Live from Lancaster County
Today's school shooting in Lancaster County was all over the news -- our market was no exception. It was a lead story on all three stations. But WNEP went so far as to send anchorman Scott Schaeffer there to do some live reports.
An odd decision, considering Lancaster County is in the Harrisburg market, and fellow ABC affiliates WPVI and WHTM were already feeding all sorts of video to fellow affiliates nationwide. Schaeffer's report really didn't add anything extraordinary either.
Seems like a case of "We're doing this because we can do it," though I suppose you can't fault WNEP for jumping on such a huge story, as stations from Philadelphia and Baltimore did the same.
In unrelated news, I'm no fashion cop, but suspenders and a baseball cap?
An odd decision, considering Lancaster County is in the Harrisburg market, and fellow ABC affiliates WPVI and WHTM were already feeding all sorts of video to fellow affiliates nationwide. Schaeffer's report really didn't add anything extraordinary either.
Seems like a case of "We're doing this because we can do it," though I suppose you can't fault WNEP for jumping on such a huge story, as stations from Philadelphia and Baltimore did the same.
In unrelated news, I'm no fashion cop, but suspenders and a baseball cap?
posted by Howard Beale at 11:21 PM
60 Comments:
I think it was a good decision by 16 to head to Lancaster County, but there were some negatives.
It appears WNEP was pretty late getting to the scene. ABC's reporter was right near the school for live shots, but 16's position barely showed the school. Can't figure out why Scott Schaffer was dispatched, probably from Moosic, rather than send a crew that was farther south. Maybe Scott was the only one who thought they should go.
At 5pm, 16 used the ABC reporter as the lead, then went to Scott for a second live shot. That was weird. Scott had nothing to say that wasn't already said. Without competing with the network reporter on his own station, Schaffer did better on later newscasts.
Unfortunately, most reporters and photographers were in the same boat when it came to gathering information. The Amish are tough interviews.
I'm in Pittsburgh right now, and all three stations sent a live crew to Lancaster. WPXI(nbc) even sent two reporters for live team coverage, including tonight's 11pm newscast. I have to say, with all due respect, Scott kind-of fit in Amish Country with tonight's outfit choice. Such a sad story, they were truly defenseless and were innocent.
That has to be the most sloppy "look" I have ever seen. Scott knows better than that. I chalk this up to his own arrogance, fueled by his long-time self promotion backed up by the WNEP war machine.
It really bothers me when reporters and anchors do things just because they think no one will have the nerve to call them on it. This ranks right up there with anchors who wear glasses from time to time even though they see perfectly well. Glasses as fashion, just to look more credible.... Perhaps Scott was having a bad hair day, beyond his usual attempt to control his premature balding issue. Hey, I like they guy, but why doesn't anyone whisper in his IFB, "Hey, you look like a goof. Take off the hat and quit trying to blend in with the farmers in the background."
"Throwing the cow over the fence some hay, I'm Scott Schaeffer, Julie?"
From what I hear, WGAL owned the story flat-out, which is not surprising.
Owning the story is owning the market, and WNEP has largely done both for what is now nearly(if not beyond)thirty years. Their coverage of this was, I'm guessing, likely predicated on it being the lead on ABC Nightly. Although I didn't see Nightly, am I right in hearing that it was NOT THE LEAD?
If it is a case of "We're doing this because we can do it," well, they can, they did, and they owned the story.
As to Scott "...trying to blend in with the farmers in the background,"
why in hell would he want to do that? I don't get the ballcap at all, but blending in could not have been the motivation.
If you'd like to see what a station's web site should look like, check WGAL's - wgal.com
Instead of worrying/commenting about how idiotic (or not) SS from 16 looked, maybe we, especially those of us in the media, should concentrate on the concerns of the families affected by this awful tragedy. Just a thought.
I think 16 went because of the huge news story this is... plain and simple. I think every station in PA, with the exception of maybe the Erie stations, should have been in Lancaster County yesterday.
Though it's only about 45 miles outside Philadelphia, it's not their DMA, but both CBS and NBC affiliates had four reporters on last night: astonishing team coverage of a sad and unbelievable story.
I think WNEP sending a crew was a brilliant decision. It wasn't a "just because we can" reason. It was more like, this is HUGE and we have to be there.
"You do it because you can" isn't that what this business is about? Always trying to one up the other guys. Always trying to own the stories. Joe shmoe won't care what he's wearing just that 16 had somebody there, why didn't 22 and 28? the Amish are just down the streeet right? Remember the viewers, not the arm chair quarterbacks.
So how much do you want to wager the next I-team report or Newswatch 16 team coverage report will be....How safe are our schools!!!!
I'd have sent Mike Stevens. "They are simple folk, taking us back to a simpler time..."
10:05 said: If you'd like to see what a station's web site should look like, check WGAL's - wgal.com
And if you'd like to see a pitiable example, check WBRE, The Week In Review. Even "today's" stories are a transcript from last night's 'cast. WYOU's stories are only a day old. Only.
Journalistically, I think we can all agree that there’s nothing—NOTHING—of viewer value to be gained by being the 159th reporter on the scene in Lancaster County.
BUT—it’s a chance to show you’ve got the “right stuff,” that you consider the big story to be YOUR STORY each and every time. It’s a chance to kick sand in the competition’s face, to force “the other guys” to play catch-up, to establish ownership and (hopefully) get credit for it in the viewers’ eyes.
That’s why I was greatly surprised not to see Andy Mehalshick on the scene that first night. WBRE is painting itself as the go-to station for big news and Andy as the go-to guy. Again, there’s not a thing he could have told us that we didn’t/couldn’t get elsewhere, but Scott gets the “Live in Lancaster County” blue ribbon.
"You do it because you can" isn't that what this business is about?
I understand your thinking, but let me try another twist on "doing because you can." The motivation is this; you have the ability, you have the capability, you grasp the value in a story, and you know news when you see it. You can, therefore you do. Also clearly, it was a brilliant move on WNEP's part; tonight Charlie Gibson anchored ABC Nightly LIVE from the scene.
One-upping the other guys is called competition. In more stable(non-Nexstar)markets, it's what keeps this business alive, well, and vibrant. Here? No need for it, no competition. As to the snide remark about the Amish being right down the street, let me remind you that if the stations in this market were true to their FCC licenses(and WNEP usually is), they would completely cover Schuylkill County, and to folks there, the Amish are pretty much right down the road. 22 and 28 can't get off of Public Square and out of Kirby Park. Even in their best days(which are way behind them), they couldn't deliver the geographic balance necessary to compete.
Schaffer looks like he should be on the seat of a tractor other than a sat shot.
Maybe 16 was just showing off...doing the shot just because they can.
At least for now.
"If it is a case of "We're doing this because we can do it," well, they can, they did, and they owned the story."
I wouldn't say WNEP owned the story. Their reports were pretty similar to everyone else's. However, to a viewer, it shows WNEP is "The News Station," and will go where the news is happening. Meanwhile, WBRE is sending Andy Mehalshick around to play Anderson Cooper, and WYOU keeps asking, "Hello? Do we have a caller on the line?"
I saw Scott Schaffer's report.
"There's the school in the distance, you could barely see it. But I'm here and Andy's not."
7:50pm...
Nice to see 16's promotions dept. posts here. How about getting Scott some new threads ?
As a parent in the Scranton School District, I was very interested in WYOU's LOCAL take on the subject.
Sorry, but WNEP's showing off did nothing for me.
"If you'd like to see what a station's web site should look like, check WGAL's - wgal.com"
10:05 AM
Thanks, Mark
"And if you'd like to see a pitiable example, check WBRE, The Week In Review. Even "today's" stories are a transcript from last night's 'cast. WYOU's stories are only a day old. Only."
2:08 PM
Thanks, Mark.
I'd have sent Mike Stevens. "They are simple folk, taking us back to a simpler time..."
Can we tell someone here to do nature-defying things to themselves? If so, the above poster should do so repeatedly. You will never know the depth of my contempt for you. I sure as hell could not, would not, speak for Mike, but your moronic remarks should make you take a deep look inside your own soul.
I wouldn't say WNEP owned the story.
Come the hell on, Howard. WNEP having a crew on scene handed them ownerhship of the story.
I understand that Shaffer is a native to that part of PA, so perhaps he feels comfortable dressing as he did, or it may have been out of respect for those people there. It makes sense to send someone familiar with the area and the locals. Those people are suffering tremendous tragedy. I don't think how the reporter was dressed was of concern to them. The important thing is to report accurately and respectfully. If Shaffer wants to go for the farmer look while there, so what? He got the job done, so let it be.
"Come the hell on, Howard. WNEP having a crew on scene handed them ownerhship of the story."
So did WHTM, WHP, WGAL, WJZ, WBAL, WPVI, KYW, WFMZ, and a bunch of other stations I'm surely forgetting. Does that mean they "owned" the story as well?
The fact WNEP went there shows they've got the resources to go where the news is, but as I said, their on-scene reports were no different than the others I watched.
"You will never know the depth of my contempt for you. I sure as hell could not, would not, speak for Mike [Stevens], but your moronic remarks should make you take a deep look inside your own soul."
10:18 PM
Why so upset about a little dig at Mike Stevens? You know--tried and true Mike Stevens. Or is that "trite and true?"
If he had been there instead of Scott Schaffer would anyone be complaining that he should take off the feed-store baseball cap? Shucks no, dagnabbit. Goldurn.
I understand that Shaffer is a native to that part of PA, so perhaps he feels comfortable dressing as he did, or it may have been out of respect for those people there. It makes sense to send someone familiar with the area and the locals. Those people are suffering tremendous tragedy. I don't think how the reporter was dressed was of concern to them. The important thing is to report accurately and respectfully. If Shaffer wants to go for the farmer look while there, so what? He got the job done, so let it be.
Only thing missing was Schaffer was wearing the wrong hat. Should have worn an Amish straw hat.
"A boundary line on a map drawn by Nielsen shouldn't determine our journalistic response. This crosses all levels. I don't think there's a parent today who doesn't wonder, 'Could this happen in my child's school?' "
Those above words are from KYW's news director.
Hence, the reason why you cover a story like this.
Again, another embarrassing Nexstar effort.
""And if you'd like to see a pitiable example, check WBRE, The Week In Review. Even "today's" stories are a transcript from last night's 'cast. WYOU's stories are only a day old. Only."
2:08 PM
Thanks, Mark.
Uhhhh, think then speak, repeat that a few times. Wander on back up towards the top, the remark was made by Tom Carten, who clearly reveals his identity.
So did WHTM, WHP, WGAL, WJZ, WBAL, WPVI, KYW, WFMZ, and a bunch of other stations I'm surely forgetting. Does that mean they "owned" the story as well?
Pineapples and grapefruits, Howard. For the sake of this discussion, all that matters is who "owned" the story in this market, and that would be WNEP.
Hey, didn't that guy used to be on Hee-Haw?
"Pineapples and grapefruits, Howard. For the sake of this discussion, all that matters is who "owned" the story in this market, and that would be WNEP."
Then if we're limiting discussion to this market, yes, WNEP did own the story. It made sense for them to head down there. As I said, it shows they're willing to go where the news is, and on a story as big as that, it can only hurt if you don't go.
"Uhhhh, think then speak, repeat that a few times. Wander on back up towards the top, the remark was made by Tom Carten, who clearly reveals his identity."
9:11 AM
Sorry, there is no such person as "Tom Carten." C'mon, a padre who claims he reads newspaper obits and Dear Abby to shut-ins via the radio? Not buyin' it. If it WALKS like Mark Sowers and TALKS like Mark Sowers and is far more interested in web sites than the on-air product...well...
Thanks, Mark.
Sorry, there is no such person as "Tom Carten."
Whoever you are, whoever made the above comment, has just achieved moron status. Tom Carten isn't real? He's as real as they come. Listen, you dipshit, Google the man, you'll find plenty. If that's not enough, call King's College and ask for him. Get his e-mail, get his voicemail, then get lost. And now I need to apologize to Carten for speaking on his behalf.
Schaffer is no Larry King look-a-like.
Everybody now, "Oooh McSchaffer had a farm, e, i, e, i, o. And on his farm he had a hamster, e, i, e, i, o. And the hamster went...."
"Whoever you are, whoever made the above comment, has just achieved moron status. Tom Carten isn't real? He's as real as they come. Listen, you dipshit, Google the man, you'll find plenty. If that's not enough, call King's College and ask for him. Get his e-mail, get his voicemail, then get lost. And now I need to apologize to Carten for speaking on his behalf.
10:20 PM
Wow, that's quite a sense of humor you've got there.
I'm just glad that Tom Carten (of COURSE I know there's a real Tom Carten) doesn't take himself anywhere near as seriously as you take yourself.
Tom...help me out here. This guy just called me a "dipshit." Can I have your permission to tell him to...uh...well...to...um...oh, never mind.
By the way, I'd NEVER "google" a priest.
i didn't realize how closed minded some folk really are here at this blog - but - surprisingly - other people OUTSIDE of broadcasting frequent this blog and post here.
and no sir, i am not tom carten or mark sowers. and i'll continue to make comments here as long as i'm allowed to (just like yourself) under the "anonymous" moniker
as far as the outside world goes shoving cameras in the amish peoples faces - again - i am constantly reminded - and jeez howard, you should constantly loop this song here on your main page - of don henley's "dirty laundry"
and jeez howard, you should constantly loop this song here on your main page - of don henley's "dirty laundry"
As much as I loathe webpages that have background music, I would make an exception for that song...if only for the cool keyboard riff.
Then if we're limiting discussion to this market, yes, WNEP did own the story.
And that, esteemed blogmaster, was all I was saying.
As to "outside" people posting here, it would be my considered opinion(never humble)that it is largely outside individuals who come here with an axe to grind. I'd further guess most of them are jealous, probably unable to find work in this business.
"Outsiders" visiting this site are jealous or have an axe to grind? Are you kidding? Or maybe you think you're superior and we want to be like you? Don't bet on it. I happen to be a successful professional with 30 years experience and am respected in my field by peers in my profession. I wouldn't want to be in your profession and you probably wouldn't want the responsibility and work in mine. You do your thing, I'll do mine, OK? And as far as having an axe to grind, why is it that those not on the "inside" have no right to an opinion? Expressing an honest opinion, whether praise or criticism, is just that - having a viewpoint. After almost half a century watching and listening to news daily, don't you think we should know SOMETHING about it and be entitled to speak our mind? News is a daily part of our lives, too, and many of us have an interest in seeing how it works. So, come off your high horse and let us speak. After all, if none of us was interested in the news, you can all kiss your paychecks goodbye!
As to "outside" people posting here, it would be my considered opinion(never humble)that it is largely outside individuals who come here with an axe to grind. I'd further guess most of them are jealous, probably unable to find work in this business.
uhh...no. i'm the 8:12 poster and i am neither jealous nor unemployed. why would i feel the need to be jealous? from what i've read here you "insiders" are overworked and likely underpaid and depending on where you work, either misguided by morons, (read: employed by Nextar Broadcasting) or uncertain of your futures (read: an employee of the now sold WNEP) - i am gainfully employed in wilkes-barre and actually "work" maybe HALF of the 40 hours I put in per week. i don't make a ton of money, but if you look at what we do compared to what our other competitors do, i'd be the 6 o'clock lead on your newscast for stealing paychecks every two weeks.
sorry for getting off topic howard, i as an outsider had to justify my being here...
Hey, there's no precedence here.
The Hazten paper once sent a photog/reporter team out to Punx for the groundhog extravaganza. Big deal.
And then there was George W's big-shot speech at Toby, the Army depot that repairs vaccum tube appliances.
1:07PM...
You didn't, in your considered and never humble opinion, include that class of visitor here who is jealous because they are unable to find work in some OTHER business.
To the 1:14 p.m. poster:
It's kind of like politicians. A guy (or gal) can't get a real job, so they enter politics, half of them claiming, in turn, that they hate government, yet want to be part of it.
Wow.
I happen to be a successful professional with 30 years experience and am respected in my field by peers in my profession. I wouldn't want to be in your profession...
Then why hell are you here? Unless you're a bit slow, you'd know this blog is largely populated by folks in the biz, it has little to offer those outside of it. I'll stick with it, you're a wannabe - as are several others who post here. If there was a blog for NEPA dentists, I sure wouldn't be poking around it looking for things to criticize.
"Then why the hell are you here?"
What an attitude! I'd like to check the history in YOUR computer and see how many websites YOU visit that aren't in your field. Guess what? YOU are the OUTSIDER in them! Do you have the right to check them out? You bet! But that gives everyone else the right to check THIS out, too. Unless this becomes a closed site open only to registered, identified posters, it's open territory. "Howard" can delete any posts he wants to. If you have a problem with unidentified visitors, you should address that with HIM. It's HIS blog, and HIS rules. And no, I DON'T want to be like you. I hope I never get that ignorant.
A dentist's blog isn't quite the same as a blog about local TV news, is it Brainiac? I love the irony of a pretentious blowhard assuming that someone not in TV who posts here is automatically jealous. Yeah, we read the posts here. Ooh, gimme some of that! Long hours, low pay, working with prima donna a _ _ holes. A dream come true alright.
And so it went just as planned - at least two posters' buttons got punched with ease and predictability, complete with name-calling. Pretty funny...
Yeah, we read the posts here. Ooh, gimme some of that! Long hours, low pay, working with prima donna a _ _ holes. A dream come true alright.
Predictable, completely predictable.
Then why hell are you here? Unless you're a bit slow, you'd know this blog is largely populated by folks in the biz, it has little to offer those outside of it.
I think those outside of the business can learn a few things by reading this blog. But perhaps I'm a bit biased. :)
Either way, everyone is welcome to post here, whether they work in a newsroom or not. I think those people can give us a reality check and help pop the bubble that some of us in the press live in.
Another "Outsider" comment: During my non-media career, I've been approached many times by reporters who needed info pertaining to my work. Simply put, what I do becomes "newsworthy" every so often. I've granted interviews to all three local tv stations, many radio stations, and the newspaper. I've always been thanked for my expertise and cooperation. The reporters all seemed like OK people, very friendly. To see the attitudes that "outsiders" shouldn't even look at this blog is unsettling. Perhaps you'll never need me in the future, but if someday you are turned down for an interview you thought was a given, wonder if it's because of attitudes like this that may change the minds of potential interviewees. We ALL need each other. There's no room in my profession for anyone to look down on others. There's no room in your profession for it, either. You need the public, and the public needs you. So let's all keep it civil and keep the lines of communication open. If not, you'll be hurt by it more than the "outsiders".
5:21...
No more predictable than the clockwork like egomaniacal machinations displayed here by a certain few who believe they've answered a higher calling by gluing their hair into place and learning to walk through a shot in a dramatic fashion.
I never said or suggested people were not welcome here, Howie, that is not my call, it's yours. My point, largely, was that those not in the biz coming here and bashing those who are, and not always being civil about it, is really annoying. And at the very least, their motives are questionable; my guts still say many are wannabes who never will be.
As to popping that bubble, I think all of us need it at times. Many of us in this biz forget that there is a whole other world out there, and that it is entirely possible that our world isn't really all that important to theirs, we don't matter as much as we think we do.
No more predictable than the clockwork like egomaniacal machinations displayed here by a certain few who believe they've answered a higher calling by gluing their hair into place and learning to walk through a shot in a dramatic fashion.
Blah, blah, blah. You did it again. Completely predictable,
After a couple decades in this business, I can say with certainty that I've seen maybe, maybe, a half dozen interviewees that were a "must have."
You don't want to talk, your choice. Chances are, however, that there others who do what you do and will talk. If the mayor of a city says no, you ask a member of council. If all council members say no, you try the solicitor. If he/she says no, you go on-air and tell your audience that no one would talk to you. In fact, that might end up being your story, that no one would give you the courtesy of an interview. You just got stonewalled, and now your audience knows it without you ever having to use the term "stonewalled."
I'm not so sure I can agree with this "we all need each other" attitude. And who started this "outsider" business? "Outsider" carries nasty implications, and if I remember correctly, it was someone not in this business who introduced it into this discussion.
Reporters are supposed to be inquizitive by nature, or at least while on the job. They aren't shy about asking questions or poking into other people's business. Fine, that's what they're supposed to do. But what I don't understand is the idea that no one else should be curious. Why assume someone would want to be employed by the media if they show an interest in it? No one assumes reporters want to be employed in the hundreds if not thousands of fields THEY study and express interest in. Strange attitude. I'm going to assume something else - that this ISN'T the attitude of most reporters. Someone has an "exclusive complex" for some reason. I'd work on that if I were you. It's not really a good trait for your line of work. Curiosity about your work doesn't mean we want your job any more than your curiosity (investigation?) of mine would make me think you want MY job. Thanks, Howard, for inviting all of us to participate. I visit in friendship and curiosity, not to criticize.
What I find hard to resist is taking a swipe at those who don't work in broadcasting, yet see fit to come here and bash those who do. And in more than a few instances, the bashing has been really nasty. If you look at some of the knee-jerking done on this thread alone, it's all by those who do not work in television. Do you have a right to post here? Absolutely. Do I have a right to challenge your ignorance when you put it on display? Also, absolutely.
I guess if you're going to make up words, "inquizitive" is as good as any.
Not to beat a dead horse, but one more comment. I can see you have good instincts and are probably good at your job by seeking alternatives or saying "they wouldn't talk". That works probably 99% of the time, I admit. But there are some jobs and/or situations that are NOT duplicated and sometimes alternatives don't exist. The "exclusive" angle goes both ways. You can still have a story, but I still say there are isolated cases where your story lacks content without a needed interview. "They wouldn't talk" would go over like a lead balloon in some instances where the interviewee isn't a politician or publicly vulnerable person. Viewers sometimes sympathize with the persons you approach rather than your "need to know". Let's call a truce and agree that we all should help each other as needed and be civil. Peace!
Post a Comment
<< Home