Slashdot Mirror
Local News Anchor Feels Pain from Afar
In times when Clear Channel makes up "local news" reports from central studios and broadcasts them over radio stations around the country, it's worth asking the question: when does it cross the line into deception?
WBZ Boston is owned by Infinity Radio, WTTK Boston is owned by Greater Media... it's not just ClearChannel, everybody's doing it.
This is an excellent example of how easy it is to dupe the public into believing something that is not entirely factual. It also drives home the importance of our taking what we hear on radio/TV and what we read in the newspapers with a very big grain of salt.
Clearchannel has been doing this for years. They even have a hand pick^H^H^H^H counted localized top 10 songs lists with the guy's voice from TRL.
They call it "enhanced broadcasting technology." I call it decieving people into spending more money on the artificially "popular" music.
Work sucked, until it became unemployment, when it became slightly more tolerable. -Tet
...it must not be funny for Boston area residents that listen to him every morning. People tend to develop sort of an emotional linkage with their routine, and a news anchor is definitely part of the daily routine for many. I usually listen to music instead of live radio when I commute, but I know I'd be pissed off if it were me listening.
The revolution will not be televised.
a /. story with only one link? :)
Hasn't hell frozen over yet?
The IT section color scheme sucks.
The "local" DJs on most small town radio stations are "voice tracking" from bigger cities, but acting like they're broadcasting from downtown.
So I don't think they'd have any problems decieving you where you local television personality is broadcasting from. And I'm not sure it is a problem. I've lived all over, from Youngstown, OH to Boston to Los Angeles, and it doesn't matter where you are, because the local news always sucks.
As a side note, CC has gotten into some trouble with consolidated contests on radio, where they make it seem like your local station is giving away a million dollars, when in reality, it's every station they own giving away the million dollars, so when you call in, you're competing with a whole country worth of callers.
I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem
Weapons of Mass destruction? Nada... Step up the warining level every few months? Sure? Biological Attacks warranting duct tape and plastic sales? Nope... Recent bombings and terrorist attacks other than our own government? Still nothing.. With headlines like these, does it really matter if the newsanchors arent where they say they are? Not like anyone was expecting this "honesty" from them to begin with...
~~ Please keep your arms, legs, and outright stupidity inside the ride at all times. Thank You ~~
Diane Simmons: Well, Tom, I just plain don't like black people.
Director: Uh, guys, we're still on in Boston.
"When he's talking about how cold it is, that's not news, it's entertainment. It's cosmetic," Harrison added.
That sounds like a lot of so-called "news organizations." Their #1 purpose is to entertain, lest they lose a large chunk of their audience. Actual news content is secondary.
"It's no more a lie than putting makeup on a TV anchor to make them look younger. The main thing is that his information does not deceive the public."
One more step in virtualizing the whole world. How soon can we have virtual war, where nobody dies?
WBZ's weather reporters never experience our weather either. Gary is the main anchor, he always gets his weather information from an AccuWeather personality, and AccuWeather is centered in PA.
There is another major weather-radio service called Weather Services Corp. That's based out of the Boston area, which like AccuWeather provides weather forcasts delivered by personalties who don't ever actually visit the station's studios, but they never use a national-trademark brand, and they will call their studio anything the station wants them too, such as the "Kiss-FM WeatherDesk".
So, this has actually been going on for decades, it's just that nobody has noticed...
Of course he's in Boston during his broadcasts. I saw it on TV.
So who, exactly is he harming? He's telecommuting - and he's not claiming to investigate these things. It's not like those journalists who fake stories that happen in places they've never been. He's just reading a weather report off a computer, which every radio news anchor does, anyway - it's not as if he's claiming to be out there with a thermometer. And to say things like "when do we get a break" does not constitute lying - it's not as if he said "I'm here in Boston, reporting on blah-blah-blah".
I have many issues with ClearChannel, but frankly, this isn't one of them.
it is not India....yet.
I mean really, does it?
I've wrestled with reality for 35 years and I'm happy to say, I finally won out - Elwood P. Dowd
I doubt anyone really cares in the end, but his actions do lack integrity, and he could win points by admitting his wrongs and conducting his broadcasts appropriately. Basically, just stop pretending, because now that the cat is out of the bag, everyone will just think he's a retard when they see him "freezing".
"Where he's reporting from is irrelevant. I'm not wasting my airtime to tell people where Gary is."
I a standard my mom taught me probably would let him know: if you can't admit what you are doing, then you probably aren't doing the right thing.
In the article they make statements like "location doesn't affect reporting," and "the DJ never actually says he's shivering."
OK. If you don't think it makes a difference, take two seconds to say "my name is John Deaux, and I'm coming to you from Northern Florida. In Where-ever-you-are, USA, it's a bone-chilling five degrees..." If you are afraid to make that little disclosure, then you are implicitly admitting that it does make a difference.
Of course, I've been thinking that Clear Channel is evil for a while now, for totally different reasons.
It must be a slow news day... because this has to be one of the most pointless stories around, whether on slashdot or any other news site.
--Wow some guy broadcasts a news show from home...big freaking deal- The former prime-minister of Canada had a vacation house in Florida as well, and he managed to "run the country" while he was away.
Look at the logo: News for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
Someone enlighten me, why should anyone care?
...and how much is enough to be providing accurate information honestly.
This will happen more and more - the recent financial industry news about dishonesty in companies, mutual funds, is just the beginning. As it becomes easier to do things virtually (ie, they have the capability now to edit live braodcasts, and the capability to replace existing ads with digital ones (see Spider-Man)), guideliness will have to be drawn up to make sure that what people see is actually real. If it's not actually real, people should be informed so that they can make decisions based on actual facts, not supposed ones.
libertarianswag.com
This isn't actually relevant, but it amused me.
On friday cnn.com was running an article about the upcoming Iowa democratic primary. Attatched to this was a photo, labelled as being Dean supporters busing to Iowa from another state, of four or five people standing on a bus and a big guy asleep in one of the seats with a "DEAN FOR PRESIDENT" t-shirt.
Also that day, cnn.com was running an article about how republican supporters were busing into the areas of democratic primaries to hold pro-Bush rallies in an attempt to blunt the effect of the media attention the democratic primaries drew. Attatched to this article was a picture labelled as the pro-Bush supporters busing in. The picture was the exact same one as from the other story, but with the guy in the "DEAN FOR PRESIDENT" t-shirt cropped out.
I found this funny.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Using the 1992 presidential election as his springboard, documentary filmmaker Brian Springer captures the behind-the-scenes maneuverings of politicians and newscasters in the early 1990s. Pat Robertson banters about "homos," Al Gore learns how to avoid abortion questions, George Bush talks to Larry King about halcyon -- all presuming they're off camera. Composed of 100% unauthorized satellite footage, Spin is a surreal expose of media-constructed reality.
(588 MB download)
www.illegal-art.org/video/vcd/Spin_1.mpg
Such slips happen all of the time with small-name radio personalities on small market stations. The most common slip-up is when a planned major event gets canceled at the last minute, while the DJ has already locked-in comments about how great the event was. Really messed up when the DJ says how great a concert was when everybody who had tickets knows it didn't happen...
Aren't there more constructive ways of spending energy than complaining about a guy who is lucky enough to be able to work from his vacation home?
Yeeesh.
P.S. What does Clear Channel have to do with this, anyway?
Just a quick question. Since there is absolutely nothing in the linked article about Clear Channel or anyone else making up news from central studios, would you care to post us a link to THAT story too? It sounds like a good one.
do not read this line twice.
Clear Channel uses *real people* in their broadcasts?!
It's simple, journalists must broadcast verifyable facts and speak the truth. Or else they are columnists and should identify themselves as such.
I'd recommend everyone to watch the movie Shattered Glass, it's a good thriller about a reporter who gets caught on a minor error and then sees his house of cards he built by going further and further by inserting false facts and bogus stories into the magazine he wrote for, untill his fall. He was eventually fired on the spot. It's based on a true story.
Of course this process can also be intentionally manipulated for comedic effect:
John Cameron Swasey: Laybird, I understand you are a great student of history. Tell me, what were the first words the Indians spoke to the Pilgrims as they landed on our shores.
Ladybird Johnson: Welcome to the LBJ Ranch!
That's one's always been one of my favorites.
Of course in retrospect some of these early comedic manipulations of live interviews can take on a sad irony.
JCS: Bobby, it's rumored that your brother Ted is going to run for president. How do you feel about that?
Bobby Kennedy: Well, if he wants to join me where I'm going, I'd be glad to have him along.
That was pretty funny circa 1965.
I remember sitting in front of a little B&W television all day watching reporters talk about the assasination attempt and the, ultimately futile, attempts to save Mr. Kennedey's life.
There were reporters sitting in the studio talking to reporters outside the hospital where the surgery was taking place. I always knew which were which. There was never some guy standing in front of a blue screen in the studio while a picture of the hospital was added behind him to simulate on the spot reporting.
Maybe I'm just turning into an old fart, but yes, I think that sort of thing is when you start going too far, even if you haven't "lied." It is still an intentional deception.
Knock it off.
KFG
As ghastly as it might seem, this issue has been tested in court. When Akre and Wilson sued Fox in Florida under the Whistleblower act, for altering an rbgd story, after initially winning a $425K judgment, they lost an appeal because the Whistleblower Act only protects people resisting employer crime, and it was deemed that distorting the news, and falsifying news stories is not a crime.
u ff .cfm
It seems to me that pretending to be local is a far lesser offense.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/rbgh/moreakrest
http://www.foxbghsuit.com/release022803.htm
Cheers,
--Stewart
A few years back I took a tour of KDGE here in dallas. The Edge is probably one of the biggest stations in the DFW metroplex, and there are a few other stations based out of the same offices.
Well, as we went into the booth for the 'oldies' station the DJ started talking to us and mentioned that he was recording the morning show for Phoenix that would air tomorrow. He also said that he was the voice for something like 6 other stations, just with different names, personas, etc.
Also, back in my small hometown the local Clear Channel station ditched the local morning guys and decided to go with some syndicated bullshit that is generic for ANY market; Think of them saying "Man, it sure is cold!" "Hell yeah!" and of course all of the call-in stuff is BS to the extreme. Call the number, give the `DJ` your request and it may be considered by the CC people if its requested in enough numbers.
You know what's a lot more satisfying? What lets you listen to the song a bunch of times, even on your iPod? Fucking KaZaa. Download music. Why would you request something then wait 4 hours for it to come on the radio?
Those who say differently are lying, guessing, or wishing.
Other companies have their own policies. But that's how we do it at CC.
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
Well, I don't find this particularly compelling either, but it is sort of interesting. It's about how media companies can use technology (affordable studios in the homes of remote "journalists" and newsreaders) to (arguably) mislead listeners and viewers.
Used to be that you actually had to be in the studio, or you'd have to phone in a report, which would sound distinctly different (read: crappy) than the in-studio hosts, so they'd pretty much fess up that this was a remote phone-in update right away. Now they can have anyone anywhere with very low lag and almost identical quality.
So, obviously, the fun for the discussion is to think about and discuss (1) what ways this is happening that we don't really know about, (2) what possible future advances will allow, and (3) where we draw the line between "using technology to give better reporting" and "utter fraud". It's interesting in that sense, at least to me.
For example, if they start using really advanced blue-screen technology and CGI to replace the typical reporter-outside-during-the-hurricane with a fake version of one dry and safe in the studio, but it looks perfectly realistic, and he says "I'm standing out at the pier now Bill, and I tell you the winds and rain are out of control . . . . just amazing!", etc. is it OK? Technically, if they have a screen behind him showing the raw footage they'll morph him into later in post-production, they're technically not lying. But to me, they are lying "technically" when they go that far. It's wrong, but I'm not sure how to stop it (other than people turning the channel), and I definitely don't want too much gummint regulation going on here. So, see, as a seed for thought (if you've got fertile ground ready -- perhaps not) this is pretty decent fodder on a slow news day.
But in this case, no one actually said the guy was freezing his ass off in Boston, but the quotes I read definitely implied that. And, while it doesn't really invalidate his comments (yes, it is cold here), or really hurt anyone, it is slimy. On the other hand, do they have to come out and say where everyone is reporting from? (Seems like they used to, almost as an issue of pride -- "look at how many remotes we can affort to cull from for you!"). Look, there's another interesting line of thought, to some.
The other interseting point (again, to me) is about "local" newscasts and such being post-processed national versions with local references edited in, such as "We'll be out at the mall today giving out T-shirts" is edited to insert town names and custom copies are distributed nationwide to dozens of "local" stations that actually have no local anything other than a transmitter run by computers. I think that's slimy too, but I can also see how it makes good business sense (highly cost-effective) . . . unless people actually backlash because of the sliminess.
So, I guess, besides those points for discussion, what I'm saying is STFU and stop threadcrapping. If you don't like it don't read it. And definitely don't post about it -- no one wants your complaints, just your insight and interesting discussion, which you are clearly lacking in this case.
everything in moderation
It's deceptive when a report pretends to be local but isn't. ClearChannel aren't the only media company that does this, of course, nor is radio the only medium that does this. Ever wonder how three nightly news reports on three different channels manage to have precisely the same background image for a "live" report from [insert news hotspot here]?
"Would you believe it's 5 below zero right now, back in Boston?"
"The only thing worse than the actual temperature where you are right now is having the wind chill factored in."
"It doesn't get any worse than this, when do we get a break from temperatures in the low 60's?"
Happens all the time in politics -
"I did not have sex with Ms Lewinsky, if we're not counting that oral stuff."
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most conventional lethal weapons ever devised."
With apologies to Mr. Cronkite -
And that's the way it is - according to news feeds, the internet, and my web cam.
This is an excellent example of how easy it is to dupe the public into believing something that is not entirely factual. It also drives home the importance of our taking what we hear on radio/TV and what we read in the newspapers with a very big grain of salt.
I think what irritates people such much about this is that this time it was the PRESS in a BLATANT attempt at disception. People like to believe that even though commericals are filled with lies and deceipt and politicans' televised speeches are full of fabrications that somehow the press is above all this and has a responsiblity to be as open and honest with their audience as possible. Now, you and I and most slashdotters know better. But the average person really trusts the media to keep them informed. Sure, this is a relatively small breech of trust. "Who cares?" you might be tempted to ask. And, yes, the actual location of some TV personality doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. However, the very idea that this station is involved in deception and, when caught, claim there is nothing wrong with what they are doing is what upsets people so much.
GMD
watch this
Since nearly all media are controlled by private entities under capitalism, and since my theory is that free markets will result in oligopolies and monopolies, I think it is fair to say that this is just the start of the takeover of "news" by corporations. If you ever thought the media was responsible for the truth, you are sadly mistaken. The media has never had anything to do with the truth. In the past, the government controlled media* was nothing more than a propaganda outlet for the--you guessed it--government.
Nowadays, the media is nothing more than the propaganda arm of the corporations. Don't get me wrong. The government still has massive influence. One just needs to look at how the US government has manipulated television, movie studios, or print media since 9/11. At least 40% of what came out of US media in the last 2 years have been disinformation. Anyone wonder why the majority of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was an Al-Qaida member? Ever wonder why no one bothers to find out WHO cooked up the fake documents relating to plutonium in Niger? And best of all, ever wonder what happened to the Anthrax Assasin? Yes folks, the Anthrax Assasin, who incidentally killed more innocent Americans than Saddam Hussein, has dissapeared. And it does not stop with USA. I mean, just pick your favourite country and see how the media manipulates information. One needs to look no further than France and how the French government is manipulating the recent ban on religious ornaments as passing it off as liberalism. Clearly, this has nothing to do with liberalism. After all, liberalism is consistent with multiculturalism and banning things takes society even further away. Yet the French government is claiming it is the liberals who wanted it (this is kind of interesting given that Jacques Chirac is a right winger (Gaullist I think)). Of course, if you want the ultimate book on how the people's opinions are shaped, you can check out the highly acclaimed Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky. Or you can check out some books by Nazis (they were the ultimate propagandists).
Now, my comment is about capitalism. There have been countless stories that were not aired, or countless people who were fired, for simply telling the truth that had a potential to damage their parent corporations. Next time you watch NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, or National Geographic, and notice how it never criticizes G.E., you know why. This is just a tame example (clearly organizations like Fox News and Washington Post are more propagandist). You don't need me to tell you that. Just look around and you'll see. Something like 11 companies control 90% of all media in USA. For the smaller countries, it's even worse (2 or 3 companies control 95% of the media).
It doesn't get any better. People in "liberal" societies think that their news is diverse and comes from many sources. Oh, how mistaken they are. The vast majority of news (probably 80%+) comes from two sources (in North America): Reuters and Associated Press. Sure, there are hundreads of newspapers. Flip through them and you'll see that most news comes from AP and Reuters. Needless to say, AP and Reuters are for-profit entities who only care about making money.
All of this will just get worse and worse. The only thing keeping some of these media companies from merging with each other creating even larger multinational corporations are anti-trust laws and nationalistic laws (eg. laws preventing foreign ownership). Once those legislation are weakened (capitalism calls for the elimination of them), the final stage will be complete. Rest assured. Unless you lead a high-risk lifestyle, it will likely happen within your lifetime.
Welcome to the future world... where all news comes from the Associated World News Network (with its 'your only news source' slogan) versus FuX News Network (with its sloga
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
Meta-territory here, but was there a vote on bleating-acceptance I missed, or...? Didn't Nirvana's "here we are now, entertain us" attitude end a decade ago?
..you know, the opposite of wanting to be spoonfed?
Part of the problem could stem from casting oneself as "the audience". An audience passively consumes what it is served. I don't know, but shouldn't (being part of creating what is) Slashdot, be
668.5
Forgot all the angels on pins arguments, all the quibbling about telecommuting and whether or not everybody is doing it. Forget ALL that. Cut to the chase.
Both the anchor and the radio station don't want the audience to know. Therefore they know they are being deceptive and that it is wrong.
Infuriate left and right
"I don't think it's being disingenuous," he said. "I'm not lying to anybody."
The definition of a lie . Merriam-Webster has a more detailed definition, but no direct links.
So yes, jackass, you are lying to your listeners. That's all it boils down to.
Of course, some people ( of which I am one ) would argue that almost all media has been lying to us for quite some time.
PC moderators can suck my White pierced, tattooed dick. If you think pride == hate, s/dick/Aryan meat mallet/g.
I don't know why but that article made me chuckle "heh, Boston outsources its news/weather reporting to Florida". It's reminds me of how Indian phone center workers are sometimes trained in different regional US accents to create the illusion that they're local to the US customer.
Many media conglomerates do the same thing with traffic reports. Here in Memphis, one company handles traffic for all of the CBS/Viacom/Infinity radio stations, and even has a live TV studio set up in their building so they can give traffic reports to the NBC TV station.
No, I don't understand why NBC and CBS are working together in this regard, there's something weird going on. The contact info for one local radio station gives @cbs.com email addresses, but check the postal address, 1960 Union Ave. They broadcast from the same building as the local NBC affiliate.
The ClearChannel stations have their own competing alternative called the Total Traffic Network. All of the CC stations have the same guy/gal reporting the traffic each day.
"BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
That's nothing... It's the naming thing that gets to me. Just a few weeks ago I was talking to a phone-support person with a deep, scratchy voice. The name given was (no joke) "Emily".
What was just as funny, was hearing "Emily" freeze for about 15 seconds when I asked for her to spell it.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Back when I had cable here in Seattle, I would watch Mariners games on Fox Sports Northwest. For the postgame, these two (rather annoying) sportscasters (can't remember the names, it was a couple years ago) would come on, either ecstatic that the Mariners had won, or disappointed that they had lost. So, I go visit the inlaws' in Detroit, catch a Tigers game on Fox Sports (whatever it is in Detroit), and for the postgame, it's the same two guys, and these same two sportscasters are bummed out by the Tigers' poor showing (go figure)! So, what gives? I'm now picturing a couple guys sitting in a studio down in LA, doing sports for all of the various "local" sports programs across the country. I guess this is an efficient way of doing sports broadcasting, but it seems dishonest and unethical. Can anyone verify that my suspicions are true, or is it possible that these two guys got demoted to covering Detroit sports?
Sage Francis and the Non-Prophets are going on a Fuck Clear Channel tour this year, so if you want to stick it to the man and listen to some damn good music at the same time, I highly suggest you hit it up.
I belong to the ______ generation.
The best part of this is how much money goes back to the tabacco farmers to subsidize them for the money they're losing from the people quitting smoking based on the publicity of the lawsuits negatively affecting cig sales.
Basically, the money goes in a big circle with lawyers peeling off most of it as it goes around.
When I asked Slashdot about a user (subscriber?) moderated story submissions queue, their reply (thanks!) was that such participation causes "social problems". They're experts, but I'd like to see a way to experiment with that social dynamic, so we can solve the social problems, instead of avoiding them. Sure, we could hack user moderation into the Slashcode story submission queue, and launch "OpenSlashdot (TM)", but without the large experienced community, the experiment won't work so well. Meanwhile, many story submissions disappear into an unaccountable black hole, while many other reposts appear weekly.
--
make install -not war
I do a news-commentary-wild half-baked rant show on a community station in Toronto twice a week. A few months ago, the station's transmitter burned out on a Sunday night. My first show is early Monday morning.
Upon arriving at the control room, I found a note on the console informing the next hosts that the station had been silent since at least 9:30 pm the previous night. Naturally, the paid staff generally don't work on the weekend, especially on a Sunday evening, so no one actually called the Monday morning hosts, myself included. Since I wasn't sure if we were broadcasting again[0], I went through with the show I planned anyway, even after a couple people called wondering where the hell the signal was. I did this, despite the probability that no one could listen, because there was no way for me to be sure that we had no audience at all. A prof with decades of experience in radio taught us to never say anything near a mic that we would not want anyone to hear on-air[1] [2], and I've taken this to heart.
ObOnTopicComment: Not only am I straight about where I'm broadcasting from, I'm quite open about the editorial slant that will be broadcast[3] and encourage the listeners to confirm what I spew with other, probably more reputable sources.
[0] The low-power backup came online before the next show, and we finally got back to full power a couple weeks later once repairs were completed.
[1] And provided some graphic examples of what happens when on-air people don't watch their mouths.
[2] I've made this mistake a couple times, once with the mic on. Nothing major or offensive, just dumb. Still, I learned my lesson.
[3] "Libertarian socialist", if it matters. I figure it's better to be open about my political views and admit I'm as biased as the next person, than to claim objectivity and get called on it when my personal bias creeps in anyway. I don't fudge the facts, and I correct my mistakes on-air. I'm not a journalist, but I know better than to fake things I can be called on, which apparently this station did not.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
They have a point. They're called "news readers" in the UK, and "radio personalities" in the US.. Talking heads. They're not journalists.
That whole job can be automated anyway. Check out Ananova. A few more years of improvement, and we'll be able to ditch most TV celebrities.
Well, kuro5hin did run a story calling Bin Laden a (misunderstood) "freedom fighter" and his war against the US a "strategic move".
If that's the kind of stories user moderation results in then I'd say user moderation sucks.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
So what if Dan Rather, instead of traveling to the middle of a hurricane to report live, just used a blue screen and a wind machine, and had someone off screen throw a tree branch or two at him? Is that ok too?
This happened in Australia just recently to do with the Iraq war. A current affairs reporter claimed to be in Iraq, and was saying shit such as "Look us anywhere we want. We are in a truck which could be filled with weapons and no one has stopped us." I also heard (didn't see all of it) that he claimed they were being fired at by Iraqi's.
It was later exposed he had just been going thru the Australian outback, and the few shots that looked like they were from Iraq, were. But they weren't shot by him, they were added in later from other news broadcasts.
They're idiots.
Anyone who wants to cover local news from a distance is insane. There are major setbacks to doing it, but living in the environment and seeing what is going on with your own eyes is ESSENTIAL.
This will all soon sort itself out.
No one will listen to local news set far away when they have local news from real locals sitting right next to them on the dial. It is only a matter of time before the people will realize this when they say something wrong on the air repeatedly, and then the other guys will be at the big event news when it happens across the street. The public just assumes that you are local when covering local news. The public will notice this soon enough, and when it does, they will lose market share that will not make up for the cost losses.
This is a new thing. I predict it will not be a very long thing. It will be over in a year and a half when the corporate nimrods bong-rip ideas like "we could do local news cheaper across the country!" die a horrible, horrible death.
News is exteremely competitive. They just replaced their personal insight with a phone call. This is NOT a smart move.