A golden opportunity to completely change that logo has been lost. They have an opportunity to wipe the slate clean with not just graphics, but a completely different format.
FNC when they do rolling news has been on a par with CNN and MSNBC over the weekend and hasn't been as OTT as CNN were on Sunday. Anchoring from a middle of the storm is just nonsensical while FNC had Shep sensibly in NYC linking between the reporters on the ground.
The format of the channel isn't going to change anytime soon. Ailes, Shine, O'Reilly, et al may be gone, but all they've done otherwise is play musical chairs both on and off camera. Now that Eric Bolling isn't coming back, his timeslot is being given to Laura Ingraham, a conservative radio host who was O'Reilly's main fill-in and was even a rumored candidate for Trump's press secretary.
The graphics are a jarring but welcome improvement. It wouldn't surprise me if they do end up cleaning them up a little more down the line too.
The static bug should soon burn into many closet viewers' TV sets as some sort of scarlet letter.
It'll be pretty much the same set that KCBS in LA, KOVR in Sacramento, and WFOR in Miami got. On TVNT, insiders reported that WBBM's set was built at the same time WGN's set was built, which was in May. It's the same designer, so it was easy for them to build it while they were in town. Insiders also said it was built before there was even a lighting grid installed in that studio.
I would bet money that almost anything written about presenters in the last page or two on here is far more civil than much of what is emailed or tweeted into Sky News on a daily basis. And really, almost all of it on here was about their roles on the channel, not the presenters personally.
Interesting choice. Not sure if I like the curves as it breaks the consistently linear look of the current batch of graphics, which I love. If I were to have made a change, I would have maybe ditched the cool blues in favor of something a little sunnier, but overall, it still looks nice.
Typical CBS design...tinkering with something just for the sake of tinkering with it. It's nothing ever egregiously bad or offensive, just completely incongruous with everything else, and it's never moving toward a cohesive design direction.
Just you watch...the CBS Morning News and CBSN will get loose versions of these graphics, and then in a few months, when they name a permanent anchor of the CBS Evening News, it'll get new graphics but in a completely different style.
One of the freshest, least conventional local newscasts I've ever seen -- the 6 p.m. news Denver's KUSA
(Next with Kyle Clark):
I am a big fan of this format as well. It's very rare to see a show that covers local politics and government in depth and in such a creative way. When Kyle Clark first came to KUSA almost a decade ago, I knew he was sharp, and I presumed he'd only spend a few years there before going national like a lot of KUSA talent (Will Ripley, Tom Costello, Bazi Kanani, Heidi Collins). Instead, he seems to really be proud to call Denver home and front a newscast that serves the city well.
Would there also be rights issues in terms of which outlets could use footage and packages? There might be items that CBS were happy to be shown on the domestic output but less, so if it turned up on World News America?
Rights issues can really vary. CBS probably wouldn't care about sharing any video with the BBC that they shot themselves. But if they get video from somewhere else, the rights owner may not necessarily want it shared beyond where they agreed to have it used. As an example, let's say the CBS owned-and-operated station in San Francisco covers a local murder that's of international interest. The family may provide pictures of the victim to the CBS O&O (KPIX) and agree to let that local station use their pictures, but they may not necessarily agree to the pictures being used on CBS affiliates all around the country or around the world on BBC. Same thing with stringers — they may sell their video to the local affiliate, but they would want to be properly compensated if CBS News or BBC News wanted to use their video on national or international platforms. In these kinds of cases, national feed editors will try to get the contact information of the rights owners from the local station, contact them, and try to get permission to use their video.
Big televised events can be another can of worms too. During all the presidential debates, it was typical that the networks on which each debate aired would only allow a certain amount of minutes of tape to be used on each station and in each newscast, and they had to credit the network that aired the debate and not crop out their bug.
It also depends on the types of agreements too. As another example, here in the US, CBS, Fox, and ABC pool resources into the Network News Service (NNS). They share video and sound, but not packages, and whatever they share is embargoed against competing affiliates in the same market from where it originates. Presumably, BBC is shut out of any video from NNS that didn't originate from a CBS property.
Excellent point! I was going to mention that but didn't want to drone on too much. I also know some places are much more concerned about rights clearance (Fox, surprisingly!) than others (CNN). A lot of it too also depends on how cozy of this relationship really is between CBS and the BBC.
To be honest, I am not sure to what extent video sharing is even available through ENPS. I know it was mostly made for the BBC and is (in my opinion) a very clunky piece of software with a lot of capability and scalability built into it —perhaps too much, even. In the one place where I used ENPS, it was not set up to do very much, and video from our sister stations was not set up to be viewable through it — we had to use a different web client for it. Even viewing our own in-house video through ENPS was a bit of a pain, but that's another story. We could look at each others' rundowns and copy and paste stories, but the video links would always be broken, and even the graphics didn't work despite all of us using the same playout systems and graphics package.
I was also going to add that you can also share video by putting it on a satellite, rolling on it, and having the receiving party simply record it, but that's really only necessary in like a breaking news situation or when you need the video for broadcast very soon. I doubt they'd do that for a package about rediscovered moon rocks.
The partnership started the day of the announcement. I'm sure there's still a lot of things to work out about how it'll work but sending a package over is hardly a sign of them 'hurrying up'.
If the deal works anything like the ABC one did, BBC News may well have access to a CBS server that has all their packages on, and simply selects them for export them to their own playout system.
It is possible (and quite common) to set up newsroom systems to access other servers from other stations/newsrooms, though I'm not sure how fast they can set them up. CBS News uses ENPS (though I think the O&Os use iNEWS — not sure whether the two systems can interact very much) and BBC News uses ENPS (for now), so it'd be pretty seamless to look at each others' rundowns and video (in theory!). If all that is set up, and set up for maximum ease of use, then a BBC producer could snoop into CBS' rundowns, copy and paste the story, and download the video through ENPS or another system like BitCentral in about 15-20 seconds, all without any communication between that producer and someone at CBS.
If all of that is not set up yet, then at the very least, after planning meetings, CBS and BBC's respective assignment desks are most certainly emailing each other lists of stories that their correspondents are assigned for that day and for when they are slated to air or be finished. A BBC producer could then email CBS and request the story if he or she wants to run it, and then it would be delivered via a more manual way by emailing the script and uploading the video to an FTP server.
TL;DR: it's possible BBC and CBS have already set up their newsroom systems to talk to each other, but even if they haven't, there are more manual ways of still sharing content immediately.
I wouldn't fully dismiss it. I can't remember whether or not BBC's dropping of the simulcast of World News Tonight happened before or after the huge editorial changes at ABC, but the CBS Evening News would be a worthy program to rebroadcast on the BBC. It would certainly fit in much better than World News Tonight ever did in the final years of the simulcast.
Rockefeller Center is certainly an impressive facility. When Conan O'Brien left for the Tonight Show and was still a very happy NBC employee, he called it the Mount Olympus of television, and I can not think of a better description. There isn't really a more impressive, massive, consolidated broadcasting facility in the world other than perhaps CCTV's building in Beijing. BBC NBH might be up there too, but isn't the BBC a little more scattered? As far as I know, the only NBC property in New York that's not based at Rockefeller Center is CNBC.
...Though I would agree with others that they might be overdoing it with all the Rock Center and NYC influence. That was my complaint about the new open when it debuted last fall. It's very clearly trying to mimic ITV's News at Ten circa 2008 open as well as, to some extent, Nightly News' late 80s open. But it just doesn't work in that short time, and it looks even stranger when the show comes from outside New York yet they still use it.
It's no secret on here that I'm a big CBS fan, and while their graphics are still all over the place, I do really like CBS Studio 57's more understated nod to New York City by broadcasting from a raw, authentic building with real, exposed brick, steel, and some contemporary touches with all the glass and light wood. Plus, the CBS Evening News open includes a world map and features many different US city skylines depending on the night and whether you get the eastern or western edition. The eastern edition usually ends on a shot of New York City (maybe DC or Boston too?) while out west, it alternates between shots of the LA and Seattle skylines and the Golden Gate Bridge.
Edit: I should add that I really liked the Nightly News open from the early 2000s — a very nice, simple, and slow pan in front of the plaza. I think this is a better approach than the current animation, and it fits the music much better:
This is probably a better alignment. Of the big three networks, CBS is by far the most meat and potatoes news operation. ABC had a good news operation for a time, but in the last decade, it's been completely transformed into superficial politics, pointless health, human interest, and shameless ploys to appeal to whatever is "trending" online. Their affiliate services also leave a lot desired. The original BBC/ABC deal was brokered in 1994, which was back when ABC was arguably the more "worldly" US operation with Peter Jennings at the helm. Now, CBS is a much better match for the BBC. A loss for Sky News, but I'm sure they'll manage.
Some interesting selections from this WSJ article about the partnership, and how it came to be:
The arrangement between the units of CBS Corp. and British Broadcasting Corp. will help both expand their global footprints and increase coverage of world events. CBS News and BBC News will have access to each other’s global and domestic news across all platforms, including television, radio and digital, as well as access to each other’s correspondents as needed.
The news organizations will begin coordinating their resources and coverage plans immediately, Mr. Rhodes wrote.
According to a memo sent to BBC News staff, the deal came together after CBS and the British broadcaster worked together in the run-up to the U.S. presidential election. “It became clear they could offer unrivalled logistical support to our teams in the field,” according to the memo.
The companies are also discussing sharing international facilities in the years ahead.
Yeah, I mean there are other people on here who have worked in TV too, and at least in my experience, I have never seen any network try to use "people" measurements over the more standard "households." Maybe it's different on your side of the pond. But you can massage data in any way you want (TV ratings, web hits, etc.) to make any sort of marketing statement you want. A newscast I produced got a 48 share in a diary market in a sweeps month according to Nielsen. I highly doubt *that* many people were really watching our newscast, so I'm not going to let it get to my head that somehow my show was THAT MUCH BETTER with SO MUCH MORE REACH than any of my competitors.
Is there anything to back that figure up? Is that per year?
As far as I can see, ratings for Sky News have slowly been declining for a while. Sunrise in particular has suffered badly from Eamonn Holmes leaving.
Global weekly reach. Let's not get sidetracked from the point that somebody is regarding a subtle change in lighting as a personal insult and using "sustainable" and "accustomed" completely inappropriately.
It now is the point, how is that figured I'm intrigued.
I would believe it. AJE, BBC World, CNN, TV5, France 24, DW-TV et al. all cite high 200+ million viewers, though that figure is usually based on households with carriage of said channel. Do 200 million people watch Sky News worldwide everyday, or any other news channel available worldwide? God no. Just because a channel is "available in 200 million homes" does not mean that 200 million people watch it at any given time. But availability is the best metric for reach. Ratings methodology varies too much from country to country or is unavailable in many places, so there's no reliable way to really calculate worldwide ratings, i.e. how many people actually watch Sky News (or any channel) at any given time all across the world.
Yep - I listen to NPR occasionally. ISTR that the BBC World Service and WGBH Boston have a joint radio production with a US public service radio operation (PRI) called 'The World'
Yes, NPR is the main producer and distributor of public radio in the US, though there are many others as well. The World from PRI and the BBC is a great show. It doesn't air on all stations, but it usually runs in the early afternoon. BBC World Service provides the five minute newscast at the top of the hour along with some other reporting. Another broadcaster, American Public Media, distributes BBC World Service in full to stations. It typically runs in the evening and overnight hours, as well as in some oddball slots during the day.
In the UK it doesn't - news broadcasters have standard pool arrangements for helicopter coverage to avoid needless competition, and allow collaboration to cope with refuelling. It's a very different world this side of the pond.
During the recession there were many pool arrangements. But now that stations are bringing in the money most are getting back there helicopters. There are a few large markets off the top of my head where almost all stations still share one helicopter such as Phoenix, Denver, Miami and San Diego.
Yep - it's a different world here. TV News organisations compete with each other journalistically - not on who has a better helicopter or the biggest doppler radar...
We truly find the US local news thing bizarre - just as US audiences must find our regional news operation a totally different experience.
I think a lot of it has to do with the commercial nature of US local TV news. Don't get me wrong — local TV news has plenty of strong points, and it can be (and often is) an important civic resource. But at the end of the day, almost every decision is driven by ratings.
You would probably feel much more at home with public radio in the US, which has a strong tradition. I know next to nothing about radio in the UK, but US local public radio feels somewhat similar to regional TV news in the UK. Local public radio news stations have much more humble operations than US local TV news stations, and it's all much more driven by NPR's nationally-distributed programs which have allotted time for local inserts each hour. In late morning and early-to-mid evening slots, NPR affiliates in large cities often have 30-60 minute local newscasts that follow the national programs, but not always. Staffing typically consists of one or two anchors and a handful of reporters covering more meat and potatoes issues than what you'd see on local TV.
Compared to the UK, public television in the US never developed a strong tradition of local news coverage, let alone very much national significance. PBS was starved of resources for decades, leading us to the current situation with commercial broadcasters leading in pretty much every area (entertainment, national news, local news, etc.) At least our public radio is pretty healthy.
This article came out today about CBS mulling over who should take over the CBS Evening News. Sounds like they are realizing what a mistake it was to remove Scott in the way they did:
David Rhodes was interviewed at a CBS town hall Thursday morning by Norah O'Donnell.
In late May, it came out that after six years as anchor of the CBS Evening News, Scott Pelley would be vacating the chair.
In an employee town hall Thursday morning, CBS News president David Rhodes was asked if he thinks the rocky transition has hurt company morale.
"I absolutely do. And I'm concerned about it," he said, according to someone who viewed the event. "Transitions are difficult. We've had some very smooth ones while I've been here, and this one wasn't one of the smoothest. And I'm concerned about that. It didn't go the way that I wanted it to go."
O'Donnell passed along a question about CBS picking a woman to anchor the broadcast, thereby making her the third solo female anchor.
In response, Rhodes said: "Should it be a woman? Could we benefit from having a person of color leading it? We wouldn't be the only ones doing that right now. But that might be important as well. But that's not going to lead the decision about what we do."
ABC World News Tonight with David Muir and the CBS Evening News with Scott Pelley doe the same.
CBS dropped this when Anthony Mason took the helm, same with the titles - they just have a world map motif on the box used for the name
Chances are though that they will add the anchor's name back to the program title once (or if!) they choose a successor.
What's interesting about CBS's case is that when Scott Pelley initially took over, he petitioned to not have his name added so that the newscast would fully be all about the news and not so much about him, much like the European broadcasters. Network executives didn't like his idea, citing that every anchor going back to Walter Cronkie has had his or her name as part of the show title.
But the network evening news is the most conservative venue in US TV news as far as presentation is concerned, so perhaps that's not a good barometer of how talent names factor into branding. Two of the three network morning shows do not list their anchors in the voiceover open, and on a local level, most local stations have phased out the (in my opinion) very ostentatious talent open in the last decade. News directors and other executives have started to realize that talent isn't everything. They don't bring in ratings just because of who they are, and it's not really worth it to pay anchors top dollar salaries, which was a typical practice in the past. So why tie a program's brand to the talent if talent are expendable and won't be there forever anyway?
I see the CBS Evening News with Scott Pelley is now just the CBS Evening News! Seems he was dropped rather than leaving - no idea why, he seemed really good and viewing figures were doing well.
It was mentioned in the last page of this thread when it was announced he would be leaving, but nobody has posted that signoff video, so thanks for sharing.
This article is the best at explaining what happened. Essentially, Scott was one of the lowest paid anchors of the big three networks, so he hired a tough as nails Hollywood agent at his last contract renegotiation. They clashed with CBS executives, who were disappointed that ratings were no longer improving despite Scott's new, higher salary. I guess it's one thing to be in third place with a moderately-paid anchor, but another to be in third place with a highly-paid one. CBS decided to force him out at the end of a lackluster May sweeps, and his Hollywood agent leaked it to the NY Post in a way that made CBS get caught with their pants down. That's especially embarrassing too because CBS News typically handles these things pretty well, unlike some of their competitors.
It's a little sad it all happened that way, but that's just how that business works. I didn't really like Scott as an anchor, though I really liked the CBS Evening News under his watch. But CBS News is still larger than any one anchor, so I think they will be fine. Anthony Mason is the interim anchor while they decide on a permanent replacement. CBS News has plenty of second string anchors who could certainly take over the broadcast and do the job well, but there's no obvious successor.
And since this is a presentation forum, it should be interesting to see if they tinker with the look of the CBS Evening News any more than they already have. In the last year, they've changed the graphics, commissioned all-new music, and moved the program into the CBS This Morning studio with a lot more stand-up shots. None of those things seemed to have affected the ratings all that much.
The CNN example was straight-up rude - he could've scribbled something on a pad and passed it to her while out-of-vision, but it doesn't bear comparisons at all to Colin and Jayne, who have a very jovial relationship on and off-screen.
Yeah, the John Roberts and Kiran Chetry pairing was always a little odd, and it didn't last too much longer after that clip happened.
Still though, as far as anchors getting mad at co-anchors for not paying attention goes, nothing tops this one:
Fox and Friends is on a par with what RT pump out in every bulletin, bashing what they consider is the 'mainstream media' despite being the mouthpiece of the new Washington Trump elite with a tokenistic 90 second 'real' news bulletin by another piece of eye candy.
While you clearly know more about US rolling news output, I personally think the similarities between RT and FNC in regards to subliminal propaganda crossover too much.
I can see where you're coming from. I suppose if you look at it from an editorial standpoint, the argument that both are propaganda can be made. But I still think there's an important distinction to be made because RT is state-run and state-funded. FNC is certainly cozy with the POTUS and the White House, but as far as we know, there is no financial or organizational relationship between the two. The alignment between power and media is very much deliberate in Russia; it's a little more incidental and pretty recent with FNC in the U.S.