| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > TV News Corner > Topic: Why is WABC covering the fires? |
Topic: Why is WABC covering the fires?
| Author | Message |
| rosweed | Posted – 10/24/2007 10:49:58 PM | show profile | email poster Here?s the email I sent to WABC channel 7: I am a loyal WABC channel 7 viewer. I?m happy that I Tivo the 6 pm news each night, especially now that you have inexplicably decided to cover the California fires with your reporter(s). I?m not sure if there are two, because I was fast forwarding through the 5 minutes you devoted to this story. My question is why is a local (I repeat LOCAL) newscast covering a story on the other side of the country that is being covered ad nauseum by everybody else. And covered better, I might add. That?s followed by at least 12 minutes on ABC World News with Charlie Gibson. Since you?re a New York station, why waste resources in California when you could be doing a much better job of covering local (I repeat LOCAL) stories that need local coverage? Isn?t that the strength of local news? If I want fire coverage I?ll go to CNN or one of the national full time news networks. I want local news from my local station. If you want ideas about local things to cover, call me. |
| cori | Posted – 10/25/2007 1:52:37 PM | show profile Roseweed Did you ever stop to think that many viewers in the NY metro area have loved ones living in the fire zones? I'm a transplanted L.A. resident, now living back in NY and I want to see coverage. Even on my local news. They covered Katrina, according to friends of mine who lived in NYC back then. As I recall, my local news shows in L.A. covered Katrina, too. There are tons of things the news networks cover for days and days at a time. This is news. I guess I should have said, "News," with a capital N, so I don't blame them for covering it. Obviously, their viewers are interested -- even if you are not. |
| reporterwriter | Posted – 10/25/2007 5:07:13 PM | show profile I think all the coverage probably has something to do with close to 1 million people displaced, national offices of businesses shut down, fire covering an area the size of several Rhode Islands, more than 1,600 homes burned, major transportation lines disrupted, major health issues about to affect your insurers back East, postal delivery disrupted, your federal tax dollars sent as aid ... you know, the usual boring national-interest, humanitarian gar-bahj. It sort of a big story to the nation, like how the California stations sent local reporters to cover the events of Sept. 11, 2001, in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania and the aftermath od Hurricane Katrina in 2005. |
| BurbGrrl | Posted – 10/25/2007 10:28:15 PM | show profile I haven't seen the coverage (or lack thereof) but I think Rosweed has a point. If you're going to cover a national story like this, then try to find any local angle or spin to it that you can, to make it relevant for viewers at home. I can see picking up 90 seconds worth of another station's coverage and airing that, but flying your own team out there and reporting in depth seems a bit much. (It's interesting to ponder if there'd be less time to fill if the Yankees had made it) |
| onmyown | Posted – 10/26/2007 12:23:18 AM | show profile Gosh, by the OP, I guess that means those of us in LA should never have to endure news about NYC -- the capital of the world to those who live there? News is news. Did you complain about the Katrina coverage on the local news? |
| newfrickinshow | Posted – 10/26/2007 6:20:58 AM | show profile Well... I admit I don't live there, but I do think it worthy of coverage. It is signifigant national news, which I believe every local news broadcast has a "national news" segment. I agree they should have added a "how it affects us" aspect to the report, but it wasn't essential. Your local newscast is probably trying to present a COMPLETE coverage of the country. Trying to give you all the information availailable and make it so you don't have to watch Charlie Gibson. Frankly your attitude seems a little egocentric to me. |
| noname1234 | Posted – 10/26/2007 9:39:19 AM | show profile For me, I don't think it's an issue of an event like this being worthy of coverage or of national interest; it's both, most definitely. The question is, who is equipped to provide the best original reporting on the subject? Most local outlets just don't have the resources to offer high-quality reporting on events occuring far away from their geographic area. They might be better off focusing the resources they have on local stories and leaving these kinds of stories to outlets with the capacity to do them justice. Perhaps the local outlet can then partner with and pick up the work done by the national outlet, as needed. |
| reporterwriter | Posted – 10/26/2007 12:05:28 PM | show profile I can assure you that the LA stations also were not equipped or knowledgeable enough to cover all the Southern California fires adequately. |
| Toast | Posted – 11/8/2007 7:20:12 PM | show profile Why is WABC covering the fires? They bought carbon credits..... ? |
| Iron Eagle | Posted – 11/8/2007 10:09:52 PM | show profile I think the fires have been extinquished. |
