KFOR News Set

[drumsncode]

Someone mentioned something like this earlier, about using pre-packaged stories and putting local voiceovers on them, stuff like that.

I was surprised to learn that "Your Life...Your Way..." is a pre-packaged thing, and all Amy McRee does is put her face on top of the logo, and introduce the stories. That's why you never see her in any of the footage, because it is shot by an outside firm! Ha! (Who woulda thought it?)

Contrast that to "What Matters to You", where Maggie Carlo actually goes out and does the legwork and sometimes appears in the footage.

That's a big difference to me.

So while I still enjoy seeing Amy do the segment, I know the truth, and as Eddie Murphy said in Beverly Hills Cop, "I ain't falling for no banana up my tailpipe." ;-)

[jungllejane]

KOCO is where its at.

[rwood8]

I have my own ratings system.

I'm afraid to ask about that ratings system. You need better taste, my friend. Oy vey.

[jsibelius]

I'm afraid to ask about that ratings system. You need better taste, my friend. Oy vey.

It's the one that gets the most laughs in the morning. That's KFOR, hands down. They mostly just repeat the 10:00 news from the night before, anyway, so it's really nothing new. It's just entertainment.

[drumsncode]

Speaking of sets, I love the new background on KOCO. It looked good the first night, but last night for some reason the shots just looked downright gorgeous. It just goes to show you don't really need a multi-million dollar set with two spiral staircases to air a really beautiful show.

To my eyes at this point, KOCO is airing the best looking show in the market. Whoever chose the background and designed the colors did a fantastic job.

[dances with cameras]

I was surprised to learn that "Your Life...Your Way..." is a pre-packaged thing, and all Amy McRee does is put her face on top of the logo, and introduce the stories. That's why you never see her in any of the footage, because it is shot by an outside firm! Ha! (Who woulda thought it?)

Wrong. Amy DOES write those stories, and they are shot by a NEWS9 photog. Obviously, some of the stories require file video, but they are MOSTLY shot locally.

[metro]

I really can't help but echo what some of my fellow newsies have all concured on, it certainly looks like Channel 4 is trying to themselves look like the number one station (at 5 and 6) in the market. "Maybe if our logo is blue also, they will forget who they are watching." I still think they were ignorant to ever get rid of the newsroom set. Fix the lighting in the newsroom, and put some desks from 1990 in the newsroom, and you will have a good looking set again. The arts and crafts news set look is so 1994.

I agree, KFOR is completely trying to rip off Channel 5, but doing a junior college attempt at it. It looks like a colleget tv station. There's a reason they are #3 in the Neilson ratings. I believe they are still owned by the New York Times company now, so with all these out of state owners, we're not likely to see major changes any time soon. I prefer KOCO it has a more modern, fresh look to it. KWTV is locally owned so that is why they see changes more often, although they look a bit geriatric to me.

[drumsncode]

Wrong. Amy DOES write those stories, and they are shot by a NEWS9 photog. Obviously, some of the stories require file video, but they are MOSTLY shot locally.

If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong, but I'll explain why I said it in the first place.

I can't for the life of me find the URL where the company sells the
"Your Life... Your Way..." product, but I stumbled upon it months ago. Obviously, if you work for KWTV you know full well that this is a package from an outside firm.

I found their website and they had the identical "Your Life Your Way" logo, but without the anchor's face on it. They went on to describe how each station could "brand it" with their own anchor. If memory serves, they talked about shooting all the stories which of course, would include picking all the topics and such.

The impression I got was that they did most of the work, and all the anchor had to do was basically just waltz in and put her face on top of it.

If Amy is researching all these stories each week, then I would have a hard time believing that she has any free time at all. If you're shooting these stories locally, then put Amy into some of them like the other stations do, that would make them even better.

But at least know that I didn't just pull my post out of thin air, I found the firm that originated the concept and was selling it to news stations.

[drumsncode]

Whatever Keep dreaming.. Were #1 and always will be.

It dawned on me that with the newly revised Nielsen ratings, KFOR has kicked a lot of butt, just as you've been saying all along.

I'm not sure how you knew this before the rest of us, but a lot of us owe you an apology. We were going by the Nielsen figures which have now been revised to show that KFOR has been winning a lot of timeslots!

I just read that Nielsen has yet to recalculate the November 2007 ratings, which might just mean that KOCO wasn't really #1 back then either at 5 and 6pm! Yowsa!

Somewhere in Nielsen land, there's a computer programmer who wrote a hurried SQL statement and didn't test it well enough. I wonder if he got his bottom spanked for that. ;-)

[Bobby821]

LOL good one...

[metro]

I heard KFOR wasn't included properly in the last Neilsen ratings because their "HD" channel wasn't included in the rankings, so Neilsen was simply making good. I can also tell you there sales staff is in a flood of trouble. They have lost several accounts over it, they are currently short several sales staff.

[TaoMaas]

I heard KFOR wasn't included properly in the last Neilsen ratings because their "HD" channel wasn't included in the rankings, so Neilsen was simply making good. I can also tell you there sales staff is in a flood of trouble. They have lost several accounts over it, they are currently short several sales staff.

The economic troubles and the problems in the auto industry are taking a huge bite out of the ad revenue at most stations around the country.

[drumsncode]

It had to be incredibly strange for KFOR, but now think about KOCO! They were thinking they were #1 at 5 and 6pm for several sweeps periods, now they dropped like a fly. This may be as devastating to them as to anyone.

Imagine thinking that you were totally kicking butt when in fact you were in last place? OUCH!

This is one of the biggest fiascos to happen in local news that I can think of.

[bsmall]

I agree with you FritterGirl. KFOR is usually the worst a Now, just if one of our stations would start broadcasting in HD...

It's gotta be embarrassing for the other local stations when the first local HD news broadcast is from the PBS station.
ONR in HD beginning Monday
I've been watching OETA's news just because it's high definition.

[Buickcarnut]

I dont think it's the slightest bit imbarrassing for the local stations. What's been embarrassing is watching them roll this out. Face it, with the economy down, I don't think the stations are rushing out to spend 3 to 5 Mil, yes I said million, for their news sets to be in HD, besides, product gets better (production gear) and it gets cheaper.

[TaoMaas]

Face it, with the economy down, I don't think the stations are rushing out to spend 3 to 5 Mil, yes I said million, for their news sets to be in HD, besides, product gets better (production gear) and it gets cheaper.

I don't know about the other stations, but I think Ch. 9 has been shooting with HD capable cameras for some time now. They're just not using them in that mode yet.

[metro]

I deal with the local tv stations on a weekly and sometimes daily basis. We probably won't see any of them rolling out full HD for several years. As someone above said, the cost is too prohibitive in this market. It would cost several million to upgrade all equipment and broadcast in complete HD, to clarify, the February 2009 deadline is to broadcast in DIGITAL not HD, there is a big difference in quality. FYI....all of them are still running BETA tapes, yeah the BETA's from the 80's just in case you were wondering. I was wanting to broadcast my new commercials in FULL HD but that ain't happening for a few years. On the production end I can produce them in HD, but they will be broadcast in Standard Definition (SD). Even the network shows that are broadcast in HD will have to be reduced to digital SD until they upgrade to full HD broadcast equipment.

[TaoMaas]

FYI....all of them are still running BETA tapes, yeah the BETA's from the 80's just in case you were wondering.

They can run beta's, but Ch. 9 is shooting with Panasonics that use P2 cards. It's a simple menu option to change the format from standard def to HD. And I believe they're playing back their news stories from a server. Of course, that doesn't address their broadcast capabilities...only what they can produce in-house.

[metro]

Good points as well Tao Maas, but again, it's not the production that's really the issue, there are plenty of ways to get around making HD production easily, it's the broadcasting that I pointed out and you elaborated on as well. From what I'm hearing, it will be years before they upgrade to true HD broadcasting. I've heard the economy will delay it further.

[TaoMaas]

I'm not trying to argue with you, Metro. It's just that I was under the impression that it was a HD playback problem that was holding things up. I don't have an HD set so I don't know whether this is true or not, but aren't some of the affiliates passing along HD programming from network over the air?

[OKCisOK4me]

Good points as well Tao Maas, but again, it's not the production that's really the issue, there are plenty of ways to get around making HD production easily, it's the broadcasting that I pointed out and you elaborated on as well. From what I'm hearing, it will be years before they upgrade to true HD broadcasting. I've heard the economy will delay it further.

This is so stupid. I think one of the Tulsa stations is broadcasting in hi def. What's the difference between there and here? Does it have to do with economy? Apparently not. Doesn't have to do with population base either, being OKC is bigger. So what's the hold up as I've asked them many times? It's pretty lame if you ask me...

[metro]

I'm not trying to argue with you, Metro. It's just that I was under the impression that it was a HD playback problem that was holding things up. I don't have an HD set so I don't know whether this is true or not, but aren't some of the affiliates passing along HD programming from network over the air?

Yes, they are passing HD network programming on their HD channels, but from my contacts at the stations, the broadcasting isn't completely HD and won't be. Wasn't trying to argue, just pass along info that I knew first hand from my conversations with the stations.

[metro]

This is so stupid. I think one of the Tulsa stations is broadcasting in hi def. What's the difference between there and here? Does it have to do with economy? Apparently not. Doesn't have to do with population base either, being OKC is bigger. So what's the hold up as I've asked them many times? It's pretty lame if you ask me...

Are you sure it's true 100% HD? Because the 3 local networks have HD channels here, but it's not 100% HD. Basically most stations nationwide don't have 100% digital and HD equipment, specifically broadcasting equipment. Now programs might be produced in HD, but the broadcast might just be digital, not HD. I'm not an expert but that's the way I understand it from those who do understand it.

[OKCisOK4me]

Are you sure it's true 100% HD? Because the 3 local networks have HD channels here, but it's not 100% HD. Basically most stations nationwide don't have 100% digital and HD equipment, specifically broadcasting equipment. Now programs might be produced in HD, but the broadcast might just be digital, not HD. I'm not an expert but that's the way I understand it from those who do understand it.

I'm referring to the actual newscast of the local affiliate. Of course they broadcast the nationally syndicated shows in HD that offer it in that format but I'm talking about local production with station owned cameras.

And thinking back it might not have been Tulsa. I think it was KC. Is it because of the market size?

[jbrown84]

in DIGITAL not HD, there is a big difference in quality.

There is a big difference, but it's not the quality.

Hi-Definition (HD) has to do with the number of lines of information on the screen. Just as more megapixels in a digital picture give you more detail, HD's 720-1080 lines give you far more detail, color, and crispness than Standard-Definition's 480 lines.

Digital has to do with how the information is delivered. With Analog, the signal was in waves, which require more bandwidth. Digital signals are 1's and 0's and take up much less space. This is why one TV station, such as KWTV, can now have 2 or 3 channels on their FCC-dictated airspace.

The reason Digital and HD are often confused is because it takes a digital signal to carry an HD broadcast over the air.