it, I know it, and your suggesting there are reasons other than marketing at play is an insult. No drinking the local news Kool-Aid here.

2) You say crime effects more and more people. And your extension of that is that you must report every little crime as if it belongs on an hour long "Forensic Files?" Complete with flashing light, yellow tape, in the background? Laws at the state capitol effect me more than crime, but where are the ratings in that? So - you ignore what goes on at 23rd and Lincoln.

3) You're asking why I am "upset" about local news headlining child sex crimes? First of all, I'm not "upset" about it, I merely used it as an example of local newscasts sensationalizing news. Sex is sex. People are fascinated - for better or worse - by kiddie porn, kiddie sex, teens being enticed online. I don't get it - but look at the success of "To Catch A Predator." But does it require sensational features during every sweeps period? How many times are we told "Ten Tips To Keep Your Kids Safe Online"? Over and over and over again. And sex is always brought into it. Newscasts are more and more mini news-magazine shows rather than newscasts - feature after feature after feature and LESS news. Again, if you can't admit this, you're fooling yourself. But, I can tell you're smarter than that, you're not fooling yourself because you know better - you're simply in "spin mode."

4) Weather coverage is a disgrace. Cancelling the entire evening of network programming to "keep us safe"--- from a run-of-the-mill thunderstorm? Again, sensational journalism.

5) I'm still not sure how the station having a website with news needs to change the content of your newscast. That makes no sense at all. Doesn't the website just compliment the newscast? Drive viewers to the newscast? If it is hurting the newscast, then maybe, don't do it? My point was you blamed US, the viewers, and the Internet in your first post. I'm still at a loss what I have done to change your newscast - or what the Internet has done - or anything else, that you haven't done to yourself.

6) Let's talk meters. If I am watching an entertainment program from 9-10 and then get up and walk away to do laundry, take out the trash, take a shower, anything, the station gets credit for my "watching" the newscast. Did I really "watch" the newscast? No - I did what thousands of families do and left the TV on for background noise, out of laziness, to wait for Leno, whatever. Because of this you get credit for "strong lead-ins."

I can't see that you did anything more than give excuses for the tabloid nature of local television news. You certainly didn't explain anything that wasn't just typical spin from those in the industry trying to justify their relevance. And if you think I am in the minority, again, you're kidding yourself. I'm quite a bit older than you (if the '73 denotes your year of birth) and remember TV news when it offered a real newscast. You know and remember nothing but the schlock that passes for local news now. Your education was geared in that direction. I think that may be our problem here. Some of us remember -- and the contrast is ugly.

point proven. I said deaf ears...not soonerborn1973. And I believe he said in most cases this was the reason for the "tune in at 10" teaser. Does "in most cases" mean every time? NO.
I would guess you do not have children either. Or they are grown.

point proven. I said deaf ears...not soonerborn1973. And I believe he said in most cases this was the reason for the "tune in at 10" teaser. Does "in most cases" mean every time? NO.
I would guess you do not have children either. Or they are grown.

What point is "proven"? Because I didn't accept the spin from SoonerBorn, I am somehow close-minded and wrong? One could just as easily say the same for you because you don't agree with me! I would never say that. It's like politics, not necessarily a right or wrong - there are simply differing opinions, that's all. I just happen to think more people probably agree with me that local TV news is more a self-serving PR program - than a true labor of journalism. You don't - that's fine - but it doesn't make anyone right or wrong.

Interesting points from both you guys. That's what makes a message board great.

Personally, I'm still trying to get over hearing Amy McRee say, "...as a journalist, it's not about me; it's not about how we look; it's not about what our station looks like; it's about doing stories that make a difference in people's lives..."

(I think that's a fairly accurate "quote" of it.)

This coming from a woman whose very job depends on "how she looks", working for a station that put in a new multi-million dollar set just to impress everyone. They will tell you it's to deliver their journalism more effectively, so just how do two spiral staircases enhance the journalism of a newscast?

But hey...I'm not bitter! :-)

To me, this topped the now famous, "Watch Gary England or your children will die promo." :-)

They need to realize that sensaionalism in a 24/7 connected society just will not work on most folks...."We interrupt this program'' should ONLY be used when absdolutely necesary!
Now, If Braum's is out of Ice Cream go ahead and inerrupt.... I will make a bee line for Blue Bell!

Just a quick question. I watch channel 9 quite often but lately I have noticed that Amy McRee's face seems lsightly distorted. Does anyone know if she has had cosmetic work done? She just doesn't look the same. Has anyone else noticed this?