Looks worth everything in TV news?
David Johnson December 21st, 2007
In a column on notorious anchorwoman Alycia Lane, Philly Inquirer columnist Karen Heller says that “in local TV, sadly, looks are everything.” Cory hooked into the story of Lane being accused of slugging a cop earlier, discussing the nature of crime and celebrity in newscasters, but we didn’t get the sticker shock of Lane’s salary that Heller provides: $700,000.
The price of one pretty local talking head could buy a lot of serious backpack journalists who can actually do their own credible reporting. The conversation has been hot in my offline circles, so I thought I’d bring it to my favorite online forum. The rise of Internet newscasting and the influx of foreign news products like BBC with more stripped-down productions are revealing that the arms race in American broadcast news has led to an evolutionary dead end where glitz is beating substance to the detriment of the product. And said glitz is so expensive to produce, it isn’t going to be pretty when the leaner operations start becoming more substantial. We lostremoters always praise sites who change to cleaner and simpler redesigns, but we never praise broadcasts for that because they just keep going chyron crazy and slapping on more makeup and adding more “centers” via the magic greenscreen.
LR buddy Michael Rosenblum says the first step is admitting you have a problem. Can we get a New Year’s resolution to curb the madness?
16 Comments Add your own
1. Brink | December 21st, 2007 at 11:36 am
The money could also buy several two-man crews who can do journalism better than a one-man band. (Yes, that’s the reality of the “backpack journalist” euphemism.)
2. !!! | December 21st, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Someday they’ll take a pencil to local sports anchors. Our guy is on the air 3 minutes a day and pushes 1/2 mil. That’s two new live trucks a year. And lets face it, a big local sports story is just as easily local news.
3. jb | December 21st, 2007 at 12:22 pm
I like how places like BBC refer to their talking heads as “newsreaders” or “presenters” and differentiate that from “journalist” or “reporter.” IMO, at too many local news outfits the anchor is decidedly more the former than the later.
4. Dave | December 21st, 2007 at 12:24 pm
I love the idea but will it buy ratings? Let’s remember that Nielsen is what determines whether or not your station makes money.
This would be a cool idea for someone to launch independently on the web and then bring it to local cable or TV.
Unless your station is in last place, it’s going to be hard to get GMs / Owners to completely overhaul their news departments during a Presidential election year.
5. Steve Boriss | December 21st, 2007 at 4:20 pm
For better or worse, news will increasingly be defined by what consumers want, not what journalists think consumers should have. If they want a pretty face to look at, that’s what they will get. Journalism is no longer immune from the demands of its customers. It will have to compete for them and “pander” to them. And, that’s a good thing. (Steve Boriss, TheFutureOfNews.com)
6. Safran | December 21st, 2007 at 5:08 pm
This is the same dimwit who mailed bikini pics of herself to Rich Eisen, who was married and worked at ESPN. You know - the ones his wife intercepted? She has been an Anchor Behaving Badly for years.
Forget about where her $700,000 could be better spent - you could have a blog just on that. Think about this: the same people who say that the internet is ruining journalism are those who think that paying this kind of money is a good idea.
Journalism isn’t dying - just bad journalists.
7. Style over Substance | December 21st, 2007 at 5:14 pm
I have been preaching to the choir for years. The practice of paying an Alycia Lane $700K annually has to end.
Take a look at her in the picture circulating the ‘net; she is not all that pretty without the makeup, hair spray, and lighting that makes the newsblabber look like a Barbie doll.
Most male GMs should be polled. Why has Lane and others like her not been terminated immediately after being associated with alleged behavior like the recent news? Because they drool over her.
I’d rather get my news from reading it myself for most stories which appear on local news. After all, they are ripped right from the AP. As for the Breaking News of local news, at most, 5% of those apply to me. Most are about issues of utter nonsense.
8. tdc | December 21st, 2007 at 6:55 pm
hugh will now offer her 1M to pose nude.
9. Rob | December 21st, 2007 at 11:52 pm
TDC … That is if Larry doesn’t beat him to the punch for ‘unauthorized’ photos.
10. ex-tv | December 22nd, 2007 at 1:49 am
As a recent TV expatriate, I couldn’t agree more. However, “talent” (and I’ve worked with some great folks, so I’m not bashing them collectively) is not the only area in which TV wastes mindboggling amounts of money for relatively little return - there is also the anachronistic technology. I look at the six-digit satellite truck lumbering down the street with crews in its wake toting five-digit gear, and think, my laptop, aircard, video camera, all can get the same info back, often processed more quickly, for a sliver of the cost. You go to TV for a show, not for efficiently presented information. But even in that context, put the “whatever the viewers want” philosophy in perspective. We’re talking now about whatever the REMAINING viewers want - I watched the overnights in the same market for more than 15 years and the HUT hemorrhage was truly frightening to behold. The winning number for an average evening newscast at the start of that time frame was more than triple what “the dominant number 1″ gets now.
11. Tonto Weinstein | December 22nd, 2007 at 6:53 am
The days of the $700,000 anchor are drawing to a close, regardless of those behaving badly.
TV is looking to scrimp every penny and some day, a wise general manager will realize that the *real* competition doesn’t have any $700,000 talent. In fact, it has hardly any talent at all.
People continue to watch out of habit, weather and the far chance that there will be something of interest. As long as they don’t look like hell, I don’t think it matters. It doesn’t to me.
12. Z | December 22nd, 2007 at 7:12 am
“Journalism is no longer immune from the demands of its customers. It will have to compete for them and “pander” to them. And, that’s a good thing.”
Not really. How do you think we got to the place where we run police chases, crime crime crime and water-skiing squirrels?
13. Jake | December 22nd, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Cory,
The “about” tab on the lostremote banner doesn’t work for me on my mac running leopard and firefox. Safari didn’t work either. The “Have a story idea?” link on your main page doesn’t work either. I’ve wanted to send you a story idea today (and a different one several weeks ago) but there is no ’story idea’ link on your site that works.
Jake
14. discreet_chaos | December 22nd, 2007 at 7:00 pm
After you’ve doubled the number of reporters, bought all the satellite trucks or have equipped everyone with laptops and wireless cards, the price of advertising isn’t going to go down and somebody has to pocket the profit. Perhaps this girl wasn’t worth the money and maybe talent is super-cheap in one of the country’s largest market, but you rather those doing the work get more money than the conglomerates which own the stations?
The BBC sells no advertising and they are financed with tax dollars. They can’t make a profit and nobody’s getting rich. Maybe from a political perspective, we should strive for dispassionate discourse, but they aren’t really a business model.
15. Anonymous | December 23rd, 2007 at 12:54 am
Jake: I have the same problem, too, and Cory’s aware of it. Nobody seems to have any idea why it happens. It doesn’t happen to everybody. I have Windows and it fails in IE6, IE7, Firefox, Opera, Netscape, and even more obscure ones. (Flock, anyone?)
16. Elf | December 23rd, 2007 at 3:02 am
Jake and Anonymous: I believe it was determined that the problem only occurs when there’s no www in front of the url. If you sick one in front of the lostremote, the topmenu should work.
Leave a Comment
(Please keep URLs out of the comment body or the spam filter will block you.)Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed