Submit Content  |  Subscribe  |  Customer Service  |  Place An Ad 
* Weather * Events * Visitor's Guide * Classifieds * Jobs * Cars * Homes * Apartments * Shopping * Dating
*
Cincinnati.Com
Blogs

*
*
*

Cincinnati.Com

NKY.com
Enquirer
CiN Weekly
Community Press & Recorder
cincyMOMS.com
CincinnatiUSA
Data Center
*
*
*
*
*

*
Television
John Kiesewetter on the world of local and national TV


Senior Entertainment Reporter John Kiesewetter has been covering TV and media issues for 20 years. After joining the Cincinnati Enquirer in 1975 as a summer intern, he worked as a county government and suburban reporter; assistant city editor and suburban editor; and features editor supervising the Life section. He has a B.S. in journalism from Ohio University.

Powered by Blogger

Sunday, September 02, 2007

Did the Fireworks Fizzle?

Is it just me, or was the Channel 5 telecast of the WEBN fireworks one of the worst ever? I've been watching for years, on 19, 12, 9 and 5, and I can't remember being so disappointed.

Why did they keep using that long shot from miles away, with the twin tower blocking the view? Sometimes the fireworks on the screen were smaller than the WEBN logo in the corner of the screen. Where was the camera located? Devou Park? Denver?

Channel 5 had one decent camera that captured the fireworks dead on, but they didn't go to it often enough or stick with it long enough. And why so many Sky 5 helicopter shots? I believe the fireworks were meant to be experienced looking up at them from ground, not looking down from above.

We got to see some parts OK, like the smiley faces during Nixon's "I am not a crook" line. And the fireworks shooting across the Purple People Bridge (a first!) during "Won't Get Fooled Again." But too often they'd cut back to the long-distance camera.... and then we'd see big flash behind those twin buildings, so we knew we were missing something.... And how many times did they cut to a close in camera, and we'd see only the bottom fragments of fireworks overhead?

And where was the special butterfly fireworks they featured in the first hour? Did you see it on TV? I didn't. Soundtrack creator Joel Moss told me it was to explode during the silence after Journey's "Don't Stop Believing" ended abruptly (as on "The Sopanos" finale)... but I couldn't see it. And later in the show, when Channel 5 replayed the "highlights," they showed the "Don't Stop Believing" segment again -- but cut away to the anchors at the silence. They never mentioned the special butterfly shell during the highlights. In fact, the anchors didn't explain anything about the special effects or soundtrack -- "Back to the Future," the "Journey" reference to the "Sopranos," etc. (except for "The Simpsons") during the recap.

I know many people at Channel 5 worked long and hard all day preparing for the live 2-hour telecast. And they raved after the show about how spectacular it was to watch in person. But the TV experience was not very good. I'd give it a D, less than average. In my opinion, Channel 5 needs better(closer) camera locations and a better director. So we don't get fooled again.

Do you agree? Or did you like the fireworks telecast? Now it's your turn to play TV critic....


330 Comments:

at 9/02/2007 11:04 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

This was one of the first times I've actually watched it on TV (we usually go down to Newport), so I didn't know, at first, if this was the so-called "norm" for TV coverage, or what, but I have the same thoughts...coverage was BITTER at best. Too many far away shots of the fireworks, which defeated the purpose. Also, the SKY-5 shots (like normal SKY-5 shots) had static in them, which made the fireworks very unclear.

As far the pre-show coverage, I love when Sandra & Sheree tossed it to "Chief Meteorologist Derek Beasley for the Power of 5 Forecast," and he didn't even give the forecast!! Not in words or on the screen!! Duh!!!

Also on the pre-show coverage, it seemed that Sandra & Sheree just kept repeating the same things over and over (like the record breaking crowds hitting the river, etc.) Maybe they were told to do that, I don't know, but it was very repetitive and got old QUICK. I felt like I was watching an edition of News 5 Today when they have the same weather & traffic reports like every 5 minutes.

Tonight's coverage by ch.5 reminded me of the ch.5 Tall Stacks coverage--in that, the stories by the reporters were good (John London, Emily Longnecker, etc), but the anchors' live coverage was bitter.

Oh, and as I'm sitting here typing this, I have the 11:00 news (ch.5) on and I hear the "Don't Stop Believing" yet AGAIN. How many times are they going to replay that on Channel 5?!??!!?

 
at 9/02/2007 11:15 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I couldn't agree with you more. The far away camera was very ineffective for most of the shots it was used for. There were a couple of shots at the end that it was the perfect shot for, but the other twenty times it was used were ill timed.

The beef I ahead with the overhead cams were that they faded in and out and usually didn't provide the type of clarity that's required to give the best contrast between the night sky and the fireworks. I thought it was a neat idea, but needed to be perfected.

From the way it was set up, it looked like they had some boy genius that was trying to wow us with how many camera angles he could set up (with most of them being crap). That, or maybe since it was being televised overseas, they had to use someone that's never shot the fireworks show, so they didn't have a true perspective of what would work best. Channel 5 would have done much better with fewer camera locations that were fixed closer to the action.

Like you said, the couple of angles they had where the camera was looking up was great....gave you a sense of being there...but most of it left ya feeling empty.

Overall... D-. If this is what we are to expect from WLWT's broadcast, then I can't imagine them televising the show for very long.

 
at 9/02/2007 11:39 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I ABSOLUTELY agree !! It was the worst ever. The highlights on Ch 19 and Ch 9 news were FAR better than Channel 5's llive coverage. Did they have any close cameras at all? Did they have any on the river level on the Ohio side. I hope Ch 5 doesn't cover the fireworks next year...I won't watch. I'll just watch it on another channel's news.

 
at 9/02/2007 11:48 PM Blogger steve-o said...

We have a toddler that was sleep deprived so we decided to stay home and watch the fireworks on TV. We've done this numerous times before and have still been able to enjoy it.

Until this year.

By far, this was the worst attempt at televising the event I've ever seen. We stopped watching five minutes in. Channel 5 should do the public a service and never again bid on the rights to the fireworks. At least they could've asked Channels 9 and 12 for some hints about how to film it.

 
at 9/03/2007 4:40 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

what do you expect...It's Channel 5. They could mess up a 1 car parade..

The only good coverage of the fireworks was when they were on 9...

 
at 9/03/2007 6:00 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with John. Even some of the aerial shots were obstructed by parts of the helicopter's landing runners.

Also, why couldn't they broadcast in High Definition?

 
at 9/03/2007 6:14 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I couldn't agree with you more. I switched channels for that very reason, it was terrible.

 
at 9/03/2007 6:36 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I thought channel 5 did a horrible job with the coverage of the fireworks. Most of the time the cameras were either too far away or too close. The bland interaction between Sandra Ali and Sheree Paolello didn't help either. I was left with a huge feeling of disappointment when the show was over. I'm really not surprised when I think about it though, Channel 5's coverage of the fireworks was sub par just like their coverage of the news.

 
at 9/03/2007 6:38 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Worst ever TV coverage, that is for sure> As you say that camara must have been in Ten Buck Too!
Bob

 
at 9/03/2007 6:54 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Channel 5's coverage of the fireworks was terrible. Camars were too far away, or two close. New events were lost or not recorded from the beginning. It was like a amature random recording. I would hope they could find a better way to record the fireworks next. For the 40 anniversary this was terrible.

 
at 9/03/2007 6:56 AM Anonymous Bruce D said...

I agree that the TV coverage was terrible. I was watching with a group of eight people and it was the consensious that there were way to many long shots, and we definitely felt that we missed a lot as a result. I watch the show on TV every year, I was deeply disappointed this year.

 
at 9/03/2007 7:03 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yep, that building was in the way. Next year channel 5 should hire a some contruction folks and demolish that building.

 
at 9/03/2007 7:11 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree that Channel 5 was the worst coverage yet of our fantastic fireworks show. Cameras were way too far away to capture their beauty.

 
at 9/03/2007 7:16 AM Blogger hactrick said...

its a shame the best ebn/rozzi display was shown on a second rate, no make that a third rate tv coverage of the fireworks. seems like someone was trying to justify the sky5 copter. hopefully next year a different director will be in charge and know ahead of time that buildings are in the way of the view and not use the shots or at least not use the shots after the first viewing of the blocked shot.

 
at 9/03/2007 7:18 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have to agree that the fireworks coverage was an example of showing off helicopter and long distance shots but with very little feeling of being at the fire works.

I couldn't hear the fireworks or music because of my wife's complaints about the video.

 
at 9/03/2007 7:32 AM Anonymous Diane said...

I have to agree with John. The TV broadcast by channel 5 was very disappointing. There were way to many shots from way too far away and the waterfalls off the bridge? They were only partial shots and lasted maybe for a second, no wait that was two seconds. Sorry channel 5, you blew it this year.
Diane of California

 
at 9/03/2007 7:36 AM Blogger don said...

Right on John-- only I would give it an F. The show hosts acted like amateurs and must have thought we were getting the same view that they were. The only thing I saw pertaining to the butterflies was on how they were made. Big disappointment.
BIG FIZZLE

 
at 9/03/2007 7:40 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Couldn't agree more! This show was so bad we almost turned it off! And why didn't Channel 5 use this opportunity to turn on some true HD programming?

 
at 9/03/2007 7:41 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I give Channel 5 a "F." The worst produced fireworks I have ever saw. They had a great straight-ahead camera view that should have kept the entire show but the cut-aways to the camera from Indiana didnt help. Next year, get a Hi-Def camera straight on and don't touch it. I was very disappointed.

 
at 9/03/2007 7:42 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm glad it wasn't just me. I felt the same way. VERY disappointed. The close-ups were off, and the long-distance shots were shown way too much. This is probably the first time I ever wish I had been there instead of watching on TV. I feel like I missed out on a lot of the good stuff.

I remember also when Chopper 9 showed the fireworks from above. STUPID! From that angle, you end up seeing more smoke than anything. And, Professor Kiese, I think your "D" is generous. I'm a 5 fan, but last night bombed.

 
at 9/03/2007 7:47 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Right on. My wife made the same comments during the TV presentation. To many long shots behind the buildings and too many shots from the helicoptor

 
at 9/03/2007 7:49 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

My husband agrees with you whole-heartedly - the buildings in Covington blocked the view and a lot of beautiful fire-works were not seen at all.
J.Kendall

 
at 9/03/2007 7:49 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree, it was the worst T.V. coverage I can remember seeing. I appreciate the fact they broadcast the fireworks but all the funky angles, and I was truely impresses with the total white out during the "water fall" off the bridge. The whole thing was terriable.

 
at 9/03/2007 7:56 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I must agree about the lack quality of the camera work, or should I say the choice, of which camera was used. The sky 5 camera was not clear & would break up & the one from far away in KY showed the tall building on the river & was not a good position.

If they are involved next year, I suggest that they sit down with the person that sets up the fireworks & get a better idea of the program, in order to use the correct camera postitions.

I will most likely go in person the next time.

 
at 9/03/2007 8:00 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Absolutely terrible. A grade of "D" is too generous. I agree completely on your comments as they mirror what my wife and I said throughout. We eventually walked away and did other things.

Just when they would settle on the view that actually showed fireworks against a dark sky, they would change to another camera. And then, quick, another. Change again! Each angle seemed worse than the last.

The helicopter shots were terrible with the skid in view on seemingly half of the shots. You couldn't see the fireworks against the city lights, evident from the first time they did the shot.

I thought that the director would just stop using the bad angles after seeing it once or twice but they instead seemed to become the defaults.

 
at 9/03/2007 8:05 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Perhaps next year you should plan on watching the fireworks IN PERSON!

 
at 9/03/2007 8:16 AM Blogger anonymous said...

I agree, I hated the "Denver" camera angle as well as the plane. The fireworks looked great from only one or two camera angles, unfortunately they wern't used nearly enough to do justice to what is one of the best fireworks displays in the country. Next year I am getting a hotel room!

 
at 9/03/2007 8:18 AM Anonymous jon v diebold said...

Right on John. I,too, was wandering about the "butterfly", as it was hyped by both The Enquirer, and pre-boom by channel 5. And would it have been too much trouble to broadcast the soundtrack, instead of having the viewer strain to hear the ambiant sounds of the loudspeakers at the event? And what about the grainey transmission every 2-3 minutes. Welcome aboard, channel 5. We all hope you are quick learners.

 
at 9/03/2007 8:19 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

The thing I couldn't understand was why they kept using the helicopter camera. The shots were breaking up ever time they used that camera.

 
at 9/03/2007 8:23 AM Anonymous ALK said...

I couldn't agree more. In fact it was so bad that after the first 5 minutest I stopped watching. The problem as I see it is the people in charge of the telecast think that their presentation of the event is bigger than the show itself. Not every angle and perspective needs to be something artistic. Focus a couple of cameras on the show and leave them alone. Utterly disappointed.

ALK
Springfield Township, Ohio

 
at 9/03/2007 8:27 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

My sentiments exactly. WKRC (Channel 12) had a 10 second clip on My 64 at the end of the news, and that brief clip had better angles than any of WLWT (Channel 5). Long range views had the effect of lowering the impact of the fireworks, overhead views were too far away and they kept going to a camera that broke up every few seconds. It was like watching a Barbie doll house fireworks display, the coverage didn't do it justice at all.

 
at 9/03/2007 8:28 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

As I watched or made the attempt to watch the fireworks on TV last night I was amazed at the poor professonalism that was put together by channel 5. I actually turned the channel in disgust after seeing the bottom part of the helicopter in the screen rather than the fireworks themselves. It was also very disappointing to know that our troops had the oppurtunity to watch an amazing firework production and this is the one that they saw. I also agree someone probably worked very hard and thought they had things just right, I really think that their job should be reevaluated.

 
at 9/03/2007 8:36 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kiese:
I was so disappointed that I turned it off after 10 minutes, and sent the WLWT GM a note last night. I was trying to watch on a 50 inch Sony HDTV and it was not even broadcast in HD. All the hype about showing it around the world just added to the feeling of a city that can't get out of its own way. Pathetic!

 
at 9/03/2007 8:37 AM Anonymous Renea said...

Mr.Kiesewetter,
I totally agree with you. It wasn't very good coverage.

 
at 9/03/2007 8:37 AM Anonymous Sedi said...

John,

Thanks and we couldn't agree more, my wife and I were sitting verbally telling each other how awful the camera angles were.
I didn't understand the view from far away or the fact that when looking down from a helicopter all you see are the city lights with what looked like twinkling lights mixed in. Apparently preparing for it they didn't look at their predecessors results to see what worked and what didn't.
The producer and program director should have realized while panning through after the first 5 minutes what was the best view and stuck to those.

 
at 9/03/2007 8:42 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since 1988 when we arrived in Cincinnati, when not able to venture to the river with the other gazillions of pople, we have enjoyed watching on tv. Channel 5-why wern't you there this year? The "One" shot was used way too often, the "two" shot from the chopper was, well, choppy. Get a decent microwave guys. Your studios are on a MOUNTAIN! We missed the Channel 12 tight shot of the stuff launching from the barges. They convey the raw energy of Rizzi's labors. Where was that shot? And John nailed it when the lower fireworks were going off and all we saw were flashes behind buildings. Enough. Next year, I'll guess we'll strap on our backpacks and head back down with the gazillions.

Tim Braddock

 
at 9/03/2007 8:42 AM Anonymous Chuck said...

Thanks to the Enquirer amd John for the opportunity to comment.
We've been a part of WEBN and these fireworks for years and know what to expect. When the Director at Channel Five has no idea whats going to happen, it proves poor television is still delivered on our airwaves. Go back to school and major in something else, this career is not for you.
And the camera placement and angles? This is basic video, folks. Dark background shows fireworks, not city lights. Full frame, not one tenth of the field behind a hotel.
All the contributors of this event, corporate and personal, were cheated in the "on the record" account of this grand occasion.
I'm sure in the end, Channel Five will be pulled for this devastation.
I kept thinking about the local soldiers who were watching with their comrades, somewhere far away, touting the great Cincy experience. At least you know what our city looks like from the hills of Kentucky.

 
at 9/03/2007 8:43 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

they were so fizzled it wasn't funny. I agree 300% with John. I was so disappointed that I have already emailed WEBN and gave them my thoughts on Channel 5 EVER broadcasting fireworks again. IT SUCKED!!!!! I wouldn't have known to look for the special butterfly fireworks had Saundra and Sherri done this whole segment on it just prior to the fireworks. But it was not for us to see evidently. Cause we didn't!!!!!!!!!
Is there a station in Cincinnati that could rebroadcast the entire show (besides Channel 5) so that we could all sit down and really see what we missed? I would love to see that.
This is the reason I never watch Channel 5 news. It is just not up to our standards.
And John, you are right; you are suppose to LOOK UP to see fireworks, not down. And the chopper segments were not good at all due to all the bad connections it had. I saw more snow last night that all of last winter.
Signed: DISGUSTED WITH 5

 
at 9/03/2007 8:46 AM Anonymous J. Schroer said...

Completely agree with you John. The camera positions were way too far away. There was glare from many of the fireworks. The helicopter camera fumbled and fizzled often, and just when you thought they got it right (after about 20 minutes of coverage) they went back to the horrible shots. I truly feel that I missed most of the best parts of what was an extremely well coreographed and musically orchestrated show. Too bad Channel 5 didn't get the memo.

 
at 9/03/2007 8:49 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

John-

Your blog...was EXACTLY the same thing my husband and I said all night last night, during and AFTER the show. It was TERRIBLE. Even on our 60+ HD-TV with surround sound. The sound was terrible, the picture was worse. I know what downtown Cincinnati looks like at night. See it all the time, wanted to see the fireworks, not downtown lit up! Worse yet was the helicopter shots, I don't know what was worse - seeing the landing gear or seeing the screen get fuzzy.

Thanks for letting us know we are not the only ones. I guess Kit Andrews and Rob Braun really DID give us the best seat for the fireworks after all!

 
at 9/03/2007 8:51 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

HORRIBLE !!! I find it hard to believe that with all of the work put into the WEBN fireworks, that the producers at channel 5 allowed a camera shot that had two buildings blocking the display. I personally cringed every time that camera was used.
I feel bad for our troops who expected to see a nice production. Not only was the camera placement terrible, but the quality was the worst I have ever seen.
Most viewers already know what the city of Cincinnati looks like, I know I tuned in to see the fireworks. It seemed like it was a great display, but how would I know.....I watched it on channel 5.

 
at 9/03/2007 8:55 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

yes i agree with you whole heartly. if they were showing the military how good the show is they didn't product at all. that was really dude show of the fireworks. wow they show building blocking the fireworks. wow i could see that anywhere. i would give the director a "f" for camera shots. way to go to show how good the firework show was to the world. wow i sure a whole lot will what to see it next year not.

 
at 9/03/2007 9:01 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Coverage was awful. Too many long shots and lot's of technical trouble. Give it up Channel 5. You blew it!

 
at 9/03/2007 9:04 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Channel 5 was awful, I agree. The long camera shot from Devou doesn't cut anymore due to the towers in Covington. The SKY 5 shots were awful and then there was like this interference snow that messed it up from SKY 5. What a joke, this should go back to 12 or 9 next year-hopefully Ch. 19 so we can see Christie Dutton down at the fireworks, love Christie, what a find by Fox 19. Agree anyone???

 
at 9/03/2007 9:04 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

A "D" is being generous. 5's fireworks coverage was about as good as their news coverage.

 
at 9/03/2007 9:16 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

The coverage was terrible. At one point during the show, I was checking the cable connections on the T.V. because the picture was so bad. I later realized that it was just the helicopter cam that was bad. I also wonder if the long distance camera was a "traffic" tower cam...intended for traffic and NOT fireworks. I hope that the broadcast that was apparently sent to the troops was better than what I saw...or else I'd be embarrassed channel 5.

 
at 9/03/2007 9:17 AM Blogger John said...

very much agreed - and all the giddiness made me sick as well

 
at 9/03/2007 9:21 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Channel 5 was terrible. Video and sound left little to be desired. I think Bell and WEBN need to go back to 9 or 12 next year.

 
at 9/03/2007 9:23 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes they "fizzled" big time. It was awful trying to watch on Channel 5. The camera were all over the place. It seemed like they were never in the right place. I like when the waterfall comes off the bridge. I was very disappointed. The shot was far away and to the side of it. The picture fizzled and had bad reception through the whole time I watched. Which was for about 20 minutes. Channel 12, WHERE WERE YOU!?

 
at 9/03/2007 9:27 AM Blogger JimmyD said...

Absolutely terrible producing of that fireworks show. That long shot was pointless. The Chopper camera was staticky and shaky, we get it, you have a news chopper. Plus, the producer made too many quick wipes/takes. They'd be on a good shot, then poof, back to that long shot or the chopper shot. very, very poor coverage. I think your D is generous. That's why we normally go see the fireworks in person. TV can't do it justice, but that production was just awful. I feel bad for our troops who saw that and probably thought very little of the whole thing.

 
at 9/03/2007 9:31 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey John, if you actually bothered to watch News 5 on a regular basis...that shot was the city cam from their building!

Why don't you admit you hate 5?

At least 5 was the one to pick up the slack when 12 did not want to deal with radio anymore!

This is their first year doing it in a while...cut them some slack.

 
at 9/03/2007 9:32 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wasn't at the show (actually I was in Bengals Stadium watching it), but my parents said that it was horrible, and that the vantage points were too far away. Also they said the audio cut out several times as well as the screen freezing. I think also that the Fireworks are not in sync very well with the audio over the last few years.

 
at 9/03/2007 9:34 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

You captured EXACTLY what I was going to say. The artsy-fartsy camera work/editing was TERRIBLE. The Helicopter shots were a complete waste of time due to the distortion. Why did they keep going back to it???
BOOOOOOOO

 
at 9/03/2007 9:39 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with John. The shot from Devou was terrible and very disappointing. And the shots overhead were okay...but aren't fireworks meant to be seen from below looking up? Next year, provide good coverage--looking up. Forget all the other angles.

 
at 9/03/2007 9:40 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

In one word, YES!!! I have had the pleasure of watching the fireworks in person, and on TV. I am extemely disappointed in channel 5's coverage of the fireworks! Why the long shots? You could barely see the fireworks from that distance! Did Channel 5 not work with WEBN and Rozzi's to determine the best camera angles? WEBN and Rozzi put on a GREAT show year after year, but this years TV coverage was the worst that I have seen. Where was the special frog launch that they showed in their pre-show? I fully agree with Mr. Kiesewetter's blog. Channel 5 should have done their homework to determine the best camera angles for not only the viewers at home, but also for our troops that were watching overseas. That was not the time to highlight the city scape for them, but to highlight the fireworks. I only hope that next year WEBN and Rozzi work with the TV station to determine where the cameras should be placed and how long to stay at each camera.

 
at 9/03/2007 9:41 AM Anonymous John Z said...

Changing the subject, my major issue with the event was the verbal shots taken throughout the presentation regarding the war and our President. And then of course our kids loved to hear the quick blurb about prostitutes. Someone explain to me why they approved those comments. How proud our troops must be to see that these companies support our troops and then take shots at our President. What happened to going down to the fireworks and enjoying the evening without a couple of companies trying to make a political statement?

 
at 9/03/2007 9:42 AM Blogger Paula said...

Hi! I couldn't agree more! This is the email I sent Lisa Kiznel at WLWT last night at 11pm. It states exactly what you noticed, and even more! I also sent it to the media director at WEBN, just to make sure they knew how their event was being covered.

Hi Lisa,
My name is Paula and I live in Crescent Springs. I hope you are doing well and are having a great and safe holiday weekend.
I found your email address under Contact Us section of your home page and hoped you would be able to help with something.

I'm writing this email in hopes that you will review the quality of camera coverage of the WEBN/Cincinnati Bell fireworks event is receiving from WLWT. Some of the most loyal fans are not ones that want to or are able to brave the serious crowds at the riverfront, and I think I speak for them as well when I say that the television coverage this event receives touches just as many people as the actual live event itself.

Here is a summary of what I experienced regarding the four camera angles that were offered. It seemed these cameras were timed to automatically and unconditionally rotate every 10 seconds or so throughout the event. The camera angle would change without consideration to what was going on, leaving people missing out on what started out as a great view of a specific series of fireworks.

Here are the specifics: (as close as I can remember)

* One camera, on a helicopter facing north between the two bridges,
had a fine angle but kept snowing out, as if the camera wasn't
properly connected. Also, the SKID of the helicopter made a
surprise appearance more than once.

* Another camera, located about 6 miles away at what we think was
atop WLWT headquarters also wanted to be involved in the
festivities. It seemed at key moments in the event, WLWT thought
the television viewing audience would be interested in this view,
which is 6 miles away, behind the Proctor & Gamble buildings.
Again, at key times in the show, the camera would suddenly change
angle and all we would see is this almost unnoticeable pretty glow
coming up from behind the P&G buildings.

* Yet another camera, mounted somewhere on the ground or barge, was
never quite ready whenever it got it's chance to perform. Whenever
that camera would come live, it would always have to pan up to see
even the lowest fireworks. It's as if the camera person was only
shooting whenever they were live, and then he kept getting caught
off guard or something. By this time, both my husband and I were
wondering if WLWT had advance knowledge that they were covering
the event at all.

* The one saving grace was one single camera angle, which was
mounted on a helicopter higher in the sky than the other. I think
it was facing south. The views that it caught were great and it
never had any problems with snow or rogue helicopter skids. But,
it seemed that we could only keep this view for about 10 seconds
before one of the other cameras took over and turned the event
from joy to aggravation once again.

I would like to ask you to please review the entire television event yourself so you can see with your own eyes exactly how the event was covered. I've seen this event on television for the past three years and it's never been like this. Usually, if I remember correctly, the team would find many great angles and stick with those, leaving the angle indefinitely until the right time came along to change angles. This year, it seemed like they weren't prepared. Having many angles to see the fireworks is a great idea, but if they are poorly managed and get horrible angles on the event, then all it does is ruin the enjoyment.

Thank you for your time in reading this email. I believe that your team would want to have feedback regarding your coverage of important events such as the WEBN fireworks show, which is why I've sent you these observations.
I hope you actually get to read this email, and I thank you for your time when/if you do.

Thank you so much,
Paula Singleton
mommypj@gmail.com

 
at 9/03/2007 9:42 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Disappointing. One word to decribe the fireworks coverage. Where was the beautiful waterfall we always look forward to. My family and I have watched the fireworks on television for many years, always looking forward to a wonderful display. This was horrible. If the fireworks are on channel 5 next year, I guess I will have to drag my four kids downtown somewhere to watch it. I definitely will not look forward to watching them on channel 5 television!!!

Disappointed family in Bridgetown

 
at 9/03/2007 9:44 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'd never seen a more small market effort on the part of Cincinnati television. And from a station with such great heritage in live TV. Far too much lost from the ground effects...the waterfalls etc. TV 5's high school camera work missed the true artistry of Joel Moss, his soundtrack and the Rozzi families efforts.

 
at 9/03/2007 9:48 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree. Channel 9 does a much better job. Why not HDTV? Everyone has spend the money for the equiptment at home, we want it used it. Very poor coverage from channel 5. didn't like it at all. Turn it over to another station.

 
at 9/03/2007 9:48 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Absolutely was the worst TV coverage I have seen of the fireworks.

 
at 9/03/2007 9:51 AM Blogger liz said...

John,

We agree with you. My husband and I don't usually sit down to watch a particular show, but we did on Sunday night. After about 10 minutes we switched to Charles Stanley.

 
at 9/03/2007 9:54 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your article is right on the mark John. We kept complaining about the camera angles through the entire show.

But you did not mention the attempt by ESPN staff to inject its politics into the celebration. I sat through the first two or three recorded comments but left after President Bush's WMD statement was inserted.

My sense is that many of our troops watching from all over the world got up and left the show at the same time I did.

I am surprised that the show's sponsor Cincinnati Bell would let what should be a non-political celebration become a political statement.

And since the show was being beamed to our troops all over the world, where was the patriotic part of the celebration? Perhaps that came after I left.

Bill M

 
at 9/03/2007 9:58 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is what Clear Channel gets for teaming up with channel 5 instead of maintaining its relationship with channel 12.

As soon as they thought about selling channel 12 -- they ran to 5 because it had a check worth $250,000 so 5 could PAY to provide news to WLW. I guess they got the fireworks in the deal, too.

Clear Channel would have been much better off sticking with 12 instead of trying to throw it under the bus. Instead, it was WEBN that got run over.

My guess is that 5 thought it seriously could cover the fireworks with its own equipment, including that dumb camera on its building and a camera from Devou Park. They included Sky 5 so much because they wanted to promote it. They wanted to promote Sandra & Sheree. Instead, they should have been covering the fireworks.

 
at 9/03/2007 9:59 AM Anonymous Mary C. said...

The fireworks themselves were spectacular, and exceeded the previous years, as they always seem to do. Too bad I couldn't really see for myself how great they were! I agree with you, John---the TV coverage was terrible! The anchors cam across as plastic, insincere air heads, and did not really seem to connect to the beauty and excitement around them. Ditto, ditto, ditto for all your comments regarding the TV camera locations, angles and shots, especially from the helicopter. When it was obvious that wasn't working, why did they keep going back to it? And where did the butterflies go? And if they fizzled and didn't work, why not just tell us that in the recap? The recap with no narrative was maddening, especially after all the pre-show build-up! Why Channel 5 this year? Hopefully never again, unless they can make some serious improvements,with both technical and aspects. This coverage was the all time worst! And I would never expect this in the 30th year, only the first couple.

 
at 9/03/2007 10:01 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Quality was very poor, one camera snowed over, angle was bad and I was disappointed in the sound quality. The sound and picture were better on 19's news shot. I thought 5 had HD. Why wouldn't they broadcast in HD for better quality. Disappointing from beginning to end, nothing like previous years. And this is what we sent to our armed forces. Sorry guys, you deserved better than what you saw. Jeez

 
at 9/03/2007 10:06 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fireworks on TV?? What do you expect? Fireworks were meant to be viewed live. Go to the show next time and quit crying about TV coverage.

 
at 9/03/2007 10:07 AM Blogger Janett said...

Put it back! "Get back to where you once belonged" Hello! Clue?! All the above comments tell you something? Channel 5 acted like this was the very first time they did coverage of anything. I guess this is why I never watch their new broadcast and why they are rated #4 in the city as far as news. Bob Herzog and Cammy Dirking would have been a hilarious combination this year.

 
at 9/03/2007 10:11 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I miss the days when Bill Myers would stand on top of the roof doing weather.

Maybe he would of been a better fit for their fireworks coverage.

Hey, whatever happened to the good ole days of Channel 5? Has anyone seen Tom Atins?

Channel 5 needs go back to its roots.

Bring back Jerry, Normer & Pat!

 
at 9/03/2007 10:11 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I watched the fireworks on at my sisters this year. They have a wonderful flat screen T.V. and stereo system to go with it. We were extremely disappointed. Channel 5 did a terriable job! We kept talking about the butterfly thing afterwards and waited to see it in the reply and never saw it! Extremely disappointed. I did not realize all the T.V. stations did not cover it. I kept asking to change the channel. Hoping we could catch it. Oh well, it over now but what a complete let down! I hope that Channel 5 does not get the contract next year and if they do hopefully that have learned their lesson.

 
at 9/03/2007 10:12 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I meant WEBN not ESPN in my previous comment. Sorry.

Bill M

 
at 9/03/2007 10:14 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Worst Ever! I actually left a picnic early so I could watch the fireworks on TV. It is something 7 year old daughter was looking forward to all weekend. I was looking forward to the waterfall off the bridge and the glare was so bad that I thought surly that wasn't them, but they were. The butterflies never saw and the Snow from the helicopter was terrible. I was so disappointed by the show. We live too far away to watch them live, but next year I may venture into the city because this is so looked forward to the end of summer. It is special, and each year we have enjoyed the TV coverage of them. but this year UGH is all I can say. I would give 5 a F not a D. And its over with and can't be recaptured. I hated the politics that WEBN inserted too. I am not for the War but I think we can leave politics out of some of our holidays. All in all I was extremely disappointed with the fireworks this year!

 
at 9/03/2007 10:20 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I could have done better with a video camera phone. Hopefully Channel 5 isn't paying those who produced the coverage last night.

 
at 9/03/2007 10:20 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Horrible...quite the embarassment that this was broadcat around the world...

 
at 9/03/2007 10:21 AM Blogger Janett said...

Make it stop! "Get back to where you one belonged" Hello! Need anymore clues?! Read above this! Very poor quality, Channel 5 acted like this was the first time they ever done anything. They music and fireworks were great as far as getting it on video, forget it! My 16 year old could have done a better job! This is why Channel 5 is rated #4 in the city. Oh, and Cammy Dirking and Bob Herzog, would have made this soooo much better. Now I wished I had went down to the fireworks, have hearing loss this morning just so I could relish this year's fireworks. Any hope that anyone else did a better broadcast than this so I can view it online?

 
at 9/03/2007 10:27 AM Anonymous uncoveror said...

Channel 5's coverage was completely awful. Amatuers with camcorders could have covered the show and not done any worse. The camera on the helicopter was out of focus, and kept going snowy. The camera at Devou Park was too far away.

If anybody saw the 4th of July fireworks from New York, that was what TV fireworks were supposed to look like. They were well shot, and in High Definition. If next years show is not going to be in high definition, they shouldn't bother.

 
at 9/03/2007 10:30 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

My husband and I saw it live down at the river. It was a beautiful show live. Once we walked home, we stayed up late to watch the rerun at midnight. We should have just went to bed. The audio was crappy, the camera work was crappy.

Two thoughts come to mind for next years coverage:

1. Change back to 9 or 12, they both did great jobs in years past.

2. Brodcast in HD, no matter what the cost. Watching in SD is like watching with bad vision.

 
at 9/03/2007 10:32 AM Blogger Lisa said...

Please go back to Channel 12 for the fireworks coverage. I was not impressed at all on Channel 5. The fireworks were good but I felt like I was watching from the sky.

Lisa in Cincinnati.

 
at 9/03/2007 10:33 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, Clear Channel Radio! How's that Channel 5 deal working out for you?

 
at 9/03/2007 10:35 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I totally agree. The Channel 5 coverage, including the highlight features were poorly produced. the anchors were not properly scripted, matter of fact, the entire show was produced by the seat of their pants. Not good at all, nearly public access cable production/programming.

I did not see the live broadcast, but watch the playback. Man, what a waste of time.

Really Channel 5 needs to be nearly totally revamped. Their standards are very low. I can't stand the two-woman show. They seem to be competing with each other, trying to be on-camera cutesy personalities, instead of broadcast journalists. It is the same old, same old.

As far as the fireworks, we should be glad it is on a rotating basis and any station other than Channel 5 will get the rights to broadcast the WEBN Fireworks.

 
at 9/03/2007 10:41 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lets get to the real reason 12 dropped it...they were upset that Radio went to 5 for their news. So 12 cried like babies and said we don't want to cover it anymore!

It won't be on 12 anymore. I hate to tell you guys that.

 
at 9/03/2007 10:42 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I started watching around 8:20 and just came away feeling like it was the same old stuff over and over. It's been on all four stations since I've been here and that first hour of preview stuff is just so predictable and boring. How many years in a row do we really need to see a story about the guy who puts together the soundtrack?

 
at 9/03/2007 10:43 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

In the long shot why could we see the Shell station at 5th and Philly in Covington, better that we could see the shells in the air.

The long shot gave too much light clutter fron the ground distracting any possible view of the firework in the sky.

The Sky 5 shots over the firework did the same thing with the lights on the ground distracting the view, when they did not lose signal.

Poor thought, poor planning, poor execution.

 
at 9/03/2007 10:44 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was so upset after watching the fireworks on TV! Channel 5 needs to get better camera spots to set up at. I thought I was watching the fireworks from Indiana, they were so far away! In one shot of the fireworks, I was looking at a helicopter and in the next, looking at a building blocking the riverview. If they keep this up, there won't be another 40 years of fireworks.

 
at 9/03/2007 10:49 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who's bright idea was it to broadcast to the troops overseas and insert soundbites from the commander-in-chief in the soundtrack? How distasteful! Way to insult the troops, stupid!

Brian B.

 
at 9/03/2007 10:53 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I totally agree with everyone. It seemed the director had no clue what was coming next. He was relying on the distant camera to direct the other cameras. Directors must think they need to change cameras constantly to keep it interesting, but if you have good content, that is not necessary.

They totally missed the fountain off the bridge. The camera was not ready for all the light of the display. My set went completely white.

One shot I always liked that Channel 9 always seemed to find was a ground shot behind standing people who would be silhouetted by the fireworks.

 
at 9/03/2007 10:54 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I couldn't agree more. Just because you have a helicopter doesn't mean you have to show everyone you have a helicopter and use it when it doesn't fit the occasion. The long shots, the above shots, and the music which didn't seem to kick in until it was almost over made for a very bad combo. I suggest TV 5 re-run the show and only playback the one good camera shot they had.

 
at 9/03/2007 10:55 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was wandering why we recently viewed Thunder Over Louisville in Hd. It was the greatest tv display I have ever seen. With the addition of Cincinnati Bell, and the fact that we are broadcasting all over the world, wouldnt we want to put our best foot forward? I was very disappointed, big fat F channel 5!

 
at 9/03/2007 10:56 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi John,

A+ to you for your blog comments--my wife and I were making the very same comments watching the show as you did. The Channel 5 effort began with Miss America singing the national anthem and the feed froze and broke up a few times. Sheree did apologize for the wave problems, but it wasn't a good omen. I could go on and on, but we had two big problems, and you mentioned them.

One was the awful camera shots, both from far away and from above the fireworks. Like you said, fireworks are meant to be seen from below and from a lot closer. If you were a producer/director, wouldn't you notice the helicopter skids, blue snow, distance issues, etc. after the first few camera shots? But they kept going to the well again and again.

Second, after the last shell went off, we were hoping for a shot of the special butterfly shell that was given an in-depth story during the "pre-game." We thought that we missed it because of the bad camera angles or because we just simply missed it. The replay segment didn't even reference it! If you're not sure it exploded or not, at least say that...especially after the hype that it received before the show.

We had basically lost interest in the show about 15-20 minutes into it because of the TV coverage. The Homer Simpson sound bite of, "Boring..." pretty much summed up our attitude. I'll give Channel 5 a D- for their effort. The only way it could have been worse was if the TV feed would have cut out before the end of the show. It's not saying much, but at least we had a visual signal until the show was over.

Ken in Newtown

 
at 9/03/2007 11:01 AM Anonymous Donna said...

I'm not sure how they looked on TV, but from what I'm hearing, I'm really glad that we braved the crowds, and went down to the wall!!!! We had a great view from the Cincinnati side, the wind was blowing slightly south, poor KY...wait, what am I saying! Still, a HUGE thumbs up to the crew for an UNFORGETTABLE heartstopping show!

 
at 9/03/2007 11:01 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I work at one of the stations who has done the fireworks very well in the past and I'm not sure anybody really wants to do them. WCPO had done them for so many years. 12 didn't put as much effort into it as 9 and are probably relived that they are done with them. So now its 5 gig. They will learn from this year and be better next year. They can't be much worse.

 
at 9/03/2007 11:02 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree and wonder if channel 5 will cover these posting. As far as the sky shots, I thought they had great shots of the helicopter’s exhaust. When did channel 5 hire Larry Darryl and Darryl as director and cameramen? Give it back to another network!

 
at 9/03/2007 11:04 AM Anonymous Tim said...

Not sure if you guys have heard or not..... This year's firworks were seen in 127 countries on the Armed Forces Network. Oh and guess what, There were over 500,000 people there!!!


How many times did the anchors say that last night. Geez!

 
at 9/03/2007 11:05 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

This was a train wreck from beginning to end. The anchors didn't know what to say so they kept saying the same stuff over and over again. The station kept using the chopper but it could never hold a shot before going to snow. Worst of all, they had one camera down on the river (where the best shots take place) My personal highlight: ken broo eating a dog bone!

 
at 9/03/2007 11:12 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

i fell asleep....i rest my case...just going in person from now on...zzzzzzzzzzzz

 
at 9/03/2007 11:18 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Channel 5's coverage of the fireworks was just like their news coverage. "The top 5 camera views that you voted for but first were going to show you the breaking static that is happening now because we are 1st, fast and accurate". Channel 5 has much room for improvement. One good thing that came from Channel 5's coverage of the fireworks was the way Sandra Ali's heavy make-up got blown off her face by the sound concussion.

 
at 9/03/2007 11:21 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Worst ever, very disappointed, is saying we got a split second shot of the waterfall and the parachutes being to generous !!

 
at 9/03/2007 11:28 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

AMEN! We were so disappointed; actually thought it was quite boring. Channel 9 was the best for hosting the show.

 
at 9/03/2007 11:29 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thankfully we went down to see them in person. I suggest you guys just head over to youtube and find the show from there.

 
at 9/03/2007 11:43 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

yes..... a VERY BIG DISAPPOINTMENT!. I couldn't believe the lack of fore-sight that should have been in place . My 4 kids fell asleep within 5 mins if this boring event... and it was also very hard to hear the music. Poor quality all the way around.

 
at 9/03/2007 11:45 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not only was viewing the fireworks terrible, the content was just as bad...from the choice of music to the "prostitute" comment, and last but not least, the "weapons of mass destruction" quote that had a song playing behind it about "being misled or being lied to"...can't remember. At that point, I turned the channel to something else. I can only imagine how the troops felt... It certainly didn't reflect any appreciation for what they are doing for us. I was very disappointed.

 
at 9/03/2007 11:45 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I couldn't agree more!It stunk!

 
at 9/03/2007 11:50 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

As with the rest of the group, I agree with John's comments. There are some who are not fortunate enough to make the pilgrimage to the fireworks every year and rely heavily on TV coverage. This year's coverage was definitely a disappointment. Of course, there can be an alternative choice to watch better coverage..."You Tube"???

 
at 9/03/2007 11:58 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

My wife and I spent more time yelling at the TV during the fireworks show. As special effects were being shot off the bridge they would switch to that camera as the effect was ending. I think the music this year sucked just as bad as the TV coverage. Over 40 yrs can't you find more than Pink Floyd, Who and Beetles? The music production was similar to canned programs Clear Channel plays over and over on other stations.

 
at 9/03/2007 12:05 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ch 12's version has way better camera work on their web page

http://www.local12.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoId=20000

 
at 9/03/2007 12:10 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Knowing that Cincinnati was being represented to the world (web and the Armed Services) with such horrible coverage was the worst part of the experience.

 
at 9/03/2007 12:10 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

What on earth happened Ch. 5? This was the WORST coverage ever!!!! How could you screw it up so much?

What I don't understand is why did WEBN chance a new station covering the event on such an important year? This was worldwide- and our coverage appeared to be done by amateurs at best!

First, the sound was horrible! It seemed as far away as the camera shots. Sky Cam’s shots were fuzzy (yet they kept using it), the close up shots were not timed properly, and in general the far away camera was ineffective. Did they not notice the buildings were in the way? The sad thing is the 1 camera that appeared to have a sharp picture and nice view was rarely used! We missed a lot of really beautiful fireworks this year due to poorly produced coverage. Weren't the camera people prepped on where the action was going to take place?

I certainly hope whoever makes the decision on what station covers the fireworks in the future listens to the opinions of the viewers. Change is good, but if you can't provide a quality show- give it back to one of the stations that can.

It was sad to turn off my tv last night and for the first time in over 15 years say "wow this year the fireworks sucked". Now I realize that it was the tv coverage not the quality of the show that ruined it for me. Thanks Ch. 5!

These fireworks have a great reputation; don't let poorly produced coverage ruin that. I give this year a D (only because the people who saw it in person promised me it was a good show).

 
at 9/03/2007 12:13 PM Anonymous Frusteeated with 5 said...

I have to agree. The TV coverage has always been a bit iffy but this has to have been the worst coverage I have ever seen. It can't be that difficult to go to WEBN and Rozzi and find out what they are going to do and plan your shots accordingly. The shots from far away were blocked, the shots from closeup were too close (they're fireworks you don't have to get the De'mille shot on them) and the helicopter should never have been used.

Hopefully someone with some sense will get on the ball and cover these things better next year.

 
at 9/03/2007 12:31 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

TERRIBLE DENNY JANSON AND CH 9 SEEMED GENUINELY EXCITED. SANDRA AND SHEREE SEEMED REHEARSED. BEST YET - BEST EVER - NEW THINGS BLAH BLAH THE CAMERA ANGLES WERE TERRIBLE AND THE SWITCHING OF CAMERAS AT INAPPROPRIATE TIMES. VERY DULL VERY REPETATIVE. STEVE W

 
at 9/03/2007 1:11 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know that WEBN was wanting the far away cameras. They were very critically of past coverage on WKRC being too close.

 
at 9/03/2007 1:13 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just in case, I took my digi-cam and tried some Freelance videography of my own. Fireworks display was excellent as usual, hats off to WEBN, Rossi and Cincinnati Bell for there master production. The true disappointment was upon arriving home, we reviewed the event as captured from WLWT on a home DVR recorder. Disappointing, disapointing, disapointing to say the least. Where were your professional videographers, Channel 5? Your coverage of the event displayed some of the poorest video shots we have ever seen. Camera resolution quality from most angles was not good when it came to the fireworks. Your video editor punched buttons frequently to display video from multi cams, mostly ending up with poor quality shots from a distance. Please purchase a new video camera for Sky 5 Chopper, resolution and focus were absolutely terrible. I shot the entire works with a single, non-professional Sony Digital camcorder and was so glad I did. If that was Channel 5's best try to capture Riverfest Fireworks, I would hate to see there worst. Sorry TV 5, but you need to get your act better next time, just in case.

Don in Cincinnati

 
at 9/03/2007 1:16 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, after reading all of these posts, my wife and I are glad that we went out to the St. Cecelia Festival in Independence last night instead of staying home and watching Channel 5. It was family friendly, had a lot more diverse entertainment and even had a fireworks display! Granted it wasn't Rozzi, but it was still great! And we could see ALL the fireworks!!! We didn't have to fight the crowds or traffic either! We may have to consider St. Cecelia's again next year!

 
at 9/03/2007 1:20 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

All the excuses as to why the fireworks were not in HD seem to center around the cost. This to me sounds like a golden opportunity.

Why not have an HD sponsor - like HH Gregg, Best Buy or Circuit City - help cover the HD cost? As part of the deal, they get a spot immediately after the fireworks:

"Didn't watch the fireworks in HD? Then come into XXXX-store tomorrow and see what you missed!"

Just a suggestion from Color Town USA.

 
at 9/03/2007 1:22 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I hemmed and hawed all day as to whether or not to take my seven-year-old son to watch the fireworks from the Newport floodwall, but eventually decided that we would just stay home, turn off the lights, and crank up the music. If Channel 5 broadcasts again next year, we'll be down on the floodwall by noon. We won't sit through that disaster again! Please bring back Rob and Kit and the camera shots and operators from previous years!

 
at 9/03/2007 1:25 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Crappiest camera work ever, but mostly I blame whoever decided where the cameras were placed and the contoller who decided which ones to cut to. The music and fireworks were coordinated well in advance, didn't anyone at channel 5 think to consult with them on camera angles? If it were the first year I were doing it, I would have asked: "Where did the other stations put their cameras?" The helicopter shots were terrible even when they weren't breaking up. The one from their traffic cam was too far away and obscured by buildings. But for some reason the genius in the control room decided to use those shots the most. A total FAIL by channel 5, worst show ever. I am ashamed that this is what the Armed Services saw and cannot believe WEBN let this crap represent them Internationally. They should be held responsible as well.

 
at 9/03/2007 1:26 PM Anonymous Vox Populi said...

Clearly, channel 5 is not ready for prime time. Farm reports at 5 A.M., yes. Fireworks, no.

 
at 9/03/2007 1:28 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

The coverage was a nightmare, i was actually concerned about what we were going to see based on the preshow...horrible.

When the fireworks began we had a room full of adults and children, 5 minutes into watching, the adults cleared out, and the kids turned on High
School Musical 2! How sad.

Disappointing at best, hopefully, we can see them on a different station next year, one which has already proven to have great coverage of the actual fireworks!

 
at 9/03/2007 1:28 PM Blogger Jameson said...

I would have to agree that this was the worst television coverage of the fireworks ever. I watched the fireworks from the 12th floor of the Radisson. Our group also had the television on back in the room. We kept looking back and forth at the television. To say the television broadcast was even okay is giving Channel 5 too much credit.

 
at 9/03/2007 1:34 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow - what a public relations nightmare. About 100 negative posts on a holiday when people are supposed to be outdoors having a picnic.

Mistake number 1 for TV 5 was not having the director work closely with the fireworks show designer so that he could anticpate where to go next, not react to the fireworks as they happen.

The second mistake was having Sandra & Sheree cover the event. This is an experiment that has failed. I'm sure both of them are very professional, but they do not have any personality together.

If 5 was smart - they would have had Lisa Cooney & Dave Wagner co-anchor. Dave sometimes comes across fuddy-duddyish - but I think Lisa brings out a sparkle in Dave's personality - and Lisa has personality to spare. She is so underutilized its not even funny.

They also should have had one of the weather guys and the traffic guy out working the crowd. A little mingling can go a long way towards making people feel like they have a connection with you - and maybe tune in every once in a while.

What should have gone down as Cincinnati's Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade was more like Geraldo opening Al Capone's tomb. A lot of hype, little payoff.

 
at 9/03/2007 1:35 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

While the quality of the broadcast wasn't good, I'm willing to give the Ch 5 folks a break. It's a tough project which requires a ton of work in advance and on the day of the event. They'll learn from this and, I hope, do better next year. Our first year doing them was mediocre - the quality was masked by the fact that we ponied up some big bucks to do it in HD.

As for why the fireworks weren't in HD this year - the additional cost for doing that is about $80K. Given that you can't sell advertisements in the show, and the fact that you're restricted on what advertisers you can have on during the pre- and post-show, and it's a money losing proposition. We did it in HD 5 or 6 years ago and, while it was gorgeous, it was an absolute cash flow disaster.

The reason it was on 5 this year and not 12 had nothing to do with the CC Radio/WLWT deal from last year. 12 and CC Radio had a fireworks contract (yeah, I know we're the same company, but there was still a contract) that expired after last year's event. We told radio then that we didn't want to do the event again (see the financial reasons outlined above) and were quite glad when Channel 5 ponied up with the rights fee. It was a fun event to do, but it was hard work, cost a lost, and provided very little return on investment.

The Ch 5 and CC Radio news deal really didn't impact 12 much (nor did it impact Ch 5 much, according to their ratings). CC Radio got a quarter or a million out of the deal (good for them), but the impact on either TV station was negligible. Tells you something about the value of radio advertisements, doesn't it?

 
at 9/03/2007 1:43 PM Anonymous Terry R. said...

I am sorely disappointed with the coverage. I'm work last night so I didn't get to see the fireworks, but listen to WEBN on the way to work and called my wife to tell her how good it sounded. That was the good part!! When I got home this morning and we watched the show together, I felt like I had wasted my tape and time on it. My wife was the smart of us, she got online at WEBN.com and watch last year show. Which was way better. I would thought after all the years ch.5 would maybe watched some of the past broadcasts, to how those stations handled the different situtions. This crew showed why they ARE the 4th rated channel in Cincinnati. 5 you have alot of room to improve please learn from this and try to improve or give it back to one of the MORE experienced channels! Watch your broadcast of the fireworks was like watch the the Mayor trying to pitch a baseball over & over & over.

 
at 9/03/2007 1:46 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just in case, I decided to take my digi-cam to capture the event from the Cincinnati side near Serpetine Wall. The fireworks were excellent as usual, thanks to the efforts of WEBN, Rossi and Cincinnati Bell.
When we got home all decided to view the event captured on DVR Recorder as aired by WLWT. A few minutes into the fireworks show, nothing but viewer disappointment began to set in. Video Cameras seemed to be set up in poorly selected areas, resulting in not capturing the fireworks properly. The Chief in charge of video editing demonstrated the ability to push buttons frequently on the editing board, but the results of the edits displayed very little good quality or talent in doing so. The picture resolution from professional TV cameras used by Channel 5, ran from fair to extremely poor in quality. Most of the videographers could not keep their hands off of the zoom in/out controls. TV 5 Chopper shots were interesting, but the camera resolution was terrible and the live feed transmitter broadcast was even worse. I ended up shooting the entire fireworks display with a Sony Digi-Camcorder, the results were quite rewarding, to say the least. If this was TV 5's best shot at attempting Riverfest 2007, then so be it. If WLWT is given one more opportunity for next years event, please don't blow it again. Hopefully you will learn from your mistakes. Just in case...

Don in Cincinnati

 
at 9/03/2007 1:46 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

The WEBN Fireworks are so over. I wouldn't watch it in person if I was driving by. But, one can hardly be surprised that Channel 5 (puke) did a poor job. They have merged absurd with mundane in their news division with the so called top 5 stories viewers want to see. What the hell is the deal with that? If the viewers know they want to see it, how can it be news?

Anton

 
at 9/03/2007 1:50 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

It was terrible. We sent an email to WEBN and WLWT expressing our frustration. Hopefully, the powers-to-be will listen to all of these comments and this will never happen again.

 
at 9/03/2007 1:53 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Very Disappointed! I enjoyed watching sparklers in my back yard more than the Channel 5 coverage. Come on, surely they watched channel 9 do it enough to know how to cover the event. The camera angles where ridiculous. The idea is to give the people not able to attend the opportunity to feel like they are actually there. So sad.

 
at 9/03/2007 1:58 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, 12 did a much better job with their webcast of the fireworks.

Well, it's a better job if you don't mind people standing in front of the camera.

 
at 9/03/2007 1:59 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why would anyone want to watch fireworks on TV anyway? You never get the full effect, you can't hear anything, plus the coverage always cut in and out or they switch camera angles right as a shell is exploding, which makes the show look choppy and sporadic, and it overall ruins the experience. The last time I tried watching them on TV, they only showed the waterfall off the bridge for a couple of seconds, and it was at a horrible angle, so it was boring. I quit watching fireworks on TV a long time ago. Besides, once you've seen one display, you've pretty much seen them all.

 
at 9/03/2007 2:03 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think that most of us knew that Channel 5's coverage was going to be bad when we saw their two news anchors as hosts. Those two shouldn't have a job in news reporting, no matter what their qualifications (according to them) are!!!!!!!!!!

Channel 5 needs to do better than this. If Sandra and Sheree can only speak in monotones, then maybe channel 5 needs to give them the cameras, and use different emcees.

 
at 9/03/2007 2:07 PM Blogger karen1959 said...

I have watched the fireworks on TV for the past 8 years,this was so bad that I turned the station the last 5 minutes.WEBN use someone else next year

 
at 9/03/2007 2:07 PM Blogger sutsme2at said...

First, let me just say that the headline on 5's site is absolutely true, "Fireworks Show Doesn't Disappoint Thousands On River". If you weren't on the river, it probably was disappointing, though.

Of course, that's what you get if you are WEBN and rub elbows with a couple of dying institutions, TV news and Plain Old Telephone System. TV news is dying because they want to have a captive audience that lives with whatever propaganda they are fed with poor quality, and people are no longer buying into it. The Plain Old Telephone System is dying because they still think that they deserve an income for just sending out monthly bills. Again, low quality and people are not buying into it any more.

Second, I think it is worth noting that saying something like, "We support the troops but not the war." is arrogant and offensive. The troops are fighting for "liberty and justice for all", and they fight so that you do not have to.

Finally, I think that my overall view of what I saw last night can be summed up in one word. Cheap.

 
at 9/03/2007 2:07 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

TV coverage of fireworks has always sucked. Big revelation. How can one accurately convey the excitement of something meant to be experienced in person? It can't be done. Next year get your lazy a$$ off the couch and down to the riverfront where the real action is.

 
at 9/03/2007 2:09 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree that the TV coverage was terrible. Enough said about that.

But equally embarrassing was the quote referencing weapons of mass distruction, making fun of the current President, and making what was clearly an anti-war political statement. This after all the hype about the fireworks being broadcast to the troops for the first time, etc.

Did WEBN expect that the troops would be motivated or feel a sense of support if they inserted a clear suggestion that the war is being fought on false pretenses? Did they expect that a big cheer would go up when the troops watching in Iraq heard that?

No, they could care less. They took advandtage of the situation to state their political views.

It's a pretty well known fact that most military personnel believe in and support their mission in Iraq.

We all know the story of the war and the debate that continues about it. Regardless WEBN's political views, this opportunity should have been taken to send the troops a clear message of patriotism and support, assuming that WEBN does actually support the troops and is in favor of victory.

Two apologies are in order:

One from channel 5 for botching the TV coverage.

One from WEBN for the distasteful and inappropriate messages related to the current war that were broadcast to our troops.

 
at 9/03/2007 2:18 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I watched the fireworks from Mt. Adams and like a proud Cincinnatian, recorded the show on my DVR. When I tried to re-live the excitment of last night and pressed play on the DVR box I was dissappointed. While nothing can replace the live feeling the broadcast did not come close!!! If I didn't see the fireworks live, I would wonder what all the commotion was about.

 
at 9/03/2007 2:19 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

What an insult to our Troops around the world. WEBN, WLWT, and Cincinnati Bell I hope you are proud of this FAILURE !!!!

 
at 9/03/2007 2:23 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would also have to agree with you John! I kept waiting for the special effect that was new this year but could not see anything because of the camera shots. We gave up about half way through and watched the replay of Michigan vs Applachian st game. All i have to say is that Channel 5 better not put how well it was covered in their promos.

 
at 9/03/2007 2:29 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

The coverage was bad. Camera positions were not correct. There were too many distractions such as the city lights, etc. The camera positions should have been low looking up. The Director for this telecast should be fired. The helicopter shots were not needed--except I figure they had to use it to justify the cost of having it.
Give the telecast back to 9 or 12.

 
at 9/03/2007 2:29 PM Blogger linserpelle said...

Your criticism is spot on. Terrible choices in every area of the telecast.

My wife and I were offended at Sheree's gushing that this fireworks included tributes to our troops overseas. More like a slap in their face! With dialogue from LBJ (not running for office), Nixon (not being a crook) and Bush (not finding weapons of mass destruction), it was really a thinly veiled, irreverent slap at the current administration. I'm sure that made our soldiers real proud.

But it wasn't just the coverage that sucked. I could have made an old-fashioned mix tape that would have been a far more familiar, fresh and compelling musical score. And in general, the uninspired choices and uses of music related very little to the fireworks.

 
at 9/03/2007 2:34 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

At first I was disappointed because it wasn't in HD. I know it's expensive but isn't this one of the premier events put on by the city? How come it was telecast in HD by other stations in the past? Wasn't it "too expensive" for them too?

OK, forget that it wasn't in HD. What was with the poor angles, lack of close/tight shots and that awful helicopter cam? I found that about 15 minutes in I kept looking at my watch WANTING it to end. It was that bad but I felt obligated to watch to the end.

This was a chance for WLWT to shine and they dropped the ball big time. I think the grade of D in the original article. I think that's being generous. It was solid F.

 
at 9/03/2007 2:39 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have to agree with what everyone else has said. The coverage was unbelievably bad. I was invited to several parties on the river & chose not to go because of the traffic & crowds. Boy was I wrong. In the past the tv coverage seemed great and gave you the feeling of being there without dealing with the crowds. Not so this year.

I fail to realize why they would not have given this coverage to a channel commited to broadcasting in High Def. Let's face it, Channel 5 doesn't always get the news right, why would anyone believe they could broadcast this correctly. Instead of wasting money & time with Derrick jingles, they need to work on getting a High Def solution and hiring camera people & producers who know what they're doing.

Perhaps the objective was to get more people to go downtown & less to watch their broadcast. If that is the objective, they've succeeded. If Channel 5 has it next year there is ABSOLUTELY no way I will watch the broadcast. I'll fight the crowds and watch it live.

 
at 9/03/2007 2:40 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

WLWT-TV was purely irresponsible and embarassing. I've seen better coverage on public access!

 
at 9/03/2007 2:48 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree, far too many shots. I turned it off! But I also thought WEBN had too many 'political' quips mixed in with the sound track. We don't need to hear Bush making a comment about WMD's! We hear enough of that on the news!

 
at 9/03/2007 2:54 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Regarding the post:
"Fireworks on TV?? What do you expect? Fireworks were meant to be viewed live. Go to the show next time and quit crying about TV coverage."

1. Of course nothing else is like being there but fireworks can translate well over TV. See either channel 9's coverage in previous years or this years coverage of the National fireworks display at the Capital. It was in HD and the angles/coverage were great.

2. As for quit crying and go...tell that to my 2 1/2 year old that zonked out early at 7:30. Sometimes you don't have the option of messing with traffic and crowds with a child in tow.

 
at 9/03/2007 2:58 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree, the coverage was terrible. I even emailed WLWT last night with a complaint. I got a headache from all the switching back and forth. The distant shots were a waste of time and I wish they had stuck with the near the ground so you could feel like you were down there, and yes, what about the special butterflys? I couldn't tell anything. Last year's coverage was great. Wish Channel 5 had taken note and learned something. I feel that they let us down. Hope they never again get the rights to the broadcast. I think the person in charge of the cameras is one who has the TV remote in hand and flips from one show to the other without even looking to see what is on the channels. Watching on TV I couldn't get a sense of the beauty that I knew was being played out on the riverfront. Same on all those who had a hand in this fiasco of a telecast. jconk

 
at 9/03/2007 3:09 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have been a long time viewer of Channel 5 and listener of WEBN, I feel the troops deserved a better visual than what was displayed last night, and the attempt of political satire, was an insult to those who are fighting to protect our republic that allows us to have such freedoms. Unfortunately this will be looked upon as just another negative event in Cincinnati history.

 
at 9/03/2007 3:11 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

So first off I actually had the pleasure of seeing the show in person on the serpetine wall. It was by far one of the best shows ever from that vantage point. I felt that the hallmarks of the show were the new special effect fireworks shooting low from the barge and off of the bridges, in addtition to more shells reaching tremendous heights as opposed to last year. So as we have heared repeatedly thorugh the comments today, 5 failed to cover those nuances that made the show great. I completely agree that closer shots were in demand relative to my observations last night on tv. In watching the pre-show after I got back, it was an indicator of things to come. There were multiple hits on the microwave feed during the national anthem and Derek could barely be seen as the boom cam zoomed into him..guys its called lighting 101 and iris control. I also missed the retrospective packages of major events that made up our summer in cincinnati seeing that this is the even that signifies the end of the summer. Instead there were multiple packages of the creation of the fireworks show that could have really been condensed into one. And in my mind the reporters typical agressive sensationlistic tone were present in the packages when they were really supposed to light hearted pieces. The post show simply felt like they were trying to fill time till they were off the air. Usually the anchors pick out some of their favorites and they will cut to video accordingly as thet comment over it. This year the anchors lazily cut to video that the guys in the truck simply reracked and played again untill it was time to throw it to commercial with no commentary during or after the video. In essence it was an abreviated version of the show to fill time. In terms of the interaction between the two lead anchors you could clearly tell that they were out of their element..resorting to formulaic and boring banter to fill time between packages and throwing it to radio. Relatively speaking Sandra was more alive than Shari who seemed stone faced in disposition. And finally I work for a competing affiliate and I know that it's no small undertaking and it takes years to perfect. But at the same time I feel that our initial product was better than that of 5. In years past we would receive a rough outline of the composition of the show..leting us know what to anticipate. So I would assume that WEBN offered the same courtesy to 5..and if that's the case, I'm assuming that the end product was probably due to a lack of studying on the director's part and/or simple lack of rehearsal and preperation. I cannot speak for others but I had fun working to produce our area with the best possible product of the fireworks possible through the medium of tv. And if its not us I hope that whoever chooses to produce it next year will work to regain the respect that the fireworks deserves.

 
at 9/03/2007 3:18 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

does anyone even listen to that crappy radio station anyway?

 
at 9/03/2007 3:36 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

While the fireworks display this year was probably the best that the Rozzi family has ever come up with, the TV coverage from Channel 5 absolutely fizzled. I have watched the coverage over the years on all of the local stations and this was by far the worst I have seen. In all those years, Channel 12 provided the BEST coverage of all. It was the next best thing to being there. So, WEBN and Cincinnati Bell, please take all these comments into consideration when planning next year's coverage!

 
at 9/03/2007 3:44 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with most of the comments posted. Our family has watched the fireworks on TV for the last 11 years and this was by far the worst. We have HDTV and antenna hooked up and we only had one or two shots that had HD quality. We had better HD coverage on the other news channels. I think everyone should send a e-mail to the Channel 5 general manager(there is a link on there website) and complain.

 
at 9/03/2007 3:48 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Awesome! These were the BEST framed shots of the fireworks I've seen since the show has been aired. I was impressed with the video that looked so artistic. I would love to get posters of the scenes and wonder if they are available. There was some problem with freezing, but the camera people immediately switched over. There were such a variety of angles. The show was a hit! I was going to go down this year but was glad for the opportunity to see Channel 5 and WEBN's production at home. It was an visual delight. The music and scenes were so synchronized. I am disappointed that Kieswetter was so negative. It might have been better to have someone with a more artistic background write this column. I think giving such a negative headline invited more negative comments then were deserved. Kies, you missed the boat on this.

 
at 9/03/2007 3:50 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who was in charge at Channel 5?
They should give an apology for the lack of effort that went into this production.

 
at 9/03/2007 3:51 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

One word: AWFUL!! My daughter and I watched from home; it got to the point where I just stopped watching because the coverage was so pathetic AND there was plenty of static to be seen in many of the views. The anchors following the show were deplorable as well. If that is what you call ad-lib, then my highschool daughter and her friends could have done a better job.

 
at 9/03/2007 3:53 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

My husband lamented throughout the greater portion of the fireworks broadcast, "WHY ARE YOU SO FAR OUT? MOVE IN CLOSER!" We, too, felt that the majority of the shots were from either too far out (complete with so many peripheral lights that it was difficult to find and focus on the actual fireworks); or, as John mentioned, from the air looking down (shots complete w/lots of static, I might add) instead of simulating what we might be doing had we been there in person...looking up.

We are glad to hear John say that he didn't see the butterfly, either, because we watched the entire broadcast AND the highlights, and we still didn't see it. Granted, we were not there in person; but we still feel gypped. We watched the coverage with the backstory prior to the start of the fireworks, and we wanted to see the end result. But our hopes were dashed when, I guess, a camera cut away at the wrong time. You'd think that since Channel 5 is the one that prepared the story, they would have clued in their camera operators about when to focus on the sky and not to be switching camera views during that particular timeframe.

This Sharonville household was most disappointed in the overall broadcast.

 
at 9/03/2007 3:56 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did anyone ask Channel 5 if they had some sort of system failure that caused part of their coverage to be unusable? Maybe part of the system went down and they had to cut away to their Denver affiliate? They couldn't possibly be that incompetant....or could they?

 
at 9/03/2007 3:59 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Was watching with friends with same comments over and over.... Look there's Sky 5 AGAIN. Oops that's snow! Got dizzy from all the fast changing BAD camera angles.Get a grip. No more Channel 5 disasters please. Rarely watch their news station. Now I know why. Amateurs! Not big on crowds but next year I'll go to see the show not the smoke screen. Way to go, John. You are sooo right Give 'em a D- for me.

 
at 9/03/2007 4:01 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Overhead cams seemed to be a problem, but I really liked the live coverage and the genuine emotions expressed by Sandra and Sheree, the anchors. When Sheree talked about the salute to the soldiers, especially the young soldier who was just brought home for burial, it was so touching. You can't fake such feelings. The people on air, including those at different spots on the riversides were so exuberant. Their comments about being their just made it special-a real tribute to our soldiers and all those who made this show happen. There were many people involved from WEBN, Ch. 5, and all the city workers. They should be thanked for pulling off such a fabulous event. It was exciting to see on TV. All I missed at home was the smell of smoke and the crowds. I can't wait to replay this. The fireworks, the music, the whole show, the dedications to the troops-all that was inspirational. keep up the good work. Mr. K, I don't agree with your negative comments.

 
at 9/03/2007 4:01 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Worst of all, the audio from the distant shots didn't match up with the visual. Sound delay killed it.

 
at 9/03/2007 4:04 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think it's funny, or maybe really sad that the blogger is not posting my positive comment. Could it be that there is a reason, he/she only wants the negative ones shown. Let's have honest dialogue here. What's the point of having postings unless you are open to showing both sides.

 
at 9/03/2007 4:09 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

How stupid are the people on this blog? Why would 12 drop a huge fireworks show for which it received recognition, drop radio weather reports every half-hour on the most-listened to radio station in the area, and stop providing news reports on a radio station with the same call letters as the station?

THE NO-BRAINER ANSWER: It wasn't 12's decision. Clearchannel sold 12, cut ties, and SOLD a partnership with another TV station. When money changed hands, it didn't matter that trade left them with a TV station "WHERE THE NEWS COMES FIRST, AND WE COME IN LAST!"

 
at 9/03/2007 4:18 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am normally in person watching them this year I couldn't and watxhing channel 5 sucked. The veiws were horrible and it looked like I was trying to watch the tv with hangers as antennas. I was really upset with what we got to see. Next year i will not watch i will be there in person.

 
at 9/03/2007 4:23 PM Anonymous Full Moon said...

You should have posted my earlier blog. It was truthful ... chicken?

 
at 9/03/2007 4:34 PM Anonymous Fran said...

It was awful. I stopped watching after the 3rd cut to the helicopter and the "snow" cueing the fade to next shot which was from a camera apparently near Milford. Sad.

 
at 9/03/2007 5:18 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

hey kiese would you happen to know the ratings for the pre show starting at 8 and the actual fireworks.
Did 5 come in first place during those time periods here.

 
at 9/03/2007 5:19 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have a feeling the reason why Channel 9 did not do them was that it was a holiday weekend and they did not want to put there employees through all of the chaos. Chanel 12 did not do them again because of there cutbacks with there new ownership being that they are not tied with WEBN and clearchannel. That leaves channel 5 and it showed in there production. Bring them back to Channel 9. they seemed to do it the best out of all of them. Not to mention since they are broadcastin there news in HD now there is a good chance that the fireworks wil be also.

 
at 9/03/2007 5:19 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with kiese,
I mean come on 5 you pay all these fees for rights to air tall stacks and then fireworks in order to get people to watch you and then you screw up!
Way to go Richard Dyer and Brendan

 
at 9/03/2007 5:20 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I finally figured out why all the HDTV types are bent out of shape about everything: They dropped three grand on a giant paperweight because they adopted so ahead of the curve.

Maybe when HDTV market penetration gets above 10% it'll be worth everyone's while to broadcast in it. Until then, it's a luxury item -- stop complaining.

And...ITS FIREWORKS ON TV! Fireworks are designed to be seen in person, not as part of a telecast. Come on, if you're too lazy to go down and watch it in person there is absolutely no point in complaining that the TV coverage was bad. Complaining about fireworks coverage on television is like bemoaning the quality of writing in Readers Digest.

The coverage was bad. Big deal, it was awful last year with Kit and Rob talking (as they did every year) about how this year was the best ever, blah blah. It'll be awful next year too. Its all one giant commercial for a radio station that hasn't changed its playlist in almost two decades anyway.

The only reason this is news this year is because JK never misses a chance to take a swipe at 5. But that kind of biased journalism is why he's posting on a blogger account instead of being put in actual ink on a daily basis.

 
at 9/03/2007 5:22 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, the problem with channel 5 is, they have no identity.

I recall as a young child, watching Bill Myers give me the weather on top of the roof.

Jerry and Normer gave me the news in a precise manner. Channel 5 needs to repeat history.

I remember when they were "action news". Well, this viewer would like to see some action.

I miss Toria Tolley & Pat Berry.

Tom Craig & Steve Forrest.

Whatever happened to Zip Rzeppa? C'mon!! Get with it people!!

 
at 9/03/2007 5:23 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Lets get to the real reason 12 dropped it...they were upset that Radio went to 5 for their news. So 12 cried like babies and said we don't want to cover it anymore!"

You are SO clueless if you believe this comment!

 
at 9/03/2007 5:26 PM Anonymous sans said...

I watched the fireworks from 7,000 miles away via the web. I thought it was just me, but now I see even my untrained eye was right on - bad camera shots. But a couple other things made me more upset: I am not with the military or even related to anyone with the military; I am not even that wild about the war - but when I heard the comment about weapons of mass destruction my heart sank. How could you webn? Didn't you know that men who have watched their comrades heads being blown off would be hearing that? It was a slap in the face! And, at the end I thought, "surely the finale will be patriotic", but not one patriotic song while our country is engaged in war?? Why bother to send that to the troops? If such a big deal hadn't been made about the troops it wouldn't have been so disappointing. Obviously this show was all about webn; next year get over yourselves and think of others.

 
at 9/03/2007 5:37 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree it was a little bit political. It could have easily been neutral and sent a better artistic message.

Viewing from TV as an only option, I too thought it was the worst coverage in many years.

Channel 5 as usual just screwed up again ID ing a vistim from the scene of the plane crash long before the name will be relaesed publically.

Way to go 5.

 
at 9/03/2007 5:40 PM Blogger Toddy-O said...

As I said last night while the broadcast was in progress:

Who directed this? I've seen better productions directed by dead people.

Please give the fireworks back to WXIX-where they did it right and technically unchallenged too!

In hind sight, I'm GLAD I said this. The heritage of local production at WLWT. MY GOD! What an embarassment for our city and the technicians. Next year, WXIX or Citi-Cable.

 
at 9/03/2007 5:43 PM Anonymous Photog said...

Here's the deal. Fireworks are hard to shoot. I know because I've done it. I know that 9 & 12 spent months preparing for the shows. I also know that 12 leased and HD truck to produce them in the past. Yes, that's very very expensive. For those of you hoping the fireworks come back to 12 don't count on it. Channel 5 paid Clear Channel a large sum of money to use their news and weather reports on radio. I'm sure that also means they get the fireworks rights as well. Nothing against the channel 5 photogs they work hard and did their best. They didn't pick the camera locations nor do they get any say when it comes to their management. Clear Channel is in the process of transfering ownership of 12 to Newport television. That will completely remove any ties with Clear Channel radio. Therefore no fireworks on 12, sorry. In HD everything is hypercritical. If your focus is not right on it looks really bad. I'm guessing that the cost along with the limited staff they have prohibited any idea of doing them in HD. That said, the technical issues were apparent. The talent seemed unprepared. I think it just goes to show you the kind of overall quality you get with Channel 5. It makes you appreciate what you had on 9 & 12 huh. Maybe CC will go to 9 next year when WLWT runs out of $$$$. Check out 9 & 12's web sites. I'm pretty sure they have the fireworks show online as well.

 
at 9/03/2007 6:02 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

THANK YOU! I thought I was the only one who felt this way. I watched the whole thing, thinking it HAD to get better. I was wrong. The music didn't add much either. WLW: Scratch the helicopter, get closer shots from tops of buildings maybe, and DON'T tell the anchors what to say. If they're good enough, they can ad lib and be good. Jenelle and John Matarese would have been a great match. I probably won't watch it next year if it's on WLW.

 
at 9/03/2007 6:19 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

The coverage was terrible and the camera shots were terrible. Nice view, however, of the helicopter landing gear!

Overall, I could care less about spending an entire day downtown Cincy waiting to see a 30-minute fireworks show.

So, if no one wants to cover it on TV, then BIG DEAL! It's just fireworks people...

 
at 9/03/2007 6:31 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

All stations should get a shot at covering the event - that way there is a choice.

However, a couple of people I know at 9 were really relieved when they stopped doing it. Probably because it is such a predictable event (I think we have heard the same Sopranos and Pink Floyd cuts for four or five years now).

Going in person is the best way to go about seeing them.

 
at 9/03/2007 6:48 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was also disappointed with the show. I know channel 5 tried hard to put on a good show. They failed. Haven't they watched previous coverage? Hopefully next time they can get it right.

 
at 9/03/2007 6:49 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Both me and my wife agree, it was bad. I don't know what they are goinging for, but it did not work. They lost the signal too many times, and the photography was sub-par. The music was also not the best, and some parts the music didn't match the fireworks.

 
at 9/03/2007 7:02 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

It was aweful. Worst I've ever seen. It would have been much better if they would have left it on the one camera that had a good view. I got tired of watching the traffic on 75. It was if they had no clue what was going to happen. The helicopter was a waste of fuel. You need a dark background, not city lights to view fireworks, HELLO! For some reason they feel they must zoom the cameras constantly... it just made it worse. At one point the big talll building was right dead center in the middle of the screen. I thought I'd seen the worst in Boston one July 4th, but this was much worse and I didn't think that was possible. Horrible.

 
at 9/03/2007 7:09 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

9 Did the Fireworks Better,
9 Did Flying Pig Better,
9 Did HD Better.....

Oh wait, 9 is the only station doing HD, did everyone else just give up?

Give the Fireworks back to 9!

 
at 9/03/2007 7:11 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fireworks show on WLWT Channel 5 was a MAJOR DISAPPOINT! The headline on their web page was, "Firework Show Doesn't Disappoint Thousands on River". They should have a headline, "Fireworks Show A MAJOR DISAPPOINT to the views of Channel 5". Even the pictures they have on the web were poor crap. You think they would use the best images of the night, oh yeah they didn’t have any good images. Channel 5 gets a F for firework show and not a D. Channel 5 should apologies to the views for there “poor” coverage.

 
at 9/03/2007 7:18 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are showing your true colors again, John. I was down there and really enjoyed the show. I don't recall the years past when 12 and 9 had their first go of it and you ran a story asking the public what they thought? But you asked after you wrote a story abou thow bad it was. You constantly solicite as much bad comment of 5 as you can. Not one from the business... I truly do believe you have an axe to grind. Why?

 
at 9/03/2007 7:20 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why, it's true! They did not want anything to do with it anymore!

 
at 9/03/2007 7:40 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have to agree that they were horrible on Chanel 5...I actually fell asleep and woke up for the grand finale

 
at 9/03/2007 7:48 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Derek Said It Would" - be the worst firework show in history. I still have a hard time understanding why people love fireworks in general so much? I understand the whole "end of summer ritual" but come on. camping out, waiting hours upon hours for your spot? Not to burst anyone's bubble, but I bet I can tell you what the fireworks will look like next year along with tomorrows lotto numbers and the winner of the 4th race at Turfway.

 
at 9/03/2007 7:49 PM Blogger Elizabeth said...

Last year, I had the pleasure of getting to watch the fireworks from Covington. I was sitting with the people that in the past we have gotten to watch them in person and on TV. We muted the talking heads and turned on WEBN, and we did not like the shooting Channel 5 did at all. There are so many good places to shoot the fireworks from, but from far back in Covington with the towers of Madison Place in the way was not the way to do it. I was VERY disappointed by the mediocre camera work.
This was being broadcast to our troops around the world, and I was embarrassed because they did such an injustice to the fantastic fireworks.
If channel 5 runs the next year, I will just not bother watching. I know several amerature videograpers that could have filmed it and done so much better.

 
at 9/03/2007 8:08 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Instead of fighting crowds and traffic last night, I decided to watch the fireworks in the comfort of my living room. That is possibly one of the worst decisions I had ever made. The biggest disappointment was not being able to see the waterfall completely like in the brodcasts of years past. However, it was their first year of televising the fireworks, I suppose we should cut them a break. Not everyone is perfect on the first attempt.....

 
at 9/03/2007 8:13 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would like to be able to disagree with all the comments...but sorry! It was the worst coverage ever. The pre-show was soooo boring!!! Not only were the shots of the fireworks unclear, to say the least..it seemed to me that nothing was in sync as in years past. The political statements were totally uncalled for (and I'm a democrat) and in very poor taste! Great for our soldiers to see/hear!..so much for patriotism. And the reference to sex and Cincinnati prostitutes... What was that all about???? Who was responsible for this garbage?

Mmmmm...I thought this yearly celebration had been cleaned up over the years to be a "family" friendly celebration. Sure fooled me. I think another major overhaul is needed.

 
at 9/03/2007 8:17 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I totally agree! The aerial views were distorted from being right over the top of the fireworks, the distant view from N Ky put a building on the landing right in front of the lower fireworks, and even letting the sound of the fireworks play in with the soundtrack was horrible.

 
at 9/03/2007 8:31 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree that is the worst converage i have ever seen for fireworks. Even the highlight show was lame. They didn't explaIN What happened.

 
at 9/03/2007 8:35 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fireworks should not be on TV, they should be seen in person. All Channel 5 was trying to do is get some good PR and raise there raitings. At least now they know that doing the fireworks only hurts them. I think that this is one of the few times that I have seen channel 5's anchors out of the studio unlike the other stations who have done debates and other public service stuff.

 
at 9/03/2007 8:39 PM Anonymous Catmom said...

To those who say you should just come down to Riverfest - not everyone can negotiate the crowds. I am disabled so my only opportunity is to watch on TV.

I was extremely disappointed in the production - all the comments previously made of the poor angles apply. And it's absolute sacrilege that they would mess up the waterfall shot!!

And there is more HD out there than some may think - it does need more proliferation at the transmitting end, but a lot of people have gone HD. The news shots channel 9 had of the fireworks on their HD broadcast were light-years better than the actual channel 5 show. We regularly don't watch 5 and sure aren't going to start now.

I also agree with prior posters about the poor taste of politicizing the audio broadcast. There is enough content available without trashing the president.

 
at 9/03/2007 8:42 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Watching the fireworks last night. the comments I made in silence were exactly the comments made in print by you, John. I usually am there in person and know the quality of the work done by the Rozzi's. I remember watching the TV version of the New York fireworks a couple years ago and thinking how beautiful they were but how ours were so much better. But if anyone who had never seen ours in person judged us from the TV version last night, we would not be seen favorably.
1. The cameras/producer just didn't get it. I do not want to seen part of the helicopter.
2. The troops were seeing this. No matter what your politics are these are the young people who are risking their lives so we have the right to complain. Why have the comment about WMD's from Bush and the other political comments?
3. What happened to the great promo on the butterfly fireworks? It was never mentioned again.
4.Please.......... send this back to a station that is professional enough to give Cincy Bell, Rozzi's , our servicemen ans women the respect they deserve.

 
at 9/03/2007 8:51 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree. That was pathetic coverage. Maybe they did that so more people would go down to see them next year instead of wasting their time watching channel 5 try to cover them. My wife fell asleep during them and I stopped watching and just listened to the music (which I thought was an excellent job by WEBN). Very very poor job by channel 5. Need to go to channel 9 since they are the only local channel to go HD.

 
at 9/03/2007 9:16 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

The verdict appears to be in... WLWT totally laid an egg. Not only was the production "youtube" quality, their audio simulcast of the WEBN soundtrack was even worse (and listening through the receiver with the 7 second delay was unacceptable. Lastly, where's the HD? It's 2007 and broadcast quality HD equipment should be well within a network station's budget in this market. I've watched on tv maybe 3x in the past 7 years and while it's never close to the feeling you get on the river, this year's coverage established a new low.

 
at 9/03/2007 9:18 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes John I can't aggree more , half way through it was apparent is was not going to get any better so for the frist time in 30 years I turned if off. If all we have left is channel 5 don;t telecast at all!!

 
at 9/03/2007 9:25 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Absolutely the worst coverage of an event that I have seen! My main question through the whole telecast was what value the long shot brought to the show? It would be interesting to hear the director of the coverage explain his thoughts on that one. Find one or two great shots and stick with them. The long shot and fuzzy aeriel shots did nothing for the coverage of the fireworks. Channel 5 needs to perform an extensive read of these post to gain some insight into what works for their viewers!

 
at 9/03/2007 9:33 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Geeze John, looking at all of these posts and I'm wondering why so many people hate 5? Regarding the fireworks, it did seem like some of the city shots were not in focus. That's pretty basic.

 
at 9/03/2007 9:46 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

John, I just looked at the photos of the fireworks submitted by the Enquirer photographers and they are beautiful! I got to see through those photos, what I did not see last night on the TV coverage. One thing I noticed on the TV coverage - because the shots were from so far away - was the absence of color of the fireworks. From far away, they all just look kind of white or yellow. From the Enquirer photos, I got to see some of the beautiful colors of the fireworks. It looks like everyone agrees with your article. Ch. 5 definitely fizzled. I'm glad that I am not the only one who felt that way.

 
at 9/03/2007 9:52 PM Blogger Greg said...

my name ig Greg Cline i have live in dayton oh for the last seven an a half years i am origanaly from Milford and as far as i can remember they have done a good job in the past several years on channels 12, 19, i live in Dayton now and all i get is 12, 19, and 48 in the last seven yrs i always watch them on channel 12 why could'nt they keep it that way insteed of going over channel 5 where there is poor broadcast?

 
at 9/03/2007 10:04 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I thought it was absolutely terrible. The static on the screen, and we even have a huge screen with the HD, and we almost changed the channel. For this being their 31st, you would've thought they would've "rehearsed" more so to speak so that when the time came, they didn't have all these glitches, and static, and the terrible views. Definitely not impressed!!!

 
at 9/03/2007 10:06 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

The fireworks literally sucked this year! Bring back Channel 9 news coverage. They were the greatest ever. Too many static interruptions, that I thought my TV was going on the
"fritz" & it's only a year old. I don't even remember seeing the waterfall on the bridge. If it was there, it must have lasted 5 seconds!

 
Post a Comment*

* Our online blogs currently are hosted and operated by a third party, namely, Blogger.com. You are now leaving the Cincinnati.Com website and will be linked to Blogger.com's registration page. The Blogger.com site and its associated services are not controlled by Cincinnati.Com and different terms of use and privacy policy will apply to your use of the Blogger.com site and services.

By proceeding and/or registering with Blogger.com you agree and understand that Cincinnati.Com is not responsible for the Blogger.com site you are about to access or for any service you may use while on the Blogger.com site.

<< Home


Blogs
Jim Borgman
Today at the Forum
Paul Daugherty
Politics Extra
N. Ky. Politics
Pop culture review
Cincytainment
Who's News
Television
Roller Derby Diva
Art
CinStages Buzz....
The Foodie Report
cincyMOMS
Classical music
John Fay's Reds Insider
Bengals
High school sports
NCAA
UC Sports
CiN Weekly staff
Soundcheck


Site Map:   Cincinnati.Com |  NKY.com |  Enquirer |  CiN Weekly |  CincinnatiUSA
Customer Service:   Search |  Subscribe Now |  Customer Service |  Place An Ad |  Contact Us
Classified Partners:   Jobs: CareerBuilder.com |  Cars: cars.com |  Homes: HOMEfinder |  Apartments: apartments.com |  Shopping: ShopLocal.com
Copyright © 1996-2005:   Use of this site signifies agreement to terms of service and privacy policy updated 10/05/2005