Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Back to blogging – Stations think digital

July 30, 2012

I’ve been off the “blog runway” for the past year while working at Fox 29 in Philly. There are a variety reasons – the number one was I was just plain busy and crazed. But I’ve decided to make a career change.

I love the newsroom, but I love  my new job even more: Vice President of Digital Strategies for a company called Crawford Johnson & Northcott. We consult with TV stations and media companies all over the country. One of my key responsibilities is to help mdeia properties maximize the various digital platforms.

It’s a “space” many of us in the business have just worked to maintain, not grow. But we have to. You can see the change happening in front of us.

For many of us in the business we work and live in a newsroom. I often say we work inside a bubble,  with several TVs blaring what others are reporting, constant  access to wires providing us info before most people are even aware, and constantly cruising digital platforms  like websites, Facebook pages, YouTube and Twitter looking  for “new” news.

But in many newsrooms we fail to recognize that digital platforms now truly impact our consumers,  our “viewsers.”  Take for example Twitter. We say we get it, but sometimes I worry if our staffs really do.  How many of you have a Twitter account? Do you follow news organizations including your station? Do you check your feed regularly?  (If you answered no to any of these then you may want to make some changes. You watch and critique your newscasts. Why wouldn’t you monitor your digital feeds?)

We need to spend more time as journalists, curators of news and information, and as users watching and understanding what and how the real world consumes. 

I always look to my wife as my unofficial “focus group.”

I remember the ”good old days” when I would be with my family and get a page to call the desk,  or  email or, these days, a text or direct message from the newsroom telling me about a breaking story. My wife and kids would ask me what was going on, and the kids would even chime in with their coverage suggestions. (Often times they were right.) When friends and family were over, you were the “go to” person for what was happening in the world. But those days are waning.

Here’s the new reality of news consumption from my wife’s perspective.

A year ago she got an iPhone.  I had to nudge her to get it. Now it’s become an indispensable tool – not for the dial tone but for social media, news access and a couple of word games.

She recently signed up for Twitter. She wants news and info when she wants it, no matter where she is.   I am no longer her source. The days of me knowing something before others have diminished. She started following my station and would often tell me things we were covering or developments before I knew them – courtesy of Twitter. I consider her the average Twitter user. She doesn’t tweet or retweet. She doesn’t follow many people. For her it’s a tool. A tool our local news consumers are using.

Is she on Facebook? Absolutely, but for her Facebook is a tool for gathering social information and connecting to family and friends.

Twitter is a news service.  She can check in and out quickly with minimal friction.

I grew up in NYC where we had an all news radio station. “Give us 22 minutes, and we will give you the world.” Today, give the viewer 140 characters, and they’re in touch and feel totally connected. But you want them to connect with you.

Newsrooms need to understand this. Often times I see stations tweet sporadic bursts of info or use it strictly for promotion. We may assume the user is following multiple news sources like we’re used to following in the newsroom. That’s a mistake. You need to be their “complete source” and have a newsroom strategy and tactics to connect with your users. You need to constantly provide a stream of major stories – local, national and even international if it impacts your user. And that’s where we’re going to help our clients – better serving our growing “viewsers” on their digital platforms.

Research about how our “viewsers” consume – how, what and where is absolutely critical. The days of going with your gut are gone. We need to be as aggressive on understanding our consumers as we would be aggressive covering a story including providing critical updates as a story unfolds.

You can follow me on Twitter @Schwaid, on Facebook at Facebook.com/sschwaid and Pinterest at Pinterest.com/Schwaid.

You can follow our company at CJNI.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

Advertisements

The News Director’s nightmare – Live Breaking News during sporting events. You make the call.

March 28, 2011

There are days in this business and then there ARE days you will never forget.

Normally our life is fairly routine – if you can call covering news routine. But normally there is a rhythm to our jobs, much like many of your jobs.

But then there are days. In fact, the last several days would fit into the category of insanity, decision making on the fly and in this new social/digital/media age instant, and I mean instant, feedback from our viewers.

Let me set the stage.

For most of last week we had been covering the intensive manhunt for the killer of an Athens police officer. We knew the memorial service was going to be Saturday and police wanted to have the bad guy in custody before the services and funeral.

Around 3:30 p.m. Friday, we got word police had accused, and later admitted, killer Jamie Hood surrounded. Our live pictures showed a huge police presence. Then word came out that there were hostages. Hostages complicate police responses, tactics and news coverage. We work very hard not to show what police are doing or give specific police response information that could be used by the hostage taker if he’s watching TV.  It’s a touchy situation.

This is now going on for hours, but the perfect storm is starting to form.

We got a request from police – the GBI – asking us to carry live their plea for Jamie Hood to come out peacefully and nothing will happen. We were now into CBS coverage of the NCAAs.  We were right in the middle of the first game. But police were asking for our help in defusing a very tense situation.

What would you do? Stay with the game or carry the GBI announcement? You don’t have minutes to decide, you have seconds because of all the technical issues that have to happen to get it to air.

These are cases where we make decision on the fly.  Almost instantaneous.  No time for meetings, no big discussions, but a quick decision and that falls on me. That’s part of my job.

So I decided we would do what we called a “double box;” put the GBI and their audio on the screen along with a box for the game without audio.  The event started and we put up the double box. It took less than a minute or so from beginning to end. There were no emails, no phones calls from you.  Honestly, our main goal was to see if we could help in getting these hostages released from an admitted cop killer while still trying to keep you updated on the game.

But at 10:45 p.m. came the issue that would become the nightmare of the night.

Police were talking with Hood. Hood said was willing to surrender, but he wanted all the TV stations to carry his surrender live because he was worried for his safety. Police asked us to carry it live.  I’m not going to get into the issue of whether we should be worried about his safety. We were worried about the safety of the hostages.

Police said he would come out at 11:01 p.m. when we were all carrying it live. For all the other stations, this was easy. They were all in their local newscasts. We were in the midst of the second game – Kentucky versus Ohio State. For all we knew he was watching the game with the hostages. There is no way I wanted to live with the fact that if we didn’t carry his surrender, he might not come out or more importantly, hurt or kill a hostage. Do I worry about a person’s life or a basketball game? Honestly, an easy decision.

Again, I had to make a quick decision, as police were asking for us to show him surrendering. It could all be over in a couple of minutes and we could go on with our lives.

So at 11:01 p.m. we go back to the double box. In one box you see “The Door” and you hear Stephany Fisher, our anchor, describing what we expect to see. In a little bit bigger box we provide video of the game.

And we wait. No surrender yet. We have no idea how long this will take. There’s no way to know or find out. This is a real live scene playing out on live television.

It’s 11:05 and he hasn’t come out. Do we stay or do we leave? Maybe he’s watching us and won’t come out if we switch away and go back to the game full screen. If we go back to the game full screen he may get angry and decide to shoot a hostage.

We stay with it.

It’s 11:10 and the emails and calls are pouring in. “We don’t care about Hood or the hostages we want our game.” That’s what we’re hearing from many viewers.

Do I stay with the double box or do I go back to the game fullscreen. Again, an easy answer. We’re staying.

But now we’re making plans to drop our anchor’s voice and bring the game audio up. Keep in mind all this time you can see the game and it’s still early in the second half. And we’re honestly dealing in seconds and real time decision making. I’m on the phone with our producer in the control room – we’re making decisions on the fly. It’s live TV. There’s no script for this.

As we’re about ready to bring up the game audio we see the door open and the hostages walk out. I’ve been in this business more years than I want to admit. This is rather amazing television. We’re seeing hostages safely come out of the home and live pictures of the accused cop killer being arrested. (I’ve been a part of a story like this in the past, but it wasn’t on live TV.)

We get quickly back to the game and at this point we’re almost ready to call it a night, except for what feels like dozens if not hundreds of phone calls and emails complaining and “yelling” at us. I respond to many and head to bed shortly after 1 a.m.

I’m ready for the weekend.

But then we have serious weather on Saturday. It’s around 2:30 p.m. when the storms start to intensify and we’re doing special reports about tornado warnings.  Basically a warning indicated that radar had seen tornadic properties or someone has witnessed a tornado. This is serious stuff.

But again, guess what’s getting ready to tip off. Yup, the NCAAs.

We really were trying to be judicious, using a double box, covering commercials and trying to provide truly life saving information. Telling folks to immediately take shelter to me is more important than hearing game commentary. You could still see the game, but you would also hear and see our weather experts showing you where the storms are heading.

The emails start flowing again. How dare we interrupt the game or show the crawls about warnings and watches where many of you live?

Sorry, to make this simple, but it is an easy call. If a tornado is bearing down on you and your family would you rather hear critical life saving info or basketball commentary?

OK, so after this looooong blog post, what’s the bottom line?

It’s simple. Our number one goal is making sure you get critical life saving information. You expect it. In fact, it’s part of what we are licensed to provide. You expect us to keep you informed about critical weather information. And we will.

Regarding the plan of interrupting the game to show you “The Door?” Well, I wanted to watch the game myself, but this was also an easy call. I never want it to be on the conscience of my news organization that we risked someone’s life or could have the cause for someone’s death because we through it more important to show a few baskets than help the police with a hostage surrender. Could we have brought the game audio up sooner? Sure. But when you’re making instant decisions sometimes you don’t do it all perfectly.

But honestly, we all do try. And at the end of the day a person’s life, your life is much more important than hearing the announcers at a basketball game.

Bomb Threats, suspicious packages and water bottles

October 2, 2010

Honestly, I don’t get it.

I don’t understand why TV stations report bomb threats and suspicious packages until it’s been confirmed there really is a danger. In this post 9/11 day and age, citizens are doing a great job keeping their eyes open and reporting suspicious packages to police. But we need to temper what we report on the air.

I understand reporting about a suspicious package if police say it’s truly a legitimate concern. A great example of that is when the media covered the Times Square suspicious car bomb. That was clearly legit. There was true evidence of something suspicious. It was real.

We have a clear policy here at CBS Atlanta News. We shoot everything, but just because we shoot it, it doesn’t mean it needs to go on the air. If there’s a report of a suspicious package we’ll send the crew and possibly get some shots with the chopper.

But here’s what we would report. If there’s police activity that forces road closings, evacuations or detours, we report that there is police activity in the area so viewers know there’s something going on and can be prepared for changes. We do NOT routinely report local phoned in bomb threats, suspicious packages or even texts from students because in almost every case they turn out to be nothing.

What I don’t understand is why local stations report this stuff every day?

In the last week in this market there were reports of “suspicious devices” in at least three instances. Not one turned out to be real.

Here’s an example of a reported threat today. Police cordoned off a school bus that had been carrying students because of a bomb threat. Well, here’s what actually happened from one of our sources:

“A kid got on the bus and started talking about the water bottle someone put underneath a different bus the other day. That kid asked a friend, ‘Did you see the bomb on the bus?’ Another kid hears that and says, ‘There’s a bomb on the bus?’ Next thing you know, kids are calling and texting their parents that there was a bomb on THAT bus.” The next thing you know two stations are reporting a possible bomb on a school bus.

I’m not saying police shouldn’t take every threat seriously. They should and do. And they do a great job protecting the citizens while they check out the threat.

But why are stations going on the air and Web with suspicious packages that 99.9999 percent of the time turns out to be nothing? I understand shooting it, but why take up time in a newscast, send out breaking alerts and creating a sense of concern and possible chaos until you know what you really have?

Years and years ago I worked in the Tampa market. At that time the Sunshine Skyway Bridge was being closed almost daily by a prankster who kept calling in bomb threats. We reported them and the next day the guys would call in again to watch his handy work.

Police asked us not to report the bomb threat. If the bridge was closed they asked us to report it, and if we needed to say why we said because of police activity. As I constantly say to the staff, “Just Go.” We shoot everything, but we make the decision what to air. Just because we shoot it doesn’t mean we air it.

The Sherrod Debacle – who is at fault?

July 23, 2010

I’ve been trying to figure out how to address this issue for my blog, and I’ve been avoiding it because I didn’t want to get caught into a potential maelstrom of insults, back fighting and cat calling, but I can’t avoid it any longer.
I assume most people are aware of the Sherrod interview and controversy. She’s the US Agriculture official who found herself out of a job after a portion of a speech she gave years ago was taken out of context.
It started with a blogger who lifted a short clip from a speech she recently gave where she talked about her own internal battle with racism and how she worked to overcome it. Her story involved a white farmer. Oh, yes, Sherrod is an African-American. So now you see where it really starts rolling here.
But the blogger only used the portion where she talked about the white farmer and questioned why she should help them when some many blacks had lost their land.
Now the media starts to fan the flames.
In addition to the blogger, Fox News Channel now adds fuel to the fire. (I know, now I’ve opened the gates, but bear with me.)
Basically Fox challenges her and challenges how the administration lead by an African-American President could allow this to happen. You could almost feel the panic rolling through the administration as they worked as fast as they could to throw her under the bus and separate themselves from her.
In fact, when she was fired, she was driving her car and was told to pull over to the side of the road to get the official word. No investigation. No asking what happened. Not asking for the video or audio tape. Just summarily fired.
Now the NAACP is just as guilty. They condemned her in a knee jerk reaction. Again without checking the facts, the context or the cause of all this – honestly there are several culprits.
The web is great.
It’s a great resource, but many people don’t know how to filter what they read. Please, don’t assume everything you read on the web or in Wikipedia is fact. To quote James Watt, “A lie can run around the world before the truth can get its boots on.”
Cable news channels are voracious media animals always looking for content and something to talk about. They run 24/7/365 days a year and when there isn’t breaking news or real news, they need to create something to talk about and it starts feeding on itself. It doesn’t matter what cable channel – they all do the same thing, but a couple of them will take a political stance appealing to certain demographics or political ideologues– it’s all part of marketing to get viewers and attract eyeballs.
As journalists, we are all also responsible for what looks like an injustice to this woman. In this high speed world, we need to all do a better job as journalists at stepping back and vetting the story. We should note that many of the folks on cable talk shows are not journalists, but pundits espousing their
views. That’s ok. But it would be wonderful if a couple of them stood up and said mea culpa and maybe next time did a little more research before they started their rants.
As journalists we should always be asking:
What do we really know as fact? Who is our source? What’s the agenda? What is the context?
Be transparent.
What happened to Sherrod is sad. Honestly, it’s not one person’s fault. It’s all of our faults. In this highly charged bipartisan world where we as the media rush content to the web, twitter and text and instantly react to someone’s comments – especially when they apply to race – we all need to take a breath.
We’ve talked about this in our morning editorial news meetings. It’s incumbent upon us in this hyper-media world to make sure we vet our stories, not make assumptions, seek the full story and seek the truth. It’s not uncommon that at times we start on stories that we think are “amazing, unique and astounding” and after we research it we find the person or source we got it from provided bad information, rumors or innuendos.
Now I know this next part will get me in trouble – even with my parents.
When you watch cable news channels hours upon hours, understand that, to a large degree, they’re filling time. They have to feed the monster. The best viewers should feel free to ask questions: How do you know that? Is this your opinion or fact? If you watch a particular channel because you like their view point, understand they may have an agenda, an agenda not always based in fact.
To Ms. Sherrod – I’m sorry this happened to you. I do hope you get your job back and we all learn a lesson from what you went through.
Steve Schwaid
Director of News and Digital Content
CBS Atlanta News and CBSATLANTA.com
Steve.Schwaid@cbsatlanta.com

Do we only care about dead pretty girls?

May 10, 2010

Is the media fixated on good looking blonde girls when they become victims of crime? Does a good looking dead girl get better ratings?

It’s a topic I discussed with my class this week but it really hits home following the tragedy at UVA. Student Yeardley Love. Yeardley was a good looking 22 year old days from her graduation found dead in her dorm room – her boyfriend is charged with the murder.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20003996-504083.html

What really surprises me is how the media jumped on this within hours of the murder. Leading the charge seemed to be the Today Show.

No doubt it’s a story. But if it was an African American or Hispanic student would it have gotten the same amount of attention?

I can bet the ranch that the answer is no.

Think back on the stories involving women as victims of crime and almost all if not all were white. To name a few: Laci Peterson, Natalee Holloway, and Audrey Sellers – the college student who created her own disappearance that turned out to be a hoax.

Yes we should do what we can to publicize and help find missing people. But as an industry if there were two missing girls, each 19, each with a pretty face and smile, each with a “good” reputation, both straight A students but one is black and the other is white which one would get the media coverage.

Did it take you more than 5 seconds to come up with what the media would probably do? You can bet the odds are the white woman would get billing above the fold.

Is this right? No

Is there a good excuse? Nope.

Does it make sense? Unfortunately, some might understand why in very disturbing way. (It’s not acceptable.)

The appearance is that we – in the media – only care about the good looking white girl.

This is wrong. So wrong. But what can we do about it? As news managers, journalists and bloggers we need to keep this issue transparent and raise the concern when we see a news organization playing for the “pretty face” card.

If you work in a newsroom you need to raise the issue when you see it.

If you watch TV or see this happening on a site or blog you need to raise the issue as the consumer.

We have to come face to face with this issue, now.

We’re sorry.

April 28, 2010

The following is an apology I posted on our station’s web site today.

——————————————————————-

Writing apologizes is one of the hardest notes to write. But clearly in this case we owe you, our viewers of CBS Atlanta and users of CBSAtlanta.com, an apology.Last night we aired a story about a local man charged with murdering another man in Connecticut. Connecticut authorities arrested 44-year-old Lishan Wang on Monday. Wang is from Cobb County and is accused of shooting and killing a Yale University doctor.Since this was also a local story, we went to Wang’s Cobb County home to see if we could learn what lead up to the alleged shooting. When we got there, a woman opened the door and we explained the story we were working on. It turns out the woman who opened the door was Wang’s wife. She didn’t know her husband had been arrested and charged with a crime. No one had told her that her husband was in jail in Connecticut on murder charges. We broke the news to her. It’s not something we want to do.Wang’s wife then invited us into her home, but it’s what happened next that that I found the most offensive and horrifying. While we were in the home talking with her and shooting video, Wang’s wife fell to the floor hysterically crying. If you saw our newscast last night or our website earlier today, you saw this horrible video.There was no reason for us to air or put that video on the Web. No one needed to see those moments in her life. I received several emails and calls complaining about what we did.To those of you who wrote or called, thank you. We understand your anger and frustration with what we did. You’re right. This is not the way we set out to conduct ourselves every day. We appreciate your reaction and want you to know we knew the minute this story went on the air that we had made a terrible mistake in judgment.It was wrong. We were wrong and I apologize. We have discussed it internally and will continue to do so. We will also use this video in future training sessions with our staff to show what we should NOT put on television.I can offer no excuse but only hope you will accept our apologies.

Steve Schwaid
Director of News and Digital Content
Steve.Schwaid@cbsatlanta.com

Should we have reported the story?

April 23, 2010

So here’s the scenario. We get a tip – most likely from PETA – that the state is raiding a building/business that houses animals that are for sale. It’s a legit business that supplies to pet stores and others. The inspectors come out and basically say nothing is wrong. They say the business is treating the animal better than they maybe treating in many homes. They cited the business for one violation – some rusty cages.

We had the video and sound but opted not to run the story. It really didn’t sound news worthy and didn’t make the cut for our producers. I agreed with their call. It didn’t look like a story.

At noon we saw one station lead with the story. We discussed it in the newsroom and it still didn’t feel like a story. They had the same stuff we had. We decided again it wasn’t a story.

Later a PETA person called one of our reporters to make sure we knew of the story. We asked PETA if they had any video of their alleged violations in the business. They said yes and sent us the link.

We figured ok, maybe we have a story and we looked at the video. It showed some animals – mice -being tossed into shipping boxes. There are other animals being packed up for shipment and comments from workers via undercover cameras about how the animals are treated. Hmmm, maybe we have a story.

But then near the end a graphic pops up saying where the video was taken. It says it was taken at a chain pet store. According to what we saw it was not taken at the business that was raised and cleared of animal abuse.

We stood by our decision that it wasn’t a story.

Then at 5 and 6 pm we see all of the stations run the story.

I still think we made the right call. The business was cleared, the video was misleading and we felt there wasn’t a story.

Were we wrong? What did they see in the story we didn’t or were they just filling time?

Back in class

April 7, 2010

First, I apologize for my tardiness in updating my blog.

I have an excuse. (I give my reporters grief if they don’t keep their blogs fresh.) I hope I have a good excuse.

I’m teaching a class at the Savannah School of Art and Design. It’s a television production course where we focus on writing, shooting, editing, blocking etc.

It’s a blast. It’s a lot of fun but it’s work. We meet twice a week for 2.5 hours in the evening – five hours a week. That’s a lot f class time and it’s a lot of content to teach, review and discuss.

What’s the hardest part? Probably making sure your mind is totally open as you talk about how to produce content for so many different platforms – platforms we haven’t even thought of yet. My background is television. It’s my reference point. When I’m uncomfortable I might resort to how would “we do it” in TV. But no longer. That’s also what makes the class so invigorating.

I really enjoy the teaching. It’s a way to step back from our daily newsroom pressures and talk about how, why and what we do. We expose ourselves to the question of why we do it the way we do. The worst answer is we always “do it that way.”

I really enjoy the students. Their minds are open, clean and clear. They can be so expansive in their assignment ideas.

Example: This week’s assignment is to produce a testimonial about anyone, thing or product. They have to do interviews, location shoots and can add sound, music and graphics.

One student is doing a testimonial about tin cans. Yup, tin cans.

Another about the iPhone.

The third is about yoga and the fourth about a clothing brand.

All so different. No one is thinking strictly in the box.

We’re good as an industry about bringing in consultants, researchers and analysts to look at what we do, how we do it and why.

Wondering if maybe I should bring these students in for a day with my producers and managers and just spend hours listening to what they think we should be doing, what we should look like and what we need to do as we figure out the future.

Maybe next time I’ll post their assignments.

Hello, 911 what is your emergency?

March 9, 2010

Atlanta, like many markets, has a ton of stories about fire department, police, and EMT responses to emergencies. In some newsrooms the automatic has been “let’s get the 911 tape and play it on the air.”

The question is should we be playing 911 tapes? There’s no question we have the right. It’s not a legal issue, but it is a moral and ethical issue. Years ago I was at a seminar on ethics and this issue came up. It started with a discussion out of Miami where a motorist somehow drove off the highway into a retention pond. You could hear the entire conversation with her and the dispatchers and the confusion of what highway she was on and where she was located. She was begging for help on her cell phone. She was begging for someone to save her life.

The audio clearly revealed the driver was panicking, confused and scared. There was also no question the dispatcher on the line could have done a better job. But as you play the 911 you realize you are listening to a woman’s last words. While the 911 tape is playing you hear her drown – among her last words “Oh My God, I Can’t Breathe.”Shortly after that it goes silent except for the background noise of the dispatcher.

 I will always remember that.

A station in Miami broadcasted the entire audio portion. Did the viewer need to hear it? Did it add to the story?  Did you need to hear it to understand the story?  All questions a news operation should ask before playing 911 tapes.

Here at CBS Atlanta we have a clear policy. Get the 911 tape but never play it on the air until a news manager has reviewed it.

We had two recent instances where we decided not to air 911 tapes. The first one happened during the Austell floods. It was the audio of the mother driving home at 5:30am when her car was swept off a road because of fast rising flood waters. The call is a woman panicking and much like the Miami case. You hear her last words. Her car was later found entangled in some trees. She was dead. While some stations in the market ran the audio we decided not to. In my mind it brought nothing to the story. Did we need to hear her last words? No. Did we need to hear her die? No. Could we tell the story without the audio? Yes.

The most recent case where we declined to use the video was the DeKalb woman, who called the fire department to say her house was on fire, but the first department never fully investigated it and she died when her house burned down. In this case we talked about it a little more. Her voice was fairly calm and matter of fact. But again, these were her last words and I felt playing them on TV was invading her privacy and her last moments of life. We were able to tell the story of the fire department screw up by using other 911 audio. We told the story without using her last words.

Some disagree with our approach. That’s fine. We talk about it internally a fair amount.

We deal with death and destruction every day. Many of us in the business are cynical and thick skinned. It’s how we deal with some of what we see. Our coping mechanism at times is to create personal distance with the tragedy we’re covering. A tragedy that is affecting families and communities in the market we serve.

But still there are times when we all don’t need to hear it all. You don’t need to hear it all. Their families don’t need to hear it all.

CBS Atlanta is growing fast

March 3, 2010

We’re just finishing another rating period. Every day we get overnight ratings showing what shows and newscasts you watcher. This report reflects the important February ratings period. It’s our report card and I thought I would share the latest update with you.

Steve Schwaid

Ok guys, here is the current state of ratings (Feb10 Non-Olympics time frame ) for P25-54.   

We are the fastest growing Morning, Early (4&5pm), 6pm and Late News in the Market

  • Our Morning news doubled its share year over year.
  • We are the only station at 6pm to grow share year over year.
  • We are the only 11pm News to grow share year over year.
  • We finished second at 11pm, up 0.8 Rtg points or 42.1% over last year.
Feb09 Vs Feb10 (Non-Olympic)          
P25-54                
    2009 2010   Change
5-7am   Rtg Shr Rtg Shr   Rtg Shr
  WGCL 0.2 1.2 0.3 2.4   50.0% 100.0%
  WSB 3.2 23.8 3.0 24.0   -6.3% 0.8%
  WXIA 0.8 5.6 0.8 6.6   0.0% 17.9%
  WAGA 1.5 11.3 1.7 13.3   13.3% 17.7%
                 
4pm & 5pm   Rtg Shr Rtg Shr   Rtg Shr
  WGCL 0.6 3.3 1.1 5.0   83.3% 51.5%
  WSB 3.5 15.6 4.1 16.6   17.1% 6.4%
  WAGA 1.8 7.8 1.8 7.2   0.0% -7.7%
                 
6pm   Rtg Shr Rtg Shr   Rtg Shr
  WGCL 0.5 2.0 0.8 2.6   60.0% 30.0%
  WSB 4.8 16.9 5.1 16.6   6.3% -1.8%
  WXIA 1.5 5.7 1.3 4.4   -13.3% -22.8%
  WAGA 2.3 8.3 2.2 7.2   -4.3% -13.3%
                 
11pm   Rtg Shr Rtg Shr   Rtg Shr
  WGCL 1.9 5.6 2.7 7.5   42.1% 33.9%
  WSB 4.2 12.1 4.3 11.8   2.4% -2.5%
  WXIA 1.6 4.7 1.7 4.7   6.3% 0.0%
  WAGA 2.3 7.0 2.0 5.7   -13.0% -18.6%
  WAGA 10p 4.1 9.1 4.3 9.6   4.9% 5.5%