Local news anchors; newsreaders or journalists?

[gmwise]

I have a very few local anchors I respect or maybe I'm just missing the ones who is more then just there to read words, and I would appreciate any guidance.
It just seems to many are just newsreaders, not real journalists.
I can't seem to remember any of the anchors, whose really working and researching a story other then one thats spoon-fed by a special interest group.
Is it I'm expecting to much from local tv stations?

[NE Oasis]

If you get the chance visit Melissa Maynarich, NEWS9 at noon and 4:00 PM.
IMHO she is being wasted in those time slots.

[drumsncode]

If you get the chance visit Melissa Maynarich, NEWS9 at noon and 4:00 PM.
IMHO she is being wasted in those time slots.

Ah yes, but where would you put her on NEWS 9? Surely not in place of Amanda Taylor or Amy McRee. How about weekend evenings, where she could compete with whoever KOCO chooses to replace Maggie Carlo on Sunday evenings?

Just pondering the endless anchor/ratings puzzle...

[Midtowner]

I once saw Ali Meyer break some real news about some sort of corruption up at Oklahoma County. I don't recall much followup happening or anything of that nature.

It's my opinion that former news-gathering organizations decided a long time ago that paying folks to do things like research 'stole' profit dollars. So instead of gathering news, doing FOI requests, etc., we call up the PIOs from the various areas around the city and cover whatever they have. You've heard the saying "If it bleeds it leads"? Completely accurate.

Why pay people to uncover real news when you can get the same ratings showing how some old lady got jipped by a fly-by-night carpet cleaning service? I blame the dumbass American public as much as I blame the news stations. I guarantee you 9/10 Oklahomans are going to tune into a high speed chase over the uncovering of corruption and insider dealing on a public trust board (or something of that nature).

[TaoMaas]

Why pay people to uncover real news when you can get the same ratings showing how some old lady got jipped by a fly-by-night carpet cleaning service?

That's very true. Now, compare the costs of bringing both these storiese to air. A real investigative piece could take weeks or even months to come to fruition, whereas the carpet cleaning rip-off can be done in a few hours or a couple of days, at most. If they both deliver the same ratings and fill the same amount of air time, can a station really afford to do the investigative piece if their competitors are doing the carpet cleaning story? We like to think of news departments as being somewhat of a public service, but in reality, they are businesses with the same profit/expense concerns of every other business.

[NE Oasis]

I once saw Ali Meyer break some real news about some sort of corruption up at Oklahoma County. I don't recall much followup happening or anything of that nature.

Let's not forget Britten Follet finding dirt (sorry, pun) in some Gallardia real estate deals. Stepping on toes got her a "transfer" from KWTV to Fox.

[drumsncode]

Yeah, I really like Britten Follett. I actually consider her a journalist, not just a prompter-reader. She kicks butt, takes names, and looks incredibly stylish doing it. Nick Winkler is back on FOX25 too, if you haven't noticed.

[jsibelius]

Ah yes, but where would you put her on NEWS 9? Surely not in place of Amanda Taylor or Amy McRee. How about weekend evenings, where she could compete with whoever KOCO chooses to replace Maggie Carlo on Sunday evenings?

Just pondering the endless anchor/ratings puzzle...

Does Maggie Carlo need replacing? Didn't KOCO really just have too many anchors for all their anchor slots during the week?

Seems like TV news is having the same problems as the newspapers. They don't want to spend money/don't have money to spend on real journalism. They know the public is generally happy with newsreaders and consumer alert stories that take very little money and time to report. If the public is happy, advertisers are happy. That means the money is coming in. Thus, the admins are happy. And we continue to have newsreaders, not journalists.

If we got bored with our newsreaders and stopped watching, things would change. I don't know if they'd necessarily figure out we wanted them to spend money on real journalism, though. They'd probably try a million other things first that didn't involve spending so much money.

[Midtowner]

If we got bored with our newsreaders and stopped watching, things would change. I don't know if they'd necessarily figure out we wanted them to spend money on real journalism, though. They'd probably try a million other things first that didn't involve spending so much money.

I haven't watched an OKC newscast in a long time. The only useful function any of these stations serve is that they sometimes have folks who are decent at interpreting weather maps.

Newsok.com has done some good stuff with video and convergence. I actually worked with Angie Bruss back in the day. She is a very talented, very smart lady. She was (and is) clearly one of the most talented folks I worked with up there (and our newscast won national awards, so we didn't suck).

I think if I was in charge of 'fixing' the news while also cutting costs in the newsroom, I think I'd start ot with firing the photogs. while those guys are great luxuries, back in my college days, I put together professional-looking TV-worthy stuff (that did get played on Channel 22) as a one-man-band.

I'd lug my camera, microphone, lighting, etc. with me, get my interviews, etc. I'd even frame my own standups. It's not hard. I don't know what photogs make, but I'm guessing it ain't much. At any rate, eliminate those guys and you can maybe hire a full-timer who can put together investigative, hard-news stuff on a regular basis as a one-man show.

Second, I'd catch the stations up on newer technology. I can think of no good reason why anyone still uses those huge shoulder-mount cameras anymore. A small camera, a laptop with some editing hardware and a wi-fi connection (or one over any wireless internet network) and I can accomplish just about anything an expensive "mobile newsroom" with microwave whosiwhatchits can do.

I think if stations wanted to do hard news and stay within budget, it could be done. The current uses of technology and choices the producers are making as to stories which are being covered tells me no one really cares.

Sure, I'm an outsider with just a passing bit of experience in the newsmaking business, but I have a pretty solid idea as to what goes into producing a newscast, and think with the right folks, a minimal staff can do a really good job.

[jsibelius]

I'd lug my camera, microphone, lighting, etc. with me, get my interviews, etc. I'd even frame my own standups. It's not hard. I don't know what photogs make, but I'm guessing it ain't much. At any rate, eliminate those guys and you can maybe hire a full-timer who can put together investigative, hard-news stuff on a regular basis as a one-man show.

Second, I'd catch the stations up on newer technology. I can think of no good reason why anyone still uses those huge shoulder-mount cameras anymore. A small camera, a laptop with some editing hardware and a wi-fi connection (or one over any wireless internet network) and I can accomplish just about anything an expensive "mobile newsroom" with microwave whosiwhatchits can do.

I think if stations wanted to do hard news and stay within budget, it could be done. The current uses of technology and choices the producers are making as to stories which are being covered tells me no one really cares.

Sure, I'm an outsider with just a passing bit of experience in the newsmaking business, but I have a pretty solid idea as to what goes into producing a newscast, and think with the right folks, a minimal staff can do a really good job.

Good. You start. We'll watch.

[Midtowner]

Good. You start. We'll watch.

When I finally finish law school, no one will be able to afford me

I don't even think I was that great, but I did a competent job improvising, often with my own equipment. Imagine what could have been done if I had 8 hours a day instead of 3 to put a package together, more professional equipment, better editing software, more training, etc.?

My point is that the cuts are being made in dumb places and that I can't understand why news stations insist on using what I'd consider to be more expensive and outmoded technology when cheaper and more powerful operations are available.

Maybe I'm completely off-base..

[SoonerQueen]

From what I understand Maggie Carlo moved to the Chicago area.

[Andrew4OU]

I think Alex Cameron @ KWTV is one of OKC's best journalists. The rest are pretty much "newsreaders." Alex seems to always have some pretty good investigative reports.

[kevinpate]

I miss Jennifer Reynolds. She wasn't a talking head. Although I've enjoyed her work through Discover Oklahoma, I liked her better for news than travel fluff stuff.

[TaoMaas]

I think if I was in charge of 'fixing' the news while also cutting costs in the newsroom, I think I'd start ot with firing the photogs. while those guys are great luxuries, back in my college days, I put together professional-looking TV-worthy stuff (that did get played on Channel 22) as a one-man-band.

I'd lug my camera, microphone, lighting, etc. with me, get my interviews, etc. I'd even frame my own standups. It's not hard. I don't know what photogs make, but I'm guessing it ain't much. At any rate, eliminate those guys and you can maybe hire a full-timer who can put together investigative, hard-news stuff on a regular basis as a one-man show.

This concept is being tried at a number of places around the country. So far, nobody has been able to make it work effectively.

Second, I'd catch the stations up on newer technology. I can think of no good reason why anyone still uses those huge shoulder-mount cameras anymore. A small camera, a laptop with some editing hardware and a wi-fi connection (or one over any wireless internet network) and I can accomplish just about anything an expensive "mobile newsroom" with microwave whosiwhatchits can do.

They use those bigger cameras partly because they stand up to heavy use better. And, regarding the new technology, the stations are using some of it...and some, they're waiting for it to mature. Remember, we're not talking about YouTube quality video at 320X240. It needs to be full screen, full motion, (soon to be HD) quality, and be instantaneous, as well as extremely reliable.

[Steve]

Midtowner, some of the best tv journalists in this town are the camera guys. And yes, Alex Cameron is very good.

[FFLady]

I haven't watched an OKC newscast in a long time. The only useful function any of these stations serve is that they sometimes have folks who are decent at interpreting weather maps.

Newsok.com has done some good stuff with video and convergence. I actually worked with Angie Bruss back in the day. She is a very talented, very smart lady. She was (and is) clearly one of the most talented folks I worked with up there (and our newscast won national awards, so we didn't suck).

I think if I was in charge of 'fixing' the news while also cutting costs in the newsroom, I think I'd start ot with firing the photogs. while those guys are great luxuries, back in my college days, I put together professional-looking TV-worthy stuff (that did get played on Channel 22) as a one-man-band.

I'd lug my camera, microphone, lighting, etc. with me, get my interviews, etc. I'd even frame my own standups. It's not hard. I don't know what photogs make, but I'm guessing it ain't much. At any rate, eliminate those guys and you can maybe hire a full-timer who can put together investigative, hard-news stuff on a regular basis as a one-man show.

Second, I'd catch the stations up on newer technology. I can think of no good reason why anyone still uses those huge shoulder-mount cameras anymore. A small camera, a laptop with some editing hardware and a wi-fi connection (or one over any wireless internet network) and I can accomplish just about anything an expensive "mobile newsroom" with microwave whosiwhatchits can do.

I think if stations wanted to do hard news and stay within budget, it could be done. The current uses of technology and choices the producers are making as to stories which are being covered tells me no one really cares.

Sure, I'm an outsider with just a passing bit of experience in the newsmaking business, but I have a pretty solid idea as to what goes into producing a newscast, and think with the right folks, a minimal staff can do a really good job.

......and get a few more intellect types to interview???

[jungllejane]

all i can say is paul folger is so cute on koco...

[CaptDave]

all i can say is paul folger is so cute on koco...

You might like this then.....

Paul Folger is easily distracted and probably not gay… at The Lost Ogle

[FritterGirl]

Midtowner, some of the best tv journalists in this town are the camera guys. And yes, Alex Cameron is very good.

Couldn't agree with you more. As one who is sometimes on the "other side," I will admit I've had some lousy interviews by reporters, and some dang good ones (and thorough) by the camera folk. They just seem to "get" the whole need to create a cohesive narrative in the story as opposed to just trying to get that :10 second soundbite.

[southernskye]

all i can say is paul folger is so cute on koco...

You might like this then.....

Paul Folger is easily distracted and probably not gay… at The Lost Ogle

I can't stand him. He sits funny and it always looks like hes trying to look down Jessica Schambach's shirt.

[dances with cameras]

I think if I was in charge of 'fixing' the news while also cutting costs in the newsroom, I think I'd start ot with firing the photogs

You have NO concept of what a TERRIBLE idea that would be. Most photogs at our local stations have well over 10-15 years covering news. Contrast that with your average rookie reporter who's been out of school for a year. Sure, those rookies become salty over time, but it's usually due to a really good teacher/photog.

And yeah, Alex Cameron is THE MAN.

[stick47]

Not news but an Oklahoma Legend: Newschannel 4s' Bob Barrys' last regular sports cast was today. They said he'll be back on for special assignments.
I believe Bob is 75 and read the sports for 42 years at Channel 4.
Great job Bob! (or Cannonball if you remember that far back!)

[SoonerDave]

If you're referring to Cannonball from Foreman Scotty, Bob Barry Sr was NOT the same person. Cannonball was played by a man named Wilson Hurst.

[bornhere]

Didn't Bob Sr retire once before... maybe when he turned 65?