Any opinions about Jessica Schambach on Channel 5 KOCO?

Any opinions about Jessica Schambach on Channel 5 KOCO?
I don't watch channel 5 news that much, however, I have tuned in several times, and I feel that Jessica does a good job....and she is rather attractive:wink: .

BTW, jhughes1963, welcome to okctalk. Thanks for taking the time to register on this unique forum. We have a great time here and have many discussions, so jump in anytime and tell us what you think.

Jessica is a beautiful woman who meets the first half of the media personality test of looks good/ sounds good.Jessica should drop her voice down lower, to a more conversational tone, read the copy slower and try to emote the appropriate tone of voice for each particular story.

Actually, I'm one of those people that like Jessica Schambach's fast verbal pace. Both her and Tyler have great vocal energy. As far as slickness and professionalism of a broadcast, I think KOCO is superb.

I hope Jessica will be around a long time. She does all the things I like, and none of the things that annoy me. I love that crisp voice of hers.

Actually, the rapid fire news delivery is what I like. And yes... She is a very attractive woman.

Sounds like a girl.

Name is a little hard to spell. Other than that, if she can read a teleprompter, I guess she can't be all that bad.

-- Seriously, I used to read the news on an admittedly small production (UCO's news station). It's not difficult in the least, and honestly, it's a VERY overrated job.

Y'all are giving these people waaaay too much credit for reading off of a teleprompter and thinking up good segways.

It's funny that you mention this, Midtowner. Even Dan Rather agreed that anchoring a news cast is a piece of cake. Check out his comments.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060425/ap_en_tv/people_rather_4

His comments: "
Rather said the role of a news anchor is overestimated and is not as hard as the job of the journalist in the field."

Rather's right. Although I didn't work for a major news production, we still produced the same length of show, probably with more original content than most of our local stations with far inferior equipment, and never a cameraman. I'd go out in the "field," find my own story (occasionally, someone would assign something, but rarely), contact sources, line up interviews, get b-roll, write a script, tape my voiceover, and edit a 1.5 minute package together in about 3-4 hours doing it all. After that, I'd throw on a coat and tie, then anchor. Anchoring is cake -- it involves reading the prompter and looking at whatever camera the director in your ear tells you to.

You'll look "professional" so long as your segways don't suck, you don't stumble over too many words, and you are in control of your mannerisms (I had this eyebrow thing I was always fighting with).

There aren't too many jobs where you can come off as "polished" after only a few practice attempts. Anchoring is one of those types of jobs though. To be fair, an anchor is usually assigned other duties such as being a 'producer.' which involves assembling the rundown, making sure that there is no dead air, putting the scripts in order, etc. It's not a tough job as I've done a bit of that as well.

At any rate, y'all would be surprised how little your newspeople are paid. My guess is that at least half of us on here are better paid than any local station's weekend anchors.

I'd like to know what the weeknight anchors are making. Tammy Payne was making almost a 100k a year when she left. That astounded me. Anyone out there know the range of salaries?

Oh, the main anchors do pretty well. That's something I won't dispute. On the other hand, they work terrible hours. Either the 7AM or the 10PM news (or is it 5AM?) Sometimes both.

I don't care how much money they make, 100K for hours like that isn't really that great.

Oh, the main anchors do pretty well. That's something I won't dispute. On the other hand, they work terrible hours. Either the 7AM or the 10PM news (or is it 5AM?) Sometimes both.

I don't care how much money they make, 100K for hours like that isn't really that great.

At least for most anchors it's a set schedule, so they get used to it. It's no different from folks working various shifts in the medical setting.

By my understanding, the biggest salaries in the OKC market go to Gary England and Linda Cavanuagh, with the Barry's not too far behind.

RE:Salary Myth for Tammy Payne

Dear friends,
in the lawsuit involving Tammy Payne, as disgruntled former employee suing giant corporate conglomerate New York Times corporation (owner of KFOR): The attorneys used legalese seeking damages in excess of $100,000.00 and mentioned that she had earned a "salary less than $100,000>00"

this legalese language does NOT mean that she made 100K per year...merely lawsuit based legalese

It's strange that they'd put that on there -- in Oklahoma, you generally have three types of civil suits -- Small Claims, Civil <$10,000 and Civil >$10,000.

In your requested relief, you simply have to put that you're seeking damages in excess of $10,000. It's strange that they went with $100,000, but whatever.

By my understanding, the biggest salaries in the OKC market go to Gary England and Linda Cavanuagh, with the Barry's not too far behind.
What's interesting is that both Gary England and Linda Cavanaugh have the worst hours, 5 PM, 6 PM, and 10 PM. They are basically working the second shift. Of course it has been that way for years and years.

More people watch the evening and night time news than any other time. So, I guess it makes sense for your highest paid people to work during those hours.

Of course, being the best in your field in the nation never hurts either. That is why Gary England makes one million a year.

"Meteorology" is a lot less skill-intensive than you'd think.

Gary's more of a name-brand than a highly skilled technician. He only holds a minor in meteorology -- there are quite a few people up at OU and NOAA who would be considered far more knowledgable about weather than England. He is alright at relating that information to the public via his medium, but the best in his field? I think that's quite a stretch.

RE:Salary Myth for Tammy Payne

Dear friends,
in the lawsuit involving Tammy Payne, as disgruntled former employee suing giant corporate conglomerate New York Times corporation (owner of KFOR): The attorneys used legalese seeking damages in excess of $100,000.00 and mentioned that she had earned a "salary less than $100,000>00"

this legalese language does NOT mean that she made 100K per year...merely lawsuit based legalese

I agree, she was not making 100k a year, according to a figure on the web I saw a couple years ago, she was making 98k, if memory serves me. Maybe someone who remembers it better can jump in here.

My question here: Why do people get so wrapped up with TV newspeople, how they look, etc?

Who here said that they just couldn't 'start their day' without seeing the smile of some certain anchorette?

I apologize -- I just don't 'get it'.

Who cares who they are as long as they're not painful to look at? Reading a prompter really isn't that tough, and neither is much of anything that they do. Now, the field reporters? Whole 'nother story! I seriously considered that line of work (and I wasn't bad at it) back in my undergrad days. Imagine it being your job to go out and find interesting stuff and then tell a story about it in 1.5 minutes or less? Pretty fun, eh?

The pay is terrible though, so I decided against it.

Not to mention they often want you to stand out in inclement weather, grass fires, or the middle of the night.

I don't really understand the big deal about news anchors. I mean, I don't feel any loss if I don't "see" them on any particular day. As long as the anchors are literate I don't really care who reads the teleprompter.

Besides, I can always just read it online later, anyway.

Not to mention they often want you to stand out in inclement weather, grass fires, or the middle of the night.

I don't really understand the big deal about news anchors. I mean, I don't feel any loss if I don't "see" them on any particular day. As long as the anchors are literate I don't really care who reads the teleprompter.

Besides, I can always just read it online later, anyway.

I'm picturing these 'fans' as being homebodies that have a difficult time with human contact and relationships. They therefore create (in their mind) these relationships with newspeople on the TV who are their 'friends.'

They always smile at them, they do not judge, they are perfect people with perfect hair and perfect makeup... and what's better -- they are up to date on current events!

Perhaps I'm reading too much in, but in many cases, I think I'm pretty much on-target.

Might I suggest match-dot-com?

Midtowner, I know you're joking but I don't think people have to be recluses or have personality issues to have a favorite newsperson! :tweeted:

Different strokes for different folks - makes the world go 'round.

As long as people don't start stalking, I don't care if they like a newsanchor or not.

People do get paid millions to read the teleprompter and the higher ups put a lot of weight on the popularity of the anchor ( Katie Couric comes to mind).

So, it doesn't surprise me that people get attached or have a preference to an anchor they can relate to.

Karried:

Couric does more than read a teleprompter though. She socializes with guests, promotes shows and products, etc. Couric is also a major 'name brand.'

Couric does not do news -- morning shows do have a small news segment, but they are not news programs. Dr. Phil's latest book on why fat people should feel okay about themselves is not news -- it's product placement. Couric is a bad example at any rate.

But, you take the top anchors in the top markets, and sure, they'll get paid well. That's because they're at the top of their profession. They don't make "millions," but close. Compared to their colleagues in say, Ardmore, OK, they make quite a bit more. The lead anchor in Ardmore, I'm guessing MIGHT clear $60,000.

Anchors are normal folks -- and the male anchors wear makeup. But people getting attached to someone who appears on the TV to read a teleprompter is just a little odd to me. I guess some folks really can't operate out of their comfort zone, and they have to see the same face reading the prompter to them?

Can one of these people please explain their odd behavior? I'm curious how y'all rationalize it.

Gary and Linda don't have the worst shift, Keith.....anchors strive to get on the evening news. It's considered the "best, most prestigious" assignment.

Couric does not do news -- morning shows do have a small news segment, but they are not news programs. Dr. Phil's latest book on why fat people should feel okay about themselves is not news -- it's product placement. Couric is a bad example at any rate.

Mid, I know you're a busy guy, but Katie Couric was just hired to anchor the CBS Evening News at what is reportedly the largest news anchor salary in history.

She's a name brand, and thus far she hasn't done news. I'd be curious to know exactly what her editorial powers are going to be. I doubt that they'll be much. The national news anchors have been pretty weak lately anyhow. They essentially read AP press releases over the air with pictures sometimes attached. No one who wants serious news watches network TV anyhow. CNN, etc. are far superior in that regard.

She's a name brand, and thus far she hasn't done news. I'd be curious to know exactly what her editorial powers are going to be. I doubt that they'll be much. The national news anchors have been pretty weak lately anyhow. They essentially read AP press releases over the air with pictures sometimes attached. No one who wants serious news watches network TV anyhow. CNN, etc. are far superior in that regard.
I agree. But, if it was limited to the networks, I would take Brian Williams as anchor and the CBS reporting team.

I like CNN as well, but actually prefer the harder news found on CNN International.

I've only had the pleasure of meeting one international reporter who was unfortunately fired for not carrying the message that the home network wanted him to. Dr. Bob Arnot is an extremely interested individual. Fluent in Arabic, the guy has been everywhere, from personally interviewing Al-Qaueda leaders in Afghanistan to operating on wounded children on the front lines in Iraq.

I had the honor of interviewing that gentleman when I had the college news gig. He's what I'd love to see more of in our news programs -- an intellectual who reports the news as he sees it, not the news that he's been told to report. He's capable of giving scathing analysis and insight where called for, but other than that, 'just the facts.'

I don't think you'll get the same thing out of the more modern crop of reporters. I think most of them are content to say whatever will promote themselves and their images. If I could trade the Geraldo's of the world for teh Bob Arnots, I'd do it in a heartbeat... unfortunately, the Geraldos are taking over.

Jessica is the best female anchor in OKC. Look at the competition. Amy McRee....the bleach blonde. Linda Cavanaugh...the bleached....grandma...and..Brook "I need more lip collagen"...Osburn. Compared to other major cities. She's pretty good.

What's KOCO thinking with Maggie Carlo? She can't ENUNciate.

She's the best because she's the most attractive? What a great way to rate some upstanding women in our community.

bandnerd, when I did the news show for UCO, they thought I was great because I was so attractive.

It's the truth.

Somehow I find that hard to believe, Mid.

It seems the whole attractiveness factor really only applies to the ladies.

I know i'm new to this thread and it's been going on for a while but I agree with barnarnerd: talent shouldn't be based on looks. Personally I think she sounds like she has marbles in her mouth. I think there are better anchorwomen in the area even if Linda is one of them. She may not be nice to look at but she IS talented and has lasted longer than most of the new anchors probably ever will.

i'm sorry, I meant I agree with bandnerd

Beard -- seriously, how do you know an anchorperson is "talented"? Just about anyone can read a teleprompter. Talent is not really a prerequisite. Literacy maybe.. but not talent.

Leave him alone...he agrees with me. That seems to be a rarity on this board ;)

Leave him alone...he agrees with me. That seems to be a rarity on this board ;)

Yes ma'am.

Funny how different people hear different things. I think Jessica has the clearest voice of any anchor I know. I even think she is "talented" (gasp!) because she does her job superbly and seamlessly, and makes it look friendly and natural.

I'm not saying I'm an expert on talent (of course literacy is important but so is poise which Linda has without forcing the issue) but my opinion is my opinion and what I think is talent is someone who seems natural. I know Jessica and I know her husband Mark Myers (used to work on Ch. 5). I never thought he had much talent. I'm not saying she isn't talented but I don't think her TV voice is very clear. Personally, I DO think she got the opportunity based on her appearance.

I'm not saying I'm an expert on talent (of course literacy is important but so is poise which Linda has without forcing the issue) but my opinion is my opinion and what I think is talent is someone who seems natural. I know Jessica and I know her husband Mark Myers (used to work on Ch. 5). I never thought he had much talent. I'm not saying she isn't talented but I don't think her TV voice is very clear. Personally, I DO think she got the opportunity based on her appearance.

Wow, it's been more than a year since anyone posted here!

With sweeps coming up, I'll just say watch Jessica for one week and see if you are ever satisfied watching anyone else. In my opinion, she is now in a league all her own. She's the classiest, most elegant, friendliest anchor on local news, anchoring with complete professionalism every night.

She never lets down, whether it's a ratings month or not. She just "brings it" every night with complete perfection.

If you think she's hot on TV, check her out in person sometime. Wow what a looker.

As for it should be about talent, not looks: TV stations hire for the camera like they're a teenager collecting baseball cards. "One white male anchor, check!" "One female co-anchor, check!" "Oh man, I still need a female minority.." etc etc. Yes, talent does play a role, but more than anything else these days, it's if you're something they don't have and if you can work cheap. OKC has some horrible reporters right now because of this.

Wow, it's been more than a year since anyone posted here!

With sweeps coming up, I'll just say watch Jessica for one week and see if you are ever satisfied watching anyone else. In my opinion, she is now in a league all her own. She's the classiest, most elegant, friendliest anchor on local news, anchoring with complete professionalism every night.

She never lets down, whether it's a ratings month or not. She just "brings it" every night with complete perfection.

She is truly awesome at reading a teleprompter and smiling.

-- oh... and let's not forget the art of the segway.

She is incredible at everyone a female anchor should be, just like Tiger Woods is great at hitting a worthless golf ball into a cup.

The point is not whether you think news anchors are important, or that their jobs are tough, the thread is dedicated to Jessica Schambach as an anchor.

If you want to see a great golfer, watch Tiger Woods. If you want to see the equivalent in a news anchor, watch Jessica Schambach.

She is incredible at everyone a female anchor should be, just like Tiger Woods is great at hitting a worthless golf ball into a cup.

The point is not whether you think news anchors are important, or that their jobs are tough, the thread is dedicated to Jessica Schambach as an anchor.

If you want to see a great golfer, watch Tiger Woods. If you want to see the equivalent in a news anchor, watch Jessica Schambach.

If I want to watch perfection in news anchors, I'll be watching nakednews.com's newscasts.