Charlotte Local Television News

[DigitalSky]

O is reporting today that Carolina Traveler has been canceled due to Mike Redding's contract not being renewed by WCNC.

This was a unique and local show, not consultant-driven, which is why it stood head and shoulders above most of the other crap on local TV.

So it figures it wouldn't last.

That's horrible! A bit surprised

[monsoon]

I am convinced the local broadcasters are "value engineering" as much as the newspaper and getting similar results. I've noticed an upswing of no programming at all even during the day now where instead there are infomercials. WBTV, WCNC, and WCCB are particularly bad about it, with 3 and 36 being the worst. It's much cheaper for them to sell the slot as an infomercial rather than pay for a syndicated show and try to sell commercials on it. A lot more worse for them to attempt to create their own show like Mike Redding. WCCB used to provide programming all night, now that has been replaced by infomercials.

I did notice the Carolina Traveler had been reduced to a few minutes on the local news as I don't recall seeing the actual 30 minute show on now. Maybe they are selling ShamWows in that spot now. He had a good program, I hate to see that it is gone now.

At some point I would think they will be getting in trouble with the terms on which they were awarded the license, but I suspect those terms have been watered down so much in their favor over the past few years they can get away with it.

[JayGee]

At some point I would think they will be getting in trouble with the terms on which they were awarded the license, but I suspect those terms have been watered down so much in their favor over the past few years they can get away with it.

That's a good point. Broadcast licenses were awarded with a responsibility to 'the public good'. No one can argue these infomercials are for the public good, only the good of the bottom line of the broadcasters. But I suspect this will never come under scrutiny. The broadcasters lobby is one of the most powerful in Washington.

I guess they can't afford original programming after they spent all of their money on goofy looking 'Mobile Newsrooms' and 'Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Weather Mobiles'.

[Batou]

WCCB doesn't even show old syndicated Simpsons episodes anymore

[Boricua]

WCCB doesn't even show old syndicated Simpsons episodes anymore

yeah whats up with that?

[DigitalSky]

yeah whats up with that?

That's so odd... The syndicated Simpsons always got good ratings in Charlotte

[monsoon]

That's so odd... The syndicated Simpsons always got good ratings in Charlotte

They can make more money running infomercials for the SlapChop and letting the fat slob Billy Mayes scream at you.

[Eastman]

They can make more money running infomercials for the SlapChop and letting the fat slob Billy Mayes scream at you.

I heard what Billy Mayes got paid once and I almost threw up.

[Batou]

They though still at least have King of the Hill in the old Simpsons 11pm slot, guess that's "something".

[JayGee]

Ok, so during a story about last week's close call on the ground, WCNC, while displaying an aerial photo of CLT, made the statement that "Charlotte's airport has no parallel runways".

Brilliant.

[JayGee]

Story in the O about a scuffle between WBTV videographer and police. I would have to side with WBTV on this one. As long as the videographer was not in the way or obstructing investigation, the police have no right to tell them what to shoot. It's the station's responsibility to make the judgement as to what to air.

WBTV Scuffles with Police

[Neo]

It is within anyone's rights to video or photograph the police, scene of an accident, etc. so long as they do it from a public space. It infuriates me to no end when I read about these rights being taken away by an uneducated law enforcement officer or lowly security guard. Thomas Hawk is a well known advocate of photographer's rights and has been the victim of this several times. I really wish law enforcement and companies in general were more educated on this. Particularly law enforcement since they have the ability to arrest and detain.

[JayGee]

It is within anyone's rights to video or photograph the police, scene of an accident, etc. so long as they do it from a public space. It infuriates me to no end when I read about these rights being taken away by an uneducated law enforcement officer or lowly security guard. Thomas Hawk is a well known advocate of photographer's rights and has been the victim of this several times. I really wish law enforcement and companies in general were more educated on this. Particularly law enforcement since they have the ability to arrest and detain.

I sure hope CMPD does not try to defend these people.

[monsoon]

You know, if I had to go to a scene where my dead relatives or friends were at an automobile accident, the last thing I would want was a bunch of news cameras filming the dead bodies so they can make a profit off this bit of tabloid reporting. Sure there is freedom of the press, but with that comes some responsibility to show a little respect and decency in the way of your fellow citizens of the community. The local TV news does a horrendous job of this and while I am one of the biggest supporters of not letting the police trample on rights, all I can see here is WBTV showing teasers all evening of someone who died in a traffic accident. Good for ratings.

If WBTV really wanted to inform, they don't need the low life photos of the corpses. Would you want this of your Mom or Dad or Sister or Kids or Spouse or friends? I simply can't fathom this taking place at an accident scene like this. Shame on WBTV.

The police did right this time.

[JayGee]

You know, if I had to go to a scene where my dead relatives or friends were at an automobile accident, the last thing I would want was a bunch of news cameras filming the dead bodies so they can make a profit off this bit of tabloid reporting. Sure there is freedom of the press, but with that comes some responsibility to show a little respect and decency in the way of your fellow citizens of the community. The local TV news does a horrendous job of this and while I am one of the biggest supporters of not letting the police trample on rights, all I can see here is WBTV showing teasers all evening of someone who died in a traffic accident. Good for ratings.

If WBTV really wanted to inform, they don't need the low life photos of the corpses. Would you want this of your Mom or Dad or Sister or Kids or Spouse or friends? I simply can't fathom this taking place at an accident scene like this. Shame on WBTV.

The police did right this time.

I totally agree that dead bodies, etc. should not be aired, that would be tabloid journalism, and in fairness to the local news, I don't recall where this has ever happened. That's why I said it's the responsibility of the station to determine what is aired, and it should be a responsible, respectful decision. You are absolutely correct, the story can be reported accurately without the sensationalism and 'tabloidism'. That is the job of the editor.

[Neo]

The police did right this time.

I disagree completely. I do understand that respect should be shown, but what evidence do you have that it wasn't? From what I read, respect was given, it just wasn't up to the officer's expectations. The law isn't written to give folks rights based on on person's opinion, it is written so that everyone has the same blanket rights. Obviously those rights are brought into question in this scuttle. If the police department were in their right to disallow photos and video for this, then that also carries over to the right to take photo and video of anything else in a public space.

If you want to question the morality of this, then perhaps you should pursue changing the law so that no photo and video can be taken of accidents where fatalities occurred.

[JayGee]

If the police department were in their right to disallow photos and video for this, then that also carries over to the right to take photo and video of anything else in a public space.

Correct. One would have to recognize that this is a slippery slope.

[monsoon]

I totally agree that dead bodies, etc. should not be aired, that would be tabloid journalism, and in fairness to the local news, I don't recall where this has ever happened. ..... That is the job of the editor.

Then there really is no reason for a reporter to be sticking a big HD camera and bight lights in the faces of the people trying to tend to the dead and injured. Accident scenes should be limited to the victims, the police, emergency personnel, and those directly affected like relatives. Curiosity seekers, the local news, ambulance chasing lawyers and everyone should respect these scenes. If they don't then I don't have a problem with the police giving them a strong reminder. As I said above, I don't want cameras in my face at something like this. I don't care about the editors because from where I sit, they are already irresponsible in what they put on the air.

If anything else the cameraman was just stupid for disobeying a cop. The better action would have been to comply with the order then file a complaint afterwards. They had the whole thing on film anyway. Anyone choosing to fight with the police is going to lose.

[JayGee]

Then there really is no reason for a reporter to be sticking a big HD camera and bight lights in the faces of the people trying to tend to the dead and injured. Accident scenes should be limited to the victims, the police, emergency personnel, and those directly affected like relatives. Curiosity seekers, the local news, ambulance chasing lawyers and everyone should respect these scenes. If they don't then I don't have a problem with the police giving them a strong reminder. As I said above, I don't want cameras in my face at something like this. I don't care about the editors because from where I sit, they are already irresponsible in what they put on the air.

If anything else the cameraman was just stupid for disobeying a cop. The better action would have been to comply with the order then file a complaint afterwards. They had the whole thing on film anyway. Anyone choosing to fight with the police is going to lose.

The article said they were up on a hill or embankment or something, it didn't sound like it was close (if it was described accurately). I agree, it would be just plain disrespectful on the photographers part to be in their face. I personally could not do that and the photographer does need to show some level of common sense and respect.

You're probably correct, too, that they should have obeyed the cop and file a complaint later.

[Neo]

Then there really is no reason for a reporter to be sticking a big HD camera and bight lights in the faces of the people trying to tend to the dead and injured. Accident scenes should be limited to the victims, the police, emergency personnel, and those directly affected like relatives. Curiosity seekers, the local news, ambulance chasing lawyers and everyone should respect these scenes. If they don't then I don't have a problem with the police giving them a strong reminder. As I said above, I don't want cameras in my face at something like this. I don't care about the editors because from where I sit, they are already irresponsible in what they put on the air.

If anything else the cameraman was just stupid for disobeying a cop. The better action would have been to comply with the order then file a complaint afterwards. They had the whole thing on film anyway. Anyone choosing to fight with the police is going to lose.

How is that you know the camera and bright lights were in the faces of the people trying to tend to this accident? You're assuming yet you state it as if it were fact.

[49er]

Reporters have a bad habit of being aggressive trying to get camera shots for the evening news. From my experience, they can be downright jerks because if they dont get the footage, they have to answer to the boss. It is no more their right than it is anyone else's to be poking around accident and crime scenes soon after they occur.

[Neo]

^ If they were poking around and getting in the way of those actually tending to the injured or law enforcement doing their actual job then I agree that the officers did what is right. But if they kept a proper distance and stayed out of the way of any necessary activity at the scene, then I don't see where the officers were correct in their actions. None of us have any evidence of either to my knowledge, though Monsoon has stated that the camera and bright lights were in the faces of those tending to injured...so perhaps some have the inside scoop of what went down?

[monsoon]

..... though Monsoon has stated that the camera and bright lights were in the faces of those tending to injured...so perhaps some have the inside scoop of what went down?

I did not say that. sigh

I would have hoped the cops would have had better sense than to confront a reporter who was standing a decent distance away. You are right we don't have the details, but my guess is that the cops are better trained at how to handle these things than a camera jockey working for a TV station looking for ratings.

My other observation is that all the TV stations spend a significant portion of the newscast each night reading off arrest reports from the Police without question. The go through the arrest records each day hoping to get a tabloidisc story where they are making profits off people's misery. It's hardly news. In fact they often will make it sound as if the party is guilty based solely on what the police have to say whereas guilt or innocence is determined in the court. However let something like this happen to one of their own and look out, it's police brutality. A double standard and self serving for sure.

[Neo]

I did not say that. sigh

Unless we're somehow supposed to take the following comment differently, then the comment is above for you to re-read:

Then there really is no reason for a reporter to be sticking a big HD camera and bight lights in the faces of the people trying to tend to the dead and injured.

I would have hoped the cops would have had better sense than to confront a reporter who was standing a decent distance away. You are right we don't have the details, but my guess is that the cops are better trained at how to handle these things than a camera jockey working for a TV station looking for ratings.

My other observation is that all the TV stations spend a significant portion of the newscast each night reading off arrest reports from the Police without question. The go through the arrest records each day hoping to get a tabloidisc story where they are making profits off people's misery. It's hardly news. In fact they often will make it sound as if the party is guilty based solely on what the police have to say whereas guilt or innocence is determined in the court. However let something like this happen to one of their own and look out, it's police brutality. A double standard and self serving for sure.

This being hardly news is your opinion. I'm not saying that it is news in my opinion either, but obviously there are plenty that feel that this type of thing should be news worthy.

Also, I wouldn't put it past law enforcement to handle situations like this incorrectly from time to time. There are quite a few instances around the US of law enforcement abusing their powers to take away rights of photographers and videographers. Just because it isn't a common occurrence doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

[JayGee]

Washington and a photographer for WSOC (Channel 9) were shooting video of the scene from an embankment overhead, next to the Beatties Ford Road bridge, said Dennis Milligan, news director of Channel 3.

If this is accurate, it sounds like they were a reasonable distance away. If they were close and intrusive, I would expect the police to intervene and ask them move some distance away.

What we are debating is their right to shoot the video vs. the right of the police to tell them they cannot, assuming they were not being overly intrusive and/or obstructive.