Viewers to Late-Night News: Later
Today in Style, John Maynard reports that all three local TV stations showed precipitous drops in viewership for their 11 p.m. newscasts, compared to last year.
At least one station manager repeated the typical excuse: Bad "lead-in," or lightly watched shows in the 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. slot.
Yeah, okay. Maybe that's part of it.
But the stations are fighting the same trend as newspapers: Viewers seeking their news elsewhere.
For instance, why do local stations even do sports anymore? Can viewers get more Redskins/Wizards/Capitals news, video and gossip from 6 minutes on TV than they can from 100 Internet sources?
I, for instance, am in the news business and I cover the media and entertainment industries and I can't remember the last time I sat down to watch the 6 p.m. news, much less the 11 p.m. news. And I'm pretty well-informed.
How about you? Do you still watch the nightly news broadcasts, at 6 p.m. or 11 p.m.? If you do, tell me why. If not, say where else you get your news.
Today In The Post:
* Good news if you're looking to buy a big-screen TV for the holidays: Big box stores are in a price war. Ylan Q. Mui reports.
* Technology allows filmmakers to further blur the line between reality and fiction, as they seamlessly insert historical footage of Princess Di and Bobby Kennedy into current films. Desson Thomson reports in Style.
* New studies of the "world's first computer" (ancient Greece!) show it to be even more sophisticated that first thought.
Get This Widget >>
Please email us to report offensive comments.
Posted by: Cosmo | November 30, 2006 3:26 PM
Posted by: Cosmo | November 30, 2006 11:29 PM
Posted by: stev | December 1, 2006 4:36 PM
Posted by: Pam | December 4, 2006 4:07 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.