Jessica Schambach

[jhughes1963]

Any opinions about Jessica Schambach on Channel 5 KOCO?

[Keith]

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 .

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.

[EdwardEll]

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.

[drumsncode]

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.

[mranderson]

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

[Midtowner]

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.

[Patrick]

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/...eople_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."

[Midtowner]

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.

[drumsncode]

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?

[Midtowner]

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.

[Patrick]

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.

[writerranger]

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.

[EdwardEll]

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

[Midtowner]

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.

[Keith]

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.

[mranderson]

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

[Midtowner]

"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.

[drumsncode]

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.

[Midtowner]

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.

[bandnerd]

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.

[Midtowner]

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?

[Karried]

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.

[Midtowner]

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.

[escan]

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.

[writerranger]

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.