Tulsa KTUL Channel 8 is moving news production to OKC

[Tydude]

https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/si...7bab26bfa.html

[scottk]

KTUL is owned by Sinclair, as is FOX25 here in OKC. It's sad to see this for numerous reasons, but at the same time, I am guessing the majority of people who read this spend more time on OKCTalk than they do watching local news, outside of breaking news and weather stories (and you probably watch those on your phone!) Local TV/Local News needs to find better ways to adapt to a changing media landscape.

Interesting to see also the attitudes of ownership, while Sinclair is essentially downsizing and relocating their Tulsa news operation at KTUL, Griffin who owns KOTV and KWTV in Tulsa and OKC have spent millions in building brand new newsrooms and buildings in the past decade. KFOR under Tribune got a new building just before they swapped hands to Local TV and NextStar, and KOCO owned by Hearst redid their set a few years back and about to move into a newly renovated newsroom.

[unfundedrick]

https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/si...7bab26bfa.html

That article require a subscription to be able to see it.

[scottk]

That article require a subscription to be able to see it.

Basically, KTUL Channel 8 the ABC affiliate in Tulsa, owned by Sinclair, will be winding down their full news operation in about a month. There will be a skeleton crew left in Tulsa for local interest stories and weather, but the majority of their newscast and operations will operate from OKC, presumably from the studios at FOX 25. Statewide stories like stuff at the Capitol or sports coverage will most likely share resources with FOX 25's team. Sinclair is also known for having portions of local newscast being filled with Sinclair based national segments.

Many of Channel 8's on-air and behind the scenes staff were notified of this change and downsizing today after the morning newscast.

Given the size of Tulsa and eastern Oklahoma, it was quite a shock to see a news production of this size be relocated/downsized.

[unfundedrick]

KTUL is owned by Sinclair, as is FOX25 here in OKC. It's sad to see this for numerous reasons, but at the same time, I am guessing the majority of people who read this spend more time on OKCTalk than they do watching local news, outside of breaking news and weather stories (and you probably watch those on your phone!) Local TV/Local News needs to find better ways to adapt to a changing media landscape.

Interesting to see also the attitudes of ownership, while Sinclair is essentially downsizing and relocating their Tulsa news operation at KTUL, Griffin who owns KOTV and KWTV in Tulsa and OKC have spent millions in building brand new newsrooms and buildings in the past decade. KFOR under Tribune got a new building just before they swapped hands to Local TV and NextStar, and KOCO owned by Hearst redid their set a few years back and about to move into a newly renovated newsroom.

I'm not saying you're wrong about the majority of people here spending more time on OKC Talk but between early morning, evening, and late night, I spend at least an hour and a half every day watching local newscasts. I get almost no news on my phone.

[scottk]

I'm not saying you're wrong about the majority of people here spending more time on OKC Talk but between early morning, evening, and late night, I spend at least an hour and a half every day watching local newscasts. I get almost no news on my phone.

Just curious what's your age range?

90% of people I interact with under the age of 40 have not watched a full 30 minute newscast in 5+ years. They still consume local media from 4, 5, and 9, but it's all segments that have been cut up as individual stories on social channels. This thread will probably dive into how local news is consumed and the future of broadcast news from the big 3 or 4 affiliates.

I think there is a sharp divide in generations of how news is consumed and which news medium (print, online, TV, etc) you trust the most.

In OKC, I think our local affiliates are lucky that we have such devotion to weather, especially during storm season. 4, 5,9 all have helicopters in a market the size of OKC (Media Market #46) while Denver (Market #16) has one helicopter shared between the three affiliates.

[unfundedrick]

Just curious what's your age range?

90% of people I interact with under the age of 40 have not watched a full 30 minute newscast in 5+ years. They still consume local media from 4, 5, and 9, but it's all segments that have been cut up as individual stories on social channels. This thread will probably dive into how local news is consumed and the future of broadcast news from the big 3 or 4 affiliates.

I think there is a sharp divide in generations of how news is consumed and which news medium (print, online, TV, etc) you trust the most.

In OKC, I think our local affiliates are lucky that we have such devotion to weather, especially during storm season. 4, 5,9 all have helicopters in a market the size of OKC (Media Market #46) while Denver (Market #16) has one helicopter shared between the three affiliates.

I'm sure I'm over your age range but age range has nothing to do with it . It's just so much easier to get a comprehensive view of what's going on by watching a complete newscast instead of looking for occasional snippets on a tiny screen on my phone. I catch a newscast while eating breakfast or dinner and I don't want to be messing with a phone while doing that, I do keep up with new or breaking news on my computer while I'm at work though. I don't have time to mess with my phone during the day to do that.

Admittedly, a lot of the stories on local newscasts are just repeats of previously covered stories so I just basically ignore those.,

[Dob Hooligan]

I'm sure I'm over your age range but age range has nothing to do with it . It's just so much easier to get a comprehensive view of what's going on by watching a complete newscast instead of looking for occasional snippets on a tiny screen on my phone. I catch a newscast while eating breakfast or dinner and I don't want to be messing with a phone while doing that, I do keep up with new or breaking news on my computer while I'm at work though. I don't have time to mess with my phone during the day to do that.

Admittedly, a lot of the stories on local newscasts are just repeats of previously covered stories so I just basically ignore those.,

Oh, I think age has everything to do with it. I’m over 60, so I have been trained my whole life to read the paper and watch the news. I have adapted to tablet editions and I have a TV on 24/7. I also multi task and read my phone or tablet constantly.

But, people over 40 are not as fully trained to read phones constantly as those under.

[BG918]

Most people under 40 likely do not even have cable to watch news, and if they did they wouldn't. Has anyone actually watched a TV news segment recently? It's a couple local stories - commercials - a national story - commercials - brief weather report - commercials - brief sports report - commercials. Literally more commercials than actual news.

Local TV news is going the way of the local newspaper. I wouldn't be surprised to see local TV news completely gone by 2030, or some kind of hybrid with local reporters but the actual anchors are in New York. It's not a bad thing there are just different ways of getting news now, especially for younger people.

[Pete]

The median age for people who watch Fox, CNN, and other cable news networks is over 65.

The average age for people who watch broadcast TV in general is 55.

[Shortsyeararound]

I am in my late 40's and don't really watch the news unless it is weather related as I can get the story from their website. We don't have cable but have YoutubeTV and it gets local's but they are rarely in use. When I think of watching the news, I think of being a kid at my grandparents house and hearing Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, and Dan Rather, and it gives me good memories.

[Crocodile Tears]

Most people under 40 likely do not even have cable to watch news, and if they did they wouldn't. Has anyone actually watched a TV news segment recently? It's a couple local stories - commercials - a national story - commercials - brief weather report - commercials - brief sports report - commercials. Literally more commercials than actual news.

Local TV news is going the way of the local newspaper. I wouldn't be surprised to see local TV news completely gone by 2030, or some kind of hybrid with local reporters but the actual anchors are in New York. It's not a bad thing there are just different ways of getting news now, especially for younger people.

When I got rid of cable I bought an antenna so I could still have access to the local broadcast stations. I have no idea why I thought that was necessary at the time as I have never once used the antenna to watch anything.

[Pete]

Broadcast news and newspapers are all riding the baby boomer wave, an anomaly where age distribution across a bell curve shows an inordinate percentage of the U.S. population skewed to the right (on the graph, not politics).

Today, boomers are 60 to 78 and comprise a huge percentage of these old media consumers.

I hate to say this because I'm at the tail end of the boom but this generation is really starting to drop off. If legacy media think they have it bad now (pick up the print Oklahoman and look at their few advertisers: hearing aids, nursing homes) it's going to get much worse very soon and none of these businesses have any sort of revenue model that works now, let alone a decade down the road.

[BoulderSooner]

That article require a subscription to be able to see it.

open it in "incognito" mode

[oklip955]

I am 64. I watch local news on over the air broadcasts. I also have Dish network sat, I still have my 8 ft sat dish and I am getting into Rocu. I miss local newspapers ie the Edmond Sun. I listen to 8 track tapes and some CDs and cassettes. I dont have any idea what is a tablet. I was handed something not a laptop at a doctors office recently to check in. I did not even know what it was or how to turn the thing on. I just looked at it and when they called my name just handed it back to them. I told them i did not know what it was or what to do with it. I am fine with simple stuff on my laptop computer. My phone well that is another matter.

[Bill Robertson]

I'm 64. I very seldom if ever watch news on TV. Haven't picked up a newspaper in probably 20 years. Local channels are on the internet live during their live broadcasts and they can be replayed anytime. The headline stories are online anytime. Weather is instant.
My wife and I were both those people that looked at everyone being on a phone, tablet, laptop, etc. constantly and said "Damn, we're never going to be like that!". Well, we're like that.

[Tydude]

its going to be interesting to see how they are going to do the newscast. Fox 25 has a 1 hour of news from 5:00-6:00 PM. KTUL Channel 8 has a 5 PM and 6 :00 PM Newscast and 5:30 is world news tonight.

[Bunty]

When I got rid of cable I bought an antenna so I could still have access to the local broadcast stations. I have no idea why I thought that was necessary at the time as I have never once used the antenna to watch anything.

Your post helps me think that I wouldn't be surprised if OTA TV stations leave the air before too long and will only be available for online streaming. After all, the high-powered stations broadcast between as much as 500,000 to 1 million watts. I'd sure hate to look at their monthly electric bills. I assume their online streaming bills would be less. Probably maintaining their transmitters along with the broadcast towers standing around 1500 ft. high is a noticeable expense. Only the FCC may want to block them from abandoning those transmitters and towers in total favor of online streaming.

I guess I'm old school. After dropping cable last summer, I use my new flat antenna mounted at ceiling level every day to watch news, weather, sports and other programs from OKC. The only way to watch the OSU-OU game last Sat. if not in the stadium was on KOCO-5. I use Sling Blue and Orange for everything else.

[scottk]

I am still amazed at the number of people that don't realize the majority of live TV they watch can be picked up for free with an antenna, especially with ease if you live in the OKC Metro. Outside of ESPN/Fox Sports, most college football games and NFL can be picked up for free with rabbit ears. Thunder games unfortunately are not over the air outside of the few NBA games that get televised by ABC.

Over the Air viewing accounts for about 20%-25% of TV Homes, roughly 23 million TV homes. (https://www.thefreetvproject.org/)

In the event of severe weather and breaking news, it seems to be more dependable than relying on streaming with buffering and delays.

Anytime the internet goes out in our neighborhood and everyone jumps on their cell phone, data speeds come to a crawl, much like using your phone in a crowded stadium. Over the air doesn't have that issue.

In regards to Channel 8's move and consolidating operations. If you lived in Tulsa and had three other local affiliates that are devoting resources to producing hyperlocal content, why would you want to watch the one with a handful of people in your area, while the rest are 90 miles away?

However, if NBC (Peacock), CBS (Paramount+), ABC and FOX (Hulu) were to shift all network content to these paid streaming platforms, and no longer operate under the broadcast model, I would see it very hard for our local stations to exist independently 24/7.

[Bunty]

I doubt many people, who haven't already by now, want to go to a store to buy a TV antenna and set it up. If reception is poor by hanging it on back of the set, then it may have to become an undesirable eyesore when removed to a different location to improve reception. Steady reception from indoor antennas is likely not possible when living much more than 40-50 miles from the broadcast towers and will require going through with the expense of an outdoor type of antenna installation. Such antennas won't get steady reception much beyond 100 miles, if that much. It's just easier to sign up for streaming.

Once again, if only the most popular cable channels could expand to the sub channels, OTA could catch on big. For starters, imagine one of the OKC OTA channels offering all or nearly all of the ESPN channels. But as a downside, I don't think HDTV is possible on the sub channels, if I'm right.

Interruptions from buffering may mean that you need to find a better streaming service. Internet service in my neighborhood is like the electricity. There is almost never a noticeable outage. I'm glad there isn't since different providers are not available.

[Bill Robertson]

I doubt many people, who haven't already by now, want to go to a store to buy a TV antenna and set it up. If reception is poor by hanging it on back of the set, then it may have to become an undesirable eyesore when removed to a different location to improve reception. Steady reception from indoor antennas is likely not possible when living much more than 40-50 miles from the broadcast towers and will require going through with the expense of an outdoor type of antenna installation. Such antennas won't get steady reception much beyond 100 miles, if that much. It's just easier to sign up for streaming.

Once again, if only the most popular cable channels could expand to the sub channels, OTA could catch on big. For starters, imagine one of the OKC OTA channels offering all or nearly all of the ESPN channels. But as a downside, I don't think HDTV is possible on the sub channels, if I'm right.

Interruptions from buffering may mean that you need to find a better streaming service. Internet service in my neighborhood is like the electricity. There is almost never a noticeable outage. I'm glad there isn't since different providers are not available.

ESPN and the like aren't ever going to move back towards free OTA service. They're moving towards streaming too much to think about going the other way.

[Bunty]

ESPN and the like aren't ever going to move back towards free OTA service. They're moving towards streaming too much to think about going the other way.

Since when was ESPN on OTA except for now when it's ESPN on ABC? While not sure it would be popular, maybe OTA needs to become Pay TV. Internet service providers won't like that, though.

[Bill Robertson]

Since when was ESPN on OTA except for now when it's ESPN on ABC? While not sure it would be popular, maybe OTA needs to become Pay TV. Internet service providers won't like that, though.

They haven't. But you suggested it. "For starters, imagine one of the OKC OTA channels offering all or nearly all of the ESPN channels".
And I don't think there's a way to turn OTA into pay TV.

[scottk]

They haven't. But you suggested it. "For starters, imagine one of the OKC OTA channels offering all or nearly all of the ESPN channels".
And I don't think there's a way to turn OTA into pay TV.

They only way that model would work is similar to the cable boxes, in which in "cable" channel like ESPN would broadcast their signal OTA, but scramble it in such a way that you would need a subscription on your TV to decode it or a separate decoder box. With the signals being digital, it doesn't seem to far fetch technology wise. But, they wouldn't' just give the channel away for free.

It's a double edged sword with OTA, for example the NFL puts nearly all of their content on OTA/Network channels on Sunday's, you get a big audience, but essentially you are giving an option for viewers to watch it free. I am guessing Monday Night Football on ESPN or TNF on Amazon doesn't have the same viewing audience as games on FOX , CBS, and NBC.

However, it seems everyone (providers of content) seem to be all in on the streaming model.

[Bill Robertson]

They only way that model would work is similar to the cable boxes, in which in "cable" channel like ESPN would broadcast their signal OTA, but scramble it in such a way that you would need a subscription on your TV to decode it or a separate decoder box. With the signals being digital, it doesn't seem to far fetch technology wise. But, they wouldn't' just give the channel away for free.

It's a double edged sword with OTA, for example the NFL puts nearly all of their content on OTA/Network channels on Sunday's, you get a big audience, but essentially you are giving an option for viewers to watch it free. I am guessing Monday Night Football on ESPN or TNF on Amazon doesn't have the same viewing audience as games on FOX , CBS, and NBC.

However, it seems everyone (providers of content) seem to be all in on the streaming model.

I'm sure scrambling/descrambling OTA can be done. But would there be enough of a market to make it happen. I seriously doubt it.