News-Record.com

We do love our national politics.

Or maybe we just love our TVs.

I just heard a local television station refer to a story in the morning paper by saying, "as reported by a local newspaper."

We used to avoid naming competitors, too, to avoid giving credence to something they reported (and we didn't). Silly, really. It didn't help readers. We changed that several years ago, prefering precision to vagueness. And now that there are hundreds of "competitors" it makes even less sense. It's like refusing to link out.

Neill McNeil reminds me why I'm glad I have a face for radio.

I wear mascara and lipstick! Okay, I’ve admitted it for the first time in this format.

Only when he's on the air, though.

He was inspired to come out from behind the makeup table because of the news about Gov. Palin's new wardrobe.

I like Neill and think he's pretty good on TV. I don't think I could do the makeup/looks thing. My wife, however, would like someone to advise me on clothes and hair. (She does the best she can with what she has to work with.)

On our daily TV page this week, we eliminated the listings for the premium channels (HBO, Showtime, etc.). By dropping them, we were able to expand the space in the grids, making the other 60+ listings easier to read and follow.

Some readers objected and asked for their return. When we explained why we did it, some understood. Others disagreed.

I've suggested to some that their complaint is with the cable company. Can you imagine providing a service, without providing a guide to the service? That's what the cable company does -- as do individual television stations, for that matter. And when you pay extra for premium service -- buying HBO, for instance -- wouldn't you expect to get a guide to what is coming on? My understanding is that the cable company will provide one, for a fee. (I don't know. I have cable, but don't buy HBO.) My suggestion was usually greeted with laughter.

It's true that over the years we have trained readers that they can find listings in the paper. But in recent years, we haven't been able to keep up with the explosion of different channels. As a result, I am pretty sure that we haven't provided complete listings of what's on television for several years.

I have also suggested people can get the listings online or by using their remotes, if they have expanded cable. But, really, if I wanted to know what is coming on HBO at 8 p.m. tonight, I would call the cable company, rather than the newspaper.

The season premiere of The Office may have featured a piece of the News & Record.

In an episode in which the characters try to lose weight as part of a company contest, Michael Scott (Steve Carell) enters the office conference room in a fat suit. As a motivational tool, he pins five photos of overweight people/things: the fat Elvis, the Sta-Puff Marshmallow Man, Jabba the Hut, Big Momma and a photo of two huge guys on mini-motorcycles like the Shriners ride in parades.

Some of us think that John Page took that photo of the McCrary/McGuire twins in 1970. (It ran in the N&R and Life magazine.)

Almost immediate update: That's not Page's photo. It was a copy of the style of the above.

The Fox8 morning host just told listeners to check the newspaper for sales during this weekend's tax-free holiday.

A couple bloggers noted the News & Record's appearance on Letterman last night.

Here it is. Thanks to our friends at WFMY, who passed it along. Update: Here's WFMY's story. Bottom line, bird still lost.

Update: News researcher David Bulgin passes along the link that the N&R was mentioned in "Small Town News" last month, too. Here's the clip. Greensboro is the final item, at about the 4:10 mark. (Personally, I liked the one at the 3:05 point better.)

Some people have responded to our elimination of the weekly TV book by describing it as the arrogant act of a monopoly.

The local daily newspaper is hardly a monopoly any longer and that is especially true in Guilford County. We are one of two daily newspapers located here, and one of four that are delivered to people's homes. (I am counting the High Point Enterprise, The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.) For your TV listings, you could subscribe to TV Guide or use any number of Internet services.

Meanwhile, in addition to the dailies and the Internet, there are at least three weeklies and four television stations that carry local news.

We may be a lot of things, but monopoly isn't one.

As I was answered calls and e-mails from readers unhappy with our TV listings change, I stumbled upon this bit of information today:.

While the average number of channels received by American households hit an all time high in 2007 -- 118.6 -- the number actually viewed was only 16, only a fraction more than the 15.7 channels tuned to in 2006, the 15.4 channels tuned to in 2005, or the 15.0 channels tuned to in 2004. The finding suggests that while the supply of media options is expanding, consumer attention may have reached its limits.

Now, if they were all watching the same 16 channels....

We have tried to tell readers about the demise of TV Week and the new daily listings in a variety of ways, including ads in the paper, stickers on the front page, announcements on the front of TV Week and my column.

As of yesterday, we had heard from three dozen or so people objecting to the elimination of the weekly guide, which isn't as great a number as I thought we'd get. We will certainly hear from more when Saturday's paper comes and the guide isn't there.

Most of the concerns have come from people who say they plan their television watching for the entire week. Many are angry, but those who pause for the discussion say they understand, they just wish things could be different.

I do, too.

My newspaper column

The last issue of TV Week, our weekly television guide, was delivered Saturday.

Beginning next Saturday, the daily listings in the Life section will feature more channels and expanded hours to help you decide what to watch.

The daily list will include 62 channels, an increase of 14 and equaling the number in TV Week. We are also expanding the time frame for which we list programs, from 9 a.m. until midnight. Currently, the daily listing runs from 8 p.m. to midnight. Sports events on television will be on the daily listings grid and are on page C2 in the Sports section.

We continued to publish TV Week as long as we did because we know that some of you rely on it. But the tipping point came as its readership continued to decline, its cost continued to rise, and on-screen cable guides grew in popularity.

If all you know about the news media is what you've learned on TV -- which is the case with a lot of folks -- then you have a whipsawed perspective of reporters. On the non-news shows -- oh, maybe the news shows, too -- reporters are either portrayed as ambitious, conniving nuisances or inept, fatuous pieces of fluff.

Last night's season finale of "Lost" suggests that the writers don't watch much TV. (Show synopsis here.) The news media is simply asleep. The Oceanic 6 survivors are a worldwide sensation and become celebrities upon their return. Yet they have concocted a Big Lie about the three months and no news outlet cracks it.

Stick-thin Kate is six month pregnant when she boarded the plane, but she wasn't showing at all? Can you imagine Us or the National Inquirer letting that pass? None of the six ever spills the beans about the lie, despite the fact they don't seem to care much for each other. The crew on the boat that found them know about the lie and don't tell anyone? At least three people who were on the island but not among the official Oceanic 6 are back in civilization, and they don't tell anyone, including a teen-ager who knows the official story is bogus? The bloggers would have a field day with this.

What world are the producers living in? The British tabs don't exist? Inside Edition doesn't exist? Rupert Murdoch would never stand for it.

I'll be watching next season, too. It's just TV.

The last issue of TV Week, our Saturday guide to the television week ahead, will be delivered May 31. Beginning Saturday, June 7, we will feature expanded listings and expanded hours in the newspaper each day.

We have held out as long as we could with TV Week because we know that some readers still rely on it for their television viewing. But the fate of TV Week reached its tipping point when its readership continued sliding, its cost continued rising and on-screen cable guides grew in popularity.

To help TV watchers affected by this change, we will expand what we offer each day. We will increase the channels listed to 62, the same number in TV Week. We will also expand the hours for which we list programs, from 9 a.m. until midnight. It makes the daily programming grids smaller, which I regret.

We know this change will upset some readers who like the convenience of a weekly list of programs. But that group gets smaller every week. Technology and the marketplace have squeezed TV Week for years. As the number of channels offered on cable ran into the hundreds, the weekly guide simply couldn't keep up. Cable subscribers can get a guide and program description for each channel for days in the future. Others use online services as we provide on GoTriad.com. Finally, many people use the daily primetime listings in the paper.

Meanwhile, our costs to print the TV Week continue to rise. Despite the diminishing audience for the weekly, we kept producing it because delivering a TV book is just one of those things that newspapers do. But we aren't the first to drop it, and we won't be the last. It is a sign of the times.

I have often wondered how newspapers got into the business of promoting the content of a competing medium. I'm sure it was a good idea at the time, as no one else was doing it. Just another reason for people to buy the paper. But in a way, it gives readers a reason to do something other than spend time with the paper. And these days, we don't need to do that.

In exchange for all the years we have promoted television programs, perhaps the television stations will promote what we have in the newspaper to its viewers. ... See how crazy that sounds now? I doubt our friends at WFMY, WGHP and WXII will give that idea much consideration.

Regardless, we hope our beefed up daily listings will be helpful to both the TV Week readers and the people who have always used the program guide in the daily paper.

For a time, Andy Griffith references in North Carolina newspapers were gold. Longtime columnist Jim Jenkins used to make them in these pages all the time. Still does elsewhere.

So you'd expect attention when we start a story this way:

Goober Pyle might've had some advice for the job.

A pair of century-old cars in the Greensboro Historical Museum recently were torn down to go into new exhibits.

Salisbury engineer Mike Greene moved them piece by piece. That's similar to what mechanic Goober did in a 1965 episode of "The Andy Griffith Show" when he rebuilt a car in the courthouse and gave Sheriff Taylor a fit.

Readers have questioned our use of Goober's character. That is, his very existence.

They think that we're confused -- that the only Pyle on the show was named Gomer.

Gerald said: "I'm guessing this is only a question because Gomer Pyle later had his own show. Goober was mostly called just Goober on the show, so many folks forgot that they share a same last name. And that they're cousins."

Gerald, by the way, had not been born when Goober made his last appearance in 1968. But his editor, Eddie Wooten, an Andy aficionado, was. And thanks to the wonders of reruns and TV Land....

More on Goober's 86 episodes here.

I'm responsible for the news in the newspaper and online. Allen is responsible for the editorial pages. Our ad director tends to the ads. Our online director has similar responsibilies. My point: We are responsible for every word and image in the paper and Web sites. On occasion, we make mistakes and publish stories that I wish we hadn't. The vast majority of the time, though, it is easily to justify publishing a story or photo, even as it may make some people squeamish.

I'm glad I'm not a local television network affiliate. They can't possibly want to claim ownership of some of the stuff broadcast on their stations.

I was out sick a day last week and spent too much of the day watching television. Programs on incest. Self-help baloney. Marital infidelity. Britney's breakdown minute-by-minute. Sexual dysfunction. And I didn't watch any soap operas.

I understand the difference in news and entertainment programming. I also understand about the different audiences during the different times of the day. Given the number of people who heap all journalism into the stew called "media," I wonder if most people know the difference.

I probably am reflecting this through a middle-aged newspaper editor's eyes. So I readily acknowledge being the wrong target audience. If there weren't money there, I know the programming wouldn't last. But I know what kinds of calls we get about some of our content. I can't imagine the calls TV officials get, even if they are from the wrong target audiences.

I like the New York Times as much as the next guy but I'm surprised that its non-endorsement of Rudy G. is a lead story on the morning news shows. I know that the Times remains a powerful determinant of what's news. But its endorsement in a presidential primary? A top story? Is it that slow of a news day?

And without having read the Times coverage of Rudy -- it's been pretty tough lately, looking at his lucrative business partnerships after 9/11, among other things -- how are listeners of TV news to put the non-endorsement into any sort of perspective?

I was watching sports on a local news channel. They did a segment on the UNC-Miami basketball game, but they didn't tell me that it is on television. They also didn't tell me the Georgia Tech-State game is televised either.

Like, duh, neither of the games are on that station, that's why. No big deal; none of the local stations help their listeners out if a game is on another station. I understand their desire not to encourage viewers to tune in to a competitor. Back in the 1980s, we referred to competing newspapers only when we had to and even then saying something awkward such as "a newspaper in High Point."

But we've entered the 21st century. People have choices and know how to use them.

If the TV stations truly want to help people -- which is part of the branding slogans of most stations around here -- they would tell them that the Carolina game is on WMYV-48. They might also realize that this viewer is going to find the game, regardless of whether they tell me where it is, so why not help me?

How did I know the game I wanted to watch wasn't on one of the big networks? I looked in the paper.

For a couple years now, I've been half-heartedly discouraging editors from doing much in the newspaper with stories about impending weather. Are we telling readers anything they don't already know? TV and online have won that battle and newspapers have lost. I doubt many people look to the paper for a prediction about an approaching storm when the blanket "team" coverage is ubiquitous -- and more timely -- on television and the Internet.

Ever since I've been in this business, reporters have hated writing weather stories, primarily because they seem so silly and predictable. When we were at the News & Observer, Howard Troxler wrote an "impending storm" story as if it were an investigative piece, full of skulduggery and secret sources at the weather bureau. It was bounced back to him by a dour and unappreciative editor. Twenty five years later, here comes Meranda: Raise your hand if you hate writing weather stories....It's like writing about traffic lights changing colors. Everyone knows it's going to happen, and they can kind of figure out for themselves what comes next.

We try to write them compellingly, but there are only so many ways to write an interesting weather story and an armless man can count them on his fingers. No, that's harsh. There are a couple ways, but not many. To put it another way, how many times do you need to see a TV reporter standing by the side of the road with a yardstick preparing to measure the inch of snow that's fallen and hear her tell you not to drive if you don't have to?

Deepening the issue is that, despite meteorologists' boasts about accuracy, weather predictions are notoriously wrong. Last night the forecast was for it to be snowing right at this minute. Not happening. It's 38 degrees.

But it's a newspaper tradition that's hard to shake. As the storm approaches, it becomes what people talk about. Schools let out. Businesses close. How can a newspaper not write about it? Besides, with everything focused on a snow storm there isn't much else going on to write about.

* We need to log the coming storm in the paper in a small way somewhere, but it's an online story. Now, after the storm hits and power is knocked out, schools are closed and life is changed, then that's a different story.

I admit that I brought this upon myself. I watched Entertainment Tonight last night.

Item: 600 press people at the pseudo Golden Globes. 600 press people at a glorified news conference? (One of them was ET anchor Mary Hart covering Globes presenter Mary Hart.) What are assigning editors thinking? 600 people covering an event in which there were no stars? In which they could have swung by, picked up a news release of the winners and done something else?

Item: Local L.A. TV station helicopter following the SUV in which Britney Spears may have been a passenger when she was thought to be at the courthouse. The video of the SUV from above was compelling television.

Item: 14 minutes into the program the host tease a photo of Britney in something that looks like a wedding dress and says something like: "Coming up, Britney in a wedding dress! Did she elope?" My wife says, "Oh, right, they are waiting halfway into the program to tell us that they are going to answer the question of whether Britney Spears has eloped."

And we changed to a rerun of "Everybody Loves Raymond" before we could find out if Anna Nicole's daughter is going blind.

And journalists wonder why people hate the media.

Update: Terry Heaton tells why.

Most of the time I write about newspapers and online journalism. This time, it's TV and online.

I was watching Fox8 news at 6 p.m. as I was getting ready for a party. I was waiting for the Dudley state championship score. At about 6:15, the sports guy came on and told me the Western Alamance score, which was great. And then he started flirting with the anchor and teased the audience by telling us that Mt. Tabor and Dudley scores were in and one won and the other lost. We'll need to stick around for the sports report 6:40 to find out, he said.

Here's what viewers do, TV: Annoyed, I immediately switched over to WFMY, which was just starting its newscast because a basketball game ran long. Then I walked to the computer and got the results. (Dudley won.) Of course, I didn't go to the Fox8 site.

They had the information. They did the lead-in with the Western Alamance score. But they wouldn't tell me the results of the other two games because they thought I would keep watching for another 25 minutes. Wrong. Pardon me for being cynical about their motives. I suppose they are in touch with their viewers. They just lost one.

And I should have gone online in the first place.

By the way, I went back to the television and WFMY told me the results of the Dudley game before 6:25.