We're not joining the frickin' Home Team
The City Beat apologizes for skipping posting yesterday. I was out celebrating the Fargo Forum's purchase of the Herald with some current co-workers and future co-workers from the Home Team.Those goobers at WDAZ actually think we're joining their team. In reality, they are joining our team because we outnumber them, which means the Herald will be the dominant partner in any partnership. (One of the DAZers said that a lot of them read my blog, so that last line was for them.)
Speaking of blog, Rick Abbott, a WDAZ production assistant, has a blog, too. It's called GF Teenview.
He's all excited about the purchase:
Will there be collaboration with DAZ, like a shared newsroom and internet departments? Shared advertising? Would Herald reporters do TV spots and DAZ reporters write for the paper on occasion?Holy Jehosaphat, Rick! That's the thing us newspaper reporters fear most! We don't want to become TV reporters! You know how we feel about TV news!
Anything is possible, and that's what makes it so exciting. The opportunites for both news outlets are endless. This can only be good for everyone.
But seriously, there's no way collaboration can ever be that close, like a shared newsroom. First, because it will turn off readers and hurt us both. Who wants to hear the same crap from two news sources? And second, competition keeps us strong and honest. The best part of my job is when I get a hot scoop and I know it'll make WDAZ news director Cassie Walder burn with envy. There's no incentive to do my best if I didn't think we're gonna kick their keisters.
There's been a lot of reaction to the Forum purchase on the local blogosphere, in case you haven't noticed.
Dakota is taking the wait-and-see attitude.
Rob from Say Anything thinks media consolidation sucks.
Grand Forks Guy thinks it's great the Forum owns the Herald because the Forum is local and understands the region.
Here at the Herald, most of my colleagues are pretty pleased. I like what I hear, too, but I'll be really happy when we hire more reporters for the newsroom. We also could use a raise around here.
posted by Tu-Uyen at 4:25 PM
7 Comments:
Haha, yes I am pretty excited. The Herald is the better and larger company, but I think there has to be some sort of collaboration. And I can understand how Herald reporters would be scared to go on TV. Most people are, including me.
I didn't mean we're scared of the cameras. I mean we think TV news is a shallow medium by nature.
We, or more specifically, I wouldn't wanna try and report on property taxes with only two minutes to work with an a 10-second sound bite or two with the speaker looking shell-shocked because the camera light is burning out his retinas.
WDAZ and many TV news outlets do a good job but, obviously, I prefer newspapers even though we can't show action and emotion like you guys can.
I also really hate those fancy-schmancy shots where the reporter is walking around and pointing at "this street where a five-year old was ran over." It's pretty cool and professional-lookin' but I'd die before doing that.
I remember Cassie Walder demonstrating the way the "waffle plan" works with a real waffle and syrup. I totally respected her ingenuity but it was so frickin' cute I felt like puking.
Wow, where to begin? Tran, you SHOULD be scared of TV reporting. Ask Mike Brue how hard it can be to focus in on a key detail, summarize in 30 seconds or 2:00 and yet still be informative. There isn't a one of you at the Herald that could write a good television news story, let alone delivery it (conversely, I think many tv journalists would make excellent newspaper writers if we wanted to stoop that low).
2) Newspaper people who call television shallow make me want to scream! Yes, television is concise and right-to-the-point. That doesn't automatically make it shallow. Do I envy a newspapers depth on certain stories? Sure. But if I thought what we do in tv was shallow, I'd have gotten out a long time ago.
3) Scoops aren't a one-way street, either. Let's admit that this station has kicked the Herald's a** around a few times (Of course, you dinosaurs at the paper have hours to catch up and still get it printed by morning, so you probably don't consider it a scoop!)
I'd love to rip your little missive apart line by line, but
I've got viewers waiting, so I'd better go.
Milo, I knew you guys would get back to me about that.
Hey, TV looks hard. I didn't say it's easy. But writing looks hard to a lot of people, too. So does firefighting and anything else you're not familiar with. I'm not afraid of your job any more than you are of mine.
I also wasn't counting scoops. I know you guys have scoops (like tonight's Fosston accident report). They make me suffer. I just said when I have a scoop, it makes me happy to know you suffer.
The only thing I'll disagree with you is the depth issue. TV can be deep but never like print (including Web). Print has more room to maneuver so, on average, you'll get more information.
You're generous not to point out that sometimes newspaper readers might get too much information, which means a really dull story, and we've been guilty of that, too.
Maybe I should've said TV tends not to be as deep as print, which doesn't deny that it can be deep.
Fair enough...but don't get me started on which will hold dominion in this relationship (insert maniacal laughter here).
If it's turns out to be anything like the Forum and WDAY, the partnership will mostly be cross-promotion, not cross-journalism. We'll tease your stories and you'll tease ours. Oh yea, and your weather page will soon have the Stormtracker weather team all over it!
Tu-uyen,
I think newspapers have much more depth, but the stats on TV viewership show that people don't neccessarily want depth all the time. Some people just want a quick story before they get bored and change the channel.
And if you want depth, you can just watch 60 minutes.
P.S. Should I move to blogger? I've used it a lot before, and I like that it lets you edit the HTML.
yes. i give in to peer pressure.
my link on my name points to my blogger profile.
Post a Comment
<< Home