Television: Sweeps: Local News Week 1

Thursday, November 08, 2007

Sweeps: Local News Week 1

After the first week of November sweeps, here's a look at the weekday news ratings:
Channel 12 is winning 6-7 a.m. and 11 p.m. news, and second 5-6:30 p.m. and noon.
Channel 9 is winning 5-6:30 p.m. and noon, and ranks second 6-7 a.m.
Channel 19 is third 6-7 a.m., and first at 10 p.m.
Channel 5 is fourth at 6-7 a.m., with Jonathan Hawgood instead of Todd Dykes, and fourth at 11 p.m. behind "The Simpsons" on Channel 19, and third at noon and 5-6:30.

38 Comments:

at 11/08/2007 12:37 PM

Anonymous said...

In the morning Channel 5 should have Lisa, Pete, Derrick & Perry.... you would see ratings go up.

at 11/08/2007 1:22 PM

Anonymous said...

OMG: 5 has been beat out by the Simpsons at 11?! Their newscasts need emergency surgery!

at 11/08/2007 3:31 PM

Anonymous said...

if you're so bored with your job that you have to blog about weekly ratings, i wish i had your job. At the least you could have given more coverage to some of the more over the top sweeps stories or some that you thought were actually useful.
don't know why i even check your site, which thankfully isn't very often. Some things never change.

at 11/08/2007 5:26 PM

Anonymous said...

how are the networks doing with their programming? how about the special reports, anything in particular good or bad? technical problems?
shouldn't an honest-to-goodness tv critic give us some perspective on what may have caused this, what it means, or what we can read into it?

please tell me, kiese, that your editors expect you to do something other than just regurgitate numbers.

how do i get your job?

at 11/08/2007 6:17 PM

Anonymous said...

Dear Kiese,

Thanks for doing your job (well) and keeping us updated on the Cincinnati media, which includes braodcating ratings. To omit them would be a major oversight on your part. This is another testament to your competency as a journalist.

I wonder if some of your online dissidents are more ashamed of the content that you are reporting that the fact you are reporting them at all. (I mean, it must be profoundly embarrassing for the employees of WLWT to read that their 11 p.m. newscast is being trumped by the Simpsons.) But the facts tell the story. "Don't shoot the messenger."

I agree with some of the other bloggers, John, you're doing a great job. Thanks!

at 11/08/2007 6:49 PM

Anonymous said...

At least your market has a media critic that reports numbers. Some markets don't and that really keeps people guessing at what information is correct.

at 11/09/2007 7:52 AM

Anonymous said...

all of these negative comments are coming from wlwt employees. they keep dropping and need new leaders.

at 11/09/2007 8:21 AM

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the update.
Meantime, what about weekend evenings and mornings?

at 11/09/2007 8:50 AM

Anonymous said...

John,
thanks for posting the numbers. They come as no suprise. I am sure WLWT will change thier anchors around again instead of looking at their lack of management and news direction. Looks like it doesn't matter to the majority of viewers though, they switched programs a long time ago to better written shows like The Simpsons.

at 11/09/2007 8:52 AM

Anonymous said...

Is John Lomax ok....looks like he has dropped a lot of weight. I've always liked him as an anchor and I hope he is well.

at 11/09/2007 9:06 AM

Anonymous said...

and because the comments are negative, they MUST be wrong.

thank you, president bush, for joining the commentary.

now back to reality where different opinions are respected and people realize that just because someone doesn't agree with your opinion, they are not automatically wrong.

at 11/09/2007 9:59 AM

Anonymous said...

Simpsons Rule!!!! The fact that the Simpsons are beating 5 is nothing new. If you look at the past ratings periods this has been routine. Go Bart....

at 11/09/2007 10:08 AM

Anonymous said...

Kiese,
I appreciate your giving us the numbers. Those of us who don't work in local TV don't normally have access to them.

at 11/09/2007 10:19 AM

Anonymous said...

How in the world can a 6 line blog entry get two negative remarks? The man is just listing the weekly sweeps results! It sure seems relevant on the blog of a television critic. If anything, John's too easy on the local newscast. Local news is the most condescending drivel on the air.

at 11/09/2007 10:40 AM

John Kiesewetter said...

To Anon 8:52 a.m.:
Back in June I wrote about Lomax. He was diagnosed with Type 2 Diabetes earlier this year, and had lost 35 pounds from his new diet and exercise.
--Kiese

at 11/09/2007 10:56 AM

Anonymous said...

Derek said it would be like this.....

at 11/09/2007 11:09 AM

Anonymous said...

John, I do appreciate you posting the numbers, but that is about 5% of your job.

The overwhelming clammor here is for you to be a TV "CRITIC." Maybe that's too harsh of a title.

But certainly as an experienced media reporter, you could offer a little more analysis. Instead, you solicit your readers for THEIR anaylsis.

We aren't looking for attacks or undue praise - but none of us can watch every single newscast. I assume you have some sort of set-up where you can - or at least can look at the big promoted stories.

So.....what is your take on it all? Did you like the fire detector story? Zoom zoom boom? Illegal aliens? Carrie Culberson? Lead-free toys? Escaping house arrest?

Boil all this stuff down for your readers and make some sense of it all.

at 11/09/2007 12:18 PM

Anonymous said...

Viewers don't really care about specific stories, I never tuned in to 12 because of a specific story someone was covering. The same reason 5 got rid of the voting (no one watching or caring). This blog is about the ratings and how the stations faired in week 1. Who's number 1 and who's number 4. The numbers speak for themselves.

at 11/09/2007 1:01 PM

Anonymous said...

No, Anon 12:18, the numbers do NOT speak for themselves. That is why John is paid to be a media reporter. He is paid to critique what worked and why or why not.

Would you respect a movie reviewer who simply reported the box office week after week? Hell no! Siskel and Ebert would have been canceled if they simply regurgitated numbers.

These blogs are very timid when John posts them. He leaves it to his bloggers to fill in the blanks.

The perfect example of this is the Zoom Zoom Boom blog. Gee, has anyone seen this commercial? Does anyone know what this story is about???

Here's a thought: Pick up the phone and call desperate newsfrau Brennan Donnellan and FIND OUT!

Not to mention the fact he was completely wrong in reporting that 9 was running a story at 11 monday on lead testing toys. That story was on 12 - and 9 had a story on toys that don't come from China and presumably have less risk of having lead paint.

So, no, John's job is not to just post numbers, but that is pretty much what he does. TV numbers, radio numbers, the end.

You will find no real analysis on the decision not to air the Chad Johnson story on Sunday. You will find no analysis of election night coverage. No analysis of 12's lead story vs. 9's lead story. And you will continue to get passive-agressive posts on "what makes your favorite anchor your favorite?" Don't get nasty now! PLEASE. That's all this blog has become is a license to be nasty about the TV stations so John doesn't have to get blood on his hands.

at 11/09/2007 1:31 PM

Anonymous said...

It would help if 5 got a new set, ditched the Hearst-Argyle graphics and music, and re-branded the whole operation. Keep the on-air talent. But they need a make-over.

at 11/09/2007 2:04 PM

Anonymous said...

Two special words are the secret News 5 needs to return to competitive status:

RANDY LITTLE

at 11/09/2007 2:08 PM

Anonymous said...

Who watches the "big promoted series?" We watch our favorite newscasters and stations because that is who we trust. John, thanks for giving us numbers. It sounds like some stations are bitterly humiliated by the outcome of week 1.

at 11/09/2007 2:18 PM

Anonymous said...

Dear anon 1:01

Is it frustrating that no one really cares (besides local news talent) about your reports? I am sure it stings when the hard work on the stories still lands a station in fourth place behind The Simpsons. Blood on John's hands? Hmmm, could be a good graphic. The media loves to be a critic but apparently not criticized. The ratings count, the stories don't. The media is responsible for this, because for years it has been sensationalizing journalism.

at 11/09/2007 5:33 PM

Anonymous said...

thanks kiese for giving us inside info.
Us non media type wouldnt know how the newscasts are faring.

at 11/10/2007 8:10 AM

Anonymous said...

How can Channel 5's corporate heads overlook the ratings this time?

The management there will just shuffle around the on-air talent again to shift the blame away from their inadequate skills.

When is someone in corporate going to shuffle the management...(including the Ep's who hide behind their inept boss) right out the door?

Can't anyone see that's the only real thing to do here?

at 11/10/2007 2:41 PM

Anonymous said...

Wow, that's really pathetic, Anon 2:18, that all you really care about is the ratings and not the stories.

That's fine. We will just agree to disagree. I guess I hold a media reporter to higher standards.

If all you care about is the numbers, then the new girl down writng obits could easily be the Enquirer media reporter.

I simply expect a little reporting to go along with the job. John has pretty much admitted in the past that he doesn't actually watch the local news anyway, so what else is to be expected?

It would be nice, though, to have him say, yes, 9 really did deserve to get those ratings, and here is why. 5 really did do a bad job with this report, and here is why. That I-Team report was lame, and here is why. I can understand why 12 is number one, and here is why.

I guess we'll just have to settle for the numbers, and know John still carries a grudge against 5 for what happened when Gannett owned both the paper and WLWT, and that he is a 9 fan, and that's that.

at 11/10/2007 7:49 PM

Anonymous said...

What I would like to know is now that we have a new batch or "meterologists" in town who is the most accurate? Do people miss Pete Delkis? Is Tim Hedrick still the all time favorite? How is Derick Beasley doing, or will he be gone in a year? Is the weather channel the way to go, being that they do not have any "Fluff". Are we sick of there being weather break-ins into our show that we watch and then miss becasue of all of that fluff?

at 11/11/2007 5:47 AM

Anonymous said...

anonymous 2:18: It would appear that your train of thought has suddenly derailed. What are you saying? Please clarify. -Thinker

at 11/11/2007 9:05 AM

Anonymous said...

It seems pretty remarkable that the senior management at Ch. 5 has left the News Director and support staff in place. Some of the talent has left the station and I cant imagine what is happening to their ad revenue with these kinds of numbers....
Something has to give there soon!

at 11/12/2007 1:38 PM

Anonymous said...

So when do Homer and Bart start doing Blitz5?

at 11/13/2007 10:22 AM

Anonymous said...

DOH!!! That would be the High School Playbook. Just rolls of the tongue, doesn't it. Wasn't that great TV last Friday with the high school kids joining in? Just when you thought the ratings couldn't go any lower. Good Luck with that "only on Five" move.

at 11/13/2007 3:46 PM

Anonymous said...

Yesterday 5 was last with that hotel murder, the other day they missed the truck that went through that downtown garage. 5 is last for a reason.

at 11/13/2007 5:14 PM

Anonymous said...

the hotel murder was lead story at noon.
5 was only last because their noon starts at noon instead of two minutes early.
that kind of "victory" sounds a lot like the channel 9 promo department...
good to see kiese is keeping a rein on things and fact-checking what gets posted.
bottom line, go on this blog and say ANYTHING you want, as long you slam 5, and it will get posted.

at 11/13/2007 7:01 PM

Anonymous said...

To every thing, turn, turn, turn. There is a reason, turn, turn, turn. And a time for every newscast, under heaven. -Thinker

at 11/13/2007 9:24 PM

Anonymous said...

We get Channel 9 your in High Def. Who gives? The set is in High Def. How bout going back to what you use to do best the News and stop promoting your in High Def. Its getting old.

at 11/13/2007 10:58 PM

Anonymous said...

9 is the first in HD and its very important. The other stations will be in HD by the end of 08. 9 is the technology leader for a reason folks.

at 11/13/2007 10:58 PM

Anonymous said...

kiese will the ratings also get HD stations for local newscasts?

at 11/14/2007 10:35 AM

Anonymous said...

John,

Please post s new blog for the second week of ratings and don't forget about the weekend this time. Maybe 5 had some growth...

Previous Posts

Thursday, November 08, 2007

Sweeps: Local News Week 1

38 Comments: