Star Tribune launches daily Webcast

http://www.startribune.com/video/?vid=40653092&c=n&elr=KArks5PhDcU9PhDcU9PhDcU5PhDco8P77jyPhU&elr=KArksUUUycaEacyU

Too bad the anchors just sit and read off of a paper script while on camera. Why do newspapers try to compete with TV in a market where such competition is asinine?

I helped launch a Webcast, but there isn't a TV station in my town. And we stopped doing it a few months later because we couldn't get any sponsors and at most, 30 people a day watched it.

 

Fixed.

Seems to me that, at best, they'll cause people to stop clicking on the stories they're reading. They might get laughed at for their cable-access quality newscast as well.

If this is what saves newspapers, someone please save us instead!

 

Here's my glowing review: it wasn't horrible!

Seems like a decent starting point and, if nothing else, the "show" made me want to read the full stories for more facts and analysis. I don't know, I give them credit for trying something new, and I could see some folks downloading those clips and watching them on the train/bus after work.

And really, I read the Star Tribune frequently, both online and the print edition, and I'm not sure what Michael Rand does aside from his much-to-be-desired blog. Clearly, he's got the time for this new gig (if he's going to be the one who "reads the script" each day, that is).

 

http://www.startribune.com/video/?vid=40548092&c=n&elr=KArks5PhDcU9PhDcU9PhDcU5PhDco8P77jyPhU

uh, yeah, it was kind of horrible because this guy, i think, really thinks he's good. and what the hell is he messing with a pencil for when there's no paper anywhere and he's on a laptop?

funniest part is when someone brings in a large map and holds it on camera or the part when the anchor says it'll be cloudy tonight but who cares, it'll be dark.

 

Lileks is a fairly well-known blogger, isn't he? I assume whatever appeal this holds would be strictly for the people who read and like him.

In the big picture, this is a colossally stupid idea. I'm not sure why a newspaper would want to present itself as a collection of complete amateurs trying to copy the local TV stations and failing badly.

It's a bit like the TV station printing out thousand of copies of its late newscast scripts, stapling them together, and then throwing them on driveways and pretending it's a newspaper.

The only excuse for something like this would be, as Stitch said, in a place where there are no local TV stations doing news. That ain't Minneapolis.

 

My feeling from the first two days is that it's trying to go for the feel of The Onion, while still doing real news. Unfortunately, it's not entertaining or informative.

As for a TV station trying to emulate newspapers, the local radio station does that with a newsletter that's distributed through several businesses. There are a couple of AP briefs, scores and a calendar. Of course this radio station doesn't really report the local news well, except for ripping off the paper's stories.

 

The Strib is far from the first paper to try this. A paper in SoCal was doing nightly newscasts on the Web a few years ago, and it was actually pretty good. A synopsis of top news stories, top sports stories and maybe another segment or two. Ten-minute show, written by a couple editors and reporters who had broadcast experience. More professional than some TV newscasts I've seen. Got ads for it and everything.

Alas, then the massive cuts came down from on high about two years ago and the AME/online left for a different paper, and they don't have the equipment or the people to do that anymore.

 

I think newspapers should do Webcasts around the clock. But they ought to spend the money to do them well, hiring professional video and on-air talent instead of thinking that anyone can do it.

 

Did CNN Headline News every run a 24-hour live schedule or was some of that taped?

 

We've tried the Webcasts here in Podunk.

Nobody -- and I mean nobody -- watched them. I think Webcasts are a giant waste of time.

But when we go to videotape a house burning to the ground...

 

I agree. What on earth is the difference between a webcast and a tv broadcast? Shit, if you want tobe a TV station, then go get a license and start competing with all of the other talking heads, for crying out loud.

 

That train done left the station. HIRE new or (gag!) more people to do new and more stuff? Too late. The time to hire pros and train amateurs was 10 years ago.

Now newspapers are like baseball teams cutting themselves down to the size of basketball teams but deciding that they have to play football. From 9 down to 5, suddenly needing 11. With a payroll budget for maybe 2.5.