Grand Forks, North Dakota viewers object to TV news being outsourced to Fargo

WDAZ-TV, Grand Forks

Smaller communities value their news, whether it's source is the local newspaper or a small TV station. People in Grand Forks, North Dakota are not happy with a choice made by Forum Communications, owner of WDAZ-TV. Forum also owns sister station WDAY-TV, in larger Fargo, and has decided to cut WDAZ's 5pm localized newscast and its anchor, Terry Dullum. WDAZ is a satellite of the Fargo ABC affiliate and the weekday 5pm newscast is the sole newscast produced in Grand Forks; the other Grand Forks-specific newscasts are produced in Fargo. It's very like this is a monetary decision.

Terry Dullum

There has been quite a bit of outcry over this, to the point that competitors KXJB and KVLY are covering A change.org petition has been started with a goal of 1000 signatures. While WDAZ is essentially a satellite of WDAY, thousands in the smaller city of Grand Forks became accustomed to having their own localized newscast with their own anchor. At the time of writing this, the petition is less than 100 signers shy of 1000.
it. Dullum is a fixture in the community and many unhappy viewers have used social media to vent frustrations over his dismissal.

This should send a loud message to TV news operations: viewers want to see news that's relevant to them and their community. That's how loyalty is built with viewers. The more local a newscast is, the more it's valued and the more it's watched.

Cheers, all.

The Idea of Going Car-Free in Memphis is Laughable and Sad at the Same Time

I have lived in Memphis the majority of my life. I was born here and I know this city very well. While this is the only city I would truly ever want to call home, I have what I feel is a legitimate grievance: we do not live in a city designed (or modified) to effectively or realistically travel about without the aid of a personal automobile.

Courtesy: The Commercial Appeal

Memphis has public transit. Before I began driving, I used Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA) extensively. Once you learn how to use it, that is. When I needed the aid of public transportation, I was one of the thousands of people who saw MATA buses and trollies running up and down city streets, wondering just how to use them and where, exactly, they where going. But once I learned the system, schedules, etc, it was a pleasant experience, for the most part.

But riding the bus in Memphis can be a challenge. In some case, it takes intricate, almost reconnaissance-like planning and scoping to get from where you are to where you want to go. The way buses are scheduled, if you are traveling to a transfer point and the bus you are one arrives late, you plans either change on the fly or you wait it out until the next bus rolls along. That, along with the fact that many areas of the metro area are not widely served (namely the surrounding affluent suburban areas and the far eastern portion of Shelby County) does not make relying upon MATA a realistic possibility.

Courtesy: http://carfreememphis.wordpress.com/

Even with recent efforts to integrate bike lanes throughout the city, Memphis can be highly frustrating to maneuverable with a car. Drivers in this city are simply not mindful of anything on the street that's not a car. It's largely a fantasy to think one can ride a bike from Whitehaven to Midtown without almost getting killed by careless drivers or encountering roadways and thoroughfares not designed with neither pedestrians nor bikers in mind.

While noble and bold in conception, the aspect of ditching your car for a month in the name of reducing auto emissions and helping the environment is laughable. For now, anyway.

For those not from Memphis, you must understand that there is a stigma attached to not owning a car in this city. It doesn't matter if you're driving a $500 raggedy tax refund used jalopy, you're better than those people who have to ride the bus. That alone will keep people away from MATA. Or walking. Or riding a bike.

Courtesy: Memphis Daily News

Like I stated before, when I first used the bus, I had no idea how it worked and I wasn't alone. If MATA would make the process less of a mystery (perhaps designating an advertising budget like they did in the 70s and 80s?), I think ridership would go up. Also, an expansion of routes (in area and frequency) would making riding buses and trollies more attractive.

If bike routes and lanes expanded, this would help. But the harsh truth is that Memphis drivers are not used to sharing the road with bikers. Drivers often use bike lanes like shoulder, with no regard for the bike lanes' intended use.

Going car-free is idealist, nothing more. A good idea, but still, just an idea, really.

More info about Memphis' 30 Day Car Free Challenge can be found here.

Cheers, all.

Can drones replace news helicopters?

After watching a very interesting piece about drones on 60 Minutes, I sent out this tweet:

I can totally see smaller market TV stations using drones as an alternative to helicopters, leveling the playing field #60Minutes
— Shaun Fossett (@shaun_fossett) March 16, 2014

While my focus was on smaller television markets with limited resources, my interest has shifted a bit in light of the tragic events at Seattle ABC affiliate KOMO. Chopper pilot Gary Fitzner and photographer Bill Strothman were killed in a crash while leaving the facility where the station's helicopter was stored, mere yards from the city's iconic Space Needle.

So I've been thinking: could drones be used as an economical tool for gathering news and make for a safer alternative? I envision these tiny, airborne devices being utilized by television stations to get aerial footage for breaking news, even for stations in larger markets who cannot (or will not) fork over millions of dollars to purchase or lease a chopper or pay for its expensive fuel. Plus, helicopters must be stored in specific places; it's not like a car that can be parked in the driveway after breaking news coverage is over.

With 5G bandwidth becoming common across America, drones could also be used anywhere near a 4G/5G tower, eliminating the need to tune into a signal on what can often be an unreliable microwave spectrum. This would also allow multiple drones to operate simultaneously within the same general area.

My vision of initial operation goes like this: a large fire has broken out in a residential area during a wildfire. Crews cannot get to the fire due to safety issues. A news crew drives as close to the fire as safely allowed. The drone is deployed. With someone trained to remotely operate the drone as a crew member guiding it along, the cellular spectrum can be used to transmit a live HD grade signal back to the station. The drone costs a fraction of a helicopter, so if it's damaged, it's no big deal, especially in situations where lives are in the balance. Plus, it's less intrusive than a helicopter, therefore, it can access more areas without jeopardizing safety.

The use of drones could also level the playing field in TV news, making exclusive claims to owning helicopters a thing of the past. As I stated previously, choppers use a lot of fuel. And it ain't cheap.

But we;re years away from this. Regulations must be put into place. I can imagine drones would be governed the same way aircraft is today.

So, will drones replace news helicopters? Not anytime soon. Just as the internet has not replaced TV news but has influenced it to change, drones will add another alternative and dimension to the tools television stations will have at their disposal to provide quality news coverage.

Cheers, all.