The Milosevic thing got very little play over hear - really sad. I was very disappointed at how they all didn't cover it extensively. I don't know how they can call themselves news channels and not cover such big, important, history-making news like that.
Really?
Actually, thinking about it CNN was very poor on the Milosevic event, not sure what to call it! Thing, Event, occasion!!?
Both Sky and the BBC were very good with it over here.
The 6 o'clock news even led on the story, despite the fact that it had literally only just broken on News 24.
And they came back to it later with confirmation.
I was very annoyed with all networks about the coverage of the Russian Plane crash.
140+ people died in that crash, yet because they are Russians it doesn't matter.
This was the overall viewpoint from all networks.
113 people died in the Concorde crash and regardless of whether it was a Concorde or not, all networks provided very extensive reports on it, with News Reports on BBC One and Two.
Yet when 140+ Russians die in Siberia, because the networks cannot get pictures of it (although Sky did, within a couple of hours... way before the other networks), it is ignored and breaking news doesn't seem to be an issue anymore, no news reports, no extensive breaking news... nothing.
It's pathetic and I think all of the networks were very very bad with their coverage of that, it wasn't even top news on the BBC 10 and only got a little slot in ABC WNT, dreadful really.
In comparision, when Concorde crashed, 40 people were rushed to Paris and New York from Sky alone, when a Russian yet crashes, killing more people they stick their Moscow correspondent in front of a camera.
Dreadful.
I think that they gave more coverage to the Concorde crash because:
- it was the first (for a Concorde).
- many business people use it.
- the only supersonic jet.
- it was in Paris (people know where is Paris and many people go over there).
whereas in the case of the Russian Plane crash:
- Russian planes crash a lot.
- very few people know where Siberia is and they don´t have plans to go over there.
I think the average audience for a (cable) newscast is 500000 although Alek may have the current numbers.
Way way back in history, CNN & the Beeb were bestest of buddies.
But when the Beeb started BBC World, the relationship started to fall apart.
These days, as far as I'm aware, it's a legal thing that CNN can't show Beeb pictures and Beeb can't show CNN pictures, because they are both fighting for the same audience
AL
alekf
I don't know what the numbers for the nightly newscasts here in America, but I know that if you add all of the numbers of viewership for all of the three evening newscasts they pull a significant share of tv watchers. The average viewer is over 45/50 though! Individually, though, the numbers are very disappointing. There has been talk however of moving the evening newscasts to 10.00 pm for an hour-long news programme/in-depth story/'Dateline' type show. I think that would be effective.
The coverage over here for the Russian plane crash was dreadful too. Really sad, disappointing, and brief. All the news networks broke it and followed it for a bit, but that was it. I agree with what you said Chesh…
Alek, have you checked your messenger thing about the website?
Do the US networks not have a midday news programme, like BBC One O'clock, ITV Lunchtime etc?
Perhaps they should have a morning programme, afternoon, evening, late evening and then an in-depth programme like we do here.
That would be, for the BBC:
Breakfast, 1 o'clock news, 6 o'clock news, 10 o'clock news, Newsnight (BBC2).
I'm still surprised none of the US networks have things like NBC2, although getting affilates would be a pain I guess, as your networks don't operate like ours.
You cannot simply broadcast a station, you need lots of smaller stations to broadcast that station around the country for you, which must be annoying!
AL
alekf
I got the message and responded.
I really hate the network thing. I bet however, in this modern age of television you could not have to deal with affiliates. It makes American TV so much worse. There are only two national news programmes, the morning news and the evening news. There should really be more. There are 5 local newscasts every weekday. It's so sad. How the hell would watch so much local news!
BTW, 'This past May in prime time, CNN averaged 505,000 viewers, behind Fox News's 508,000 -- one year earlier CNN had led Fox News Channel by nearly 200,000 viewers.' (Source: The Washington Post).
This is from NBCMedia Village The “NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw” continues to attract the most total viewers, winning the second quarter of 2001. Leading the way with 8.62 million total viewers, the NBC newscast posted a 3% edge over ABC “World News Tonight's” 8.37 million, and a 10% advantage over CBS “Evening News'” 7.77 million.
“Nightly News” has placed first in total viewers for the last 7 quarters.
In the key demographic of adults 25-54, “Nightly News” led the second quarter 2001 with a 2.7 rating, 6% more than ABC's 2.6 and 30% more than CBS' 2.2 rating. The NBC newscast has now placed first among adults 25-54 for 19 consecutive quarters.
Alek, have you checked your messenger thing about the website?
I'm still surprised none of the US networks have things like NBC2, although getting affilates would be a pain I guess, as your networks don't operate like ours.
You cannot simply broadcast a station, you need lots of smaller stations to broadcast that station around the country for you, which must be annoying!
The reason is that according to FCC rules nobody can have two stations covering the same market, although this has been relaxed. (Viacom owns CBS and UPN).
Until recently, under FCC rules, the networks couldn´t own studios. Viacom in its origins was the studio unit of CBS.
BTW, 'This past May in prime time, CNN averaged 505,000 viewers, behind Fox News's 508,000 -- one year earlier CNN had led Fox News Channel by nearly 200,000 viewers.' (Source: The Washington Post).
I'm assuming that the CNN figures are the US figures, not global.
At least I hope so for their sakes!
BTW, 'This past May in prime time, CNN averaged 505,000 viewers, behind Fox News's 508,000 -- one year earlier CNN had led Fox News Channel by nearly 200,000 viewers.' (Source: The Washington Post).
I'm assuming that the CNN figures are the US figures, not global.
At least I hope so for their sakes!
I'm still surprised none of the US networks have things like NBC2, although getting affilates would be a pain I guess, as your networks don't operate like ours.
You cannot simply broadcast a station, you need lots of smaller stations to broadcast that station around the country for you, which must be annoying!
I'm guessing if NBC was to launch a second network, it'd be on cable rather than over-the-air. That way they don't have to deal with local affiliates (maybe instead with local cable systems). And even if they do launch a second network, it won't be called NBC2 because people might confuse it with local NBC affiliates on broadcast or cable channel 2. Same goes for ABC and CBS. (I can think of a local ABC2 and CBS2 right off my head.)