ABC 2013-2014 pick-ups, cancellations and renewals

[InMontreal]

'Agents of SHIELD' Picked up by ABC
Written By Amanda Kondolojy, May 9th, 2013

Marvel spin-off Agents of SHIELD has been picked up by ABC. The first promo for it is reported to air during the Once Upon A Time finale.

Source : http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/201...by-abc/181851/

[InMontreal]

Final Episodes of '666 Park Avenue' & 'Zero Hour' to Air Saturdays on ABC

Written By Sara Bibel
May 20th, 2013

Per TVLine, the final four episodes of 666 Park Avenue, which was canceled last fall, will air Saturday at 9PM from June 22 to July 13. 666 Park Avenue will have the burn off of another canceled series, Zero Hour, as its lead-in. Two episodes of Zero Hour will air from 8-10PM on June 15. It will then air Saturdays at 8PM from June 22 to August 3. ABC missed a golden opportunity to have a Saturday night line-up entirely of canceled shows with numbers in the title by relegating the unaired episodes of Don't Trust The B in Apartment 23 to ABC. com and other online streaming sites.

Source : http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/201...une-22/183479/

[InMontreal]

Careless bastards.
Yesterday night, ABC have cut off the last 2 minutes of the series finale of 666 Park Avenue on the East Coast for a breaking news about some Zimmerman trial that nobody cares about... they couldn't wait one minute where they could have cut off the closing credits. Idiots.

Citytv hasn't scheduled the last 4 episodes yet... so that's it.

[TVViewer]

Careless bastards.
Yesterday night, ABC have cut off the last 2 minutes of the series finale of 666 Park Avenue on the East Coast for a breaking news about some Zimmerman trial that nobody cares about... they couldn't wait one minute where they could have cut off the closing credits. Idiots.

Citytv hasn't scheduled the last 4 episodes yet... so that's it.

It may not be a major story to most Canadians or someone who has opinions like you but the Zimmerman trial was a MAJOR story in the U.S. and expecting ABC to "wait" to cover breaking news like this while CBS and NBC are covering the story when it actually breaks is beyond absurd. Even if we ignore the fact that the Zimmerman trial attracted far more viewers than the cancelled show being burned off it's ridiculous to expect any network to cover breaking news the way you are suggesting. CBS and NBC both broke into regular programming to cover the verdict live as well. ABC would have looked really bad to be the only network to not cover the verdict live in favor of regular programming, especially if that regular programming is a cancelled show burn off.

It's so amusing how you think any network that doesn't follow your baseless ideas must be idiots. Ever think the reason why most networks do the exact opposite of what you think they should do is not because they are "careless bastard idiots" or have a "ultimate goal to fail" but because they actually know how to properly run a network, as opposed to you who clearly does not and is under this delusion that everyone thinks the exact same way you do? Ever think that maybe the networks don't use your ideas because your ideas aren't very smart? Instead of calling networks idiots every time they do something differently than what you would have done maybe you should re-think some of the "ideas" you have convinced yourself are what's best for all viewers.

[mtlguy]

Careless bastards.
Yesterday night, ABC have cut off the last 2 minutes of the series finale of 666 Park Avenue on the East Coast for a breaking news about some Zimmerman trial that nobody cares about... they couldn't wait one minute where they could have cut off the closing credits. Idiots.

Citytv hasn't scheduled the last 4 episodes yet... so that's it.

Actually I was also very upset, but I watched the online version and they didn't cut anything besides the producers logo. It was not 2 minutes, and nothing else than an image of the city and then cut. They could have waited 15 seconds but at least nothing was missing from the story.

[PokerFace]

It's unfair to the viewers to interrupt any program ... unless perhaps it's a repeat, but even then, it's still annoying for those watching for the first time.

The viewers have no way of knowing what they missed, unless they check online. Why should they have to check online? Well, perhaps because the networks can't be trusted to please their viewers. Why can't you watch TV to escape from the real world?

Did OJ escape from prison in a Ford Bronco? No, but even if he did, that's what the news channels are for. The majority of Americans have cable/satellite TV, but even if they didn't, they probably use social media to keep up with court cases or whatever else they are interested in.

We have so many TV channels and alternative ways to get our news, that there's no need for networks to interrupt programming for breaking news that can wait until the next day.

If you're not interested in 666 Park Avenue, why the "hell" would you be watching ABC to see any breaking news announcements? Who's sitting there waiting for a verdict to be announced while watching the major networks? Nobody, except for perhaps a few cord cutters without a radio, or Internet access. Why would the networks care about them? They don't care, but they get caught up in the race to be first to report the breaking news stories. If the other guys are doing it, we have to do it too. No you don't, but since they're all idiots, they can't help themselves.

The local news will mention the really important news for each region, so you don't need a brief announcement by ABC or any other network for that matter.

Stay tuned to ABC ... We will interrupt programming for the George Zimmerman verdict.

They might run a scroll for the entire evening, just because they're uncaring idiots.

This just in ... A serial killer is on the loose ... We'll tell you where the killer was last spotted ... After this commercial break ... Stay tuned!

The networks don't want you to tune to other stations to search for breaking news, so they like to interrupt programming to make these announcements, knowing full well that most people are not going to stop watching television just because they might be temporarily annoyed by these interruptions.

[PokerFace]

Since ABC likes to cut out about 15 seconds of (generally insignificant) content before each commercial break (as they do with Rookie Blue, etc.), the Zimmerman announcement was most likely placed at the END of their TV broadcast of 666 Park Avenue. Had there not been an announcement, the final 15 seconds would most likely still not have been shown by ABC (only the ABC online version would be complete). 45 additional seconds of 666 Park Avenue content was also most likely snipped from the earlier portion of the broadcast, so that an extra 15 second spot can be added during each of the three previous commercial breaks.

This just in . . .

http://tvline.com/2013/07/13/666-par...p-how-it-ends/
[666 Park Avenue episode recap ... SPOILER ALERT]

For the record, as the credits rolled at 10:59, the local ABC affiliate cut into the feed with an update on the George Zimmerman verdict, but it appeared as though the final dialogue in the 666 Park Avenue finale had been uttered. I’ll rewatch the ending on ABC.com when it posts and let you know if there’s any update.

[UPDATE: The NY ABC affiliate merely cut off a shot of Henry touching Jane's stomach and looking down with wonder, then as eerie music cued up, the camera zoomed out from the happy couple to a shot of the Drake and the NYC skyline.]

Case closed. For ABC it was business as usual, but this time, because of the Zimmerman announcement, it looked like ABC jumped in with the announcement a few seconds too early ... even though it didn't. I watched the final episode online, months ago, and did remember the final shot of the stomach touching and skyline. It shouldn't have been cut from the broadcast, but unsuspecting viewers are often clueless as to what the networks snip from their broadcasts.

-----------------

More insignificant news you can't use ...

I remember back in the 80's and 90's, Canadian broadcasts would cut out the first and last few seconds before each commercial break -- generally insignificant content, but sometimes even dialogue was edited out to save time (I often compared the uncut Satellite wild feeds and the later American network broadcasts to see what the Canadian channels edited out).

Laurie Brown (CBC radio, etc.) once mentioned that she used to be responsible for deciding what scenes would be cut from various television episodes to keep the running times within the prearranged limits. In some cases, scenes with major dialogue were removed from the Canadian broadcast versions (I noticed a Seinfeld dentist scene was heavily edited from the Canadian version).

And of course, if a celebrity suddenly dies, a scroll will usually appear during broadcasts to let viewers know where they can get more detailed information. ABC might tell its viewers to watch Nightline, and Global might tell its viewers to tune into the late local news, or Entertainment Tonight Canada.

If the scrolls are placed at an appropriate time during the broadcasts (and if they don't cover up words or important images), it might not be such a bad idea, but the extra onscreen clutter is often too distracting to be of any use and tends to anger me.

[InMontreal]

It may not be a major story to most Canadians or someone who has opinions like you but the Zimmerman trial was a MAJOR story in the U.S. and expecting ABC to "wait" to cover breaking news like this while CBS and NBC are covering the story when it actually breaks is beyond absurd.

When exactly did CBS and NBC cut from regular programming to cover this?

CBS had 8pm Elementary rerun, 9pm 48 Hours, 10pm 48 Hours.
NBC had 8pm NBC Movie, 10pm Get Out Alive pilot rerun...
Global had a movie and opted not to simsub the Get Out Alive rerun.
Fox had MLB special, with local news at 10pm.
ABC had 8pm ALL-NEW episode of Zero Hour, 9pm ALL NEW series finale of 666 Park Avenue that will NEVER EVER AIR AGAIN, and 10pm 20/20.

ABC was the only one with first-run burn-off episodes that night. CBS can easily rerun the 48 Hours episode, and NBC can easily air the movie again and air the Get Out Alive pilot again. Not the case for ABC unless the whole episode was pre-empted. They could have waited 15 or 30 seconds until the fade out to the executive producer's name. Anyways, on my VCR recording, there was a 5-sec countdown following the cut, and an introduction from a national ABC News anchor. It's not like they'd lose something big, like the suspect would run away, within those missing 15-30 seconds ! They cut away too early for no reason. Nothing was urgent.

ABC would have looked really bad to be the only network to not cover the verdict live in favor of regular programming, especially if that regular programming is a cancelled show burn off.

It's so amusing how you think any network that doesn't follow your baseless ideas must be idiots. Ever think the reason why most networks do the exact opposite of what you think they should do is not because they are "careless bastard idiots" or have a "ultimate goal to fail" but because they actually know how to properly run a network

OK, now you're making me laugh en tabarnac que ça n'a pas d'ostie d'allure !
- Everytime there was elections in BC and Alberta, you praised the local Global stations for covering the whole night and you carefully mention that local Citytv stations did NOTHING, business as usual, with a minimal effort from CTV.
- When there was flood in Calgary, CICT-DT nixed the whole friday evening of reruns to cover this, and CIVT-DT (Global Edmonton) helped out, simulcasting the coverage.
- When a train accident caused an explosion with a huge part of downtown Lac-Megantic destroyed in the night of friday to saturday, what was on the air on Global Montreal on saturday morning ? Regular programming as usual. And we both know why: CTV News Channel was covering it but not CFCF-DT, CBC News was covering it but not CBMT-DT. It's a tragedy that affects the community and Global Montreal wasn't there until the 6pm news. CKMI-DT is a money-losing station, and they're happy to lose money producing the low-rated morning news with benefit money (money they would have to spend anyway) and do nothing to improve its ratings.

Ever think that maybe the networks don't use your ideas because your ideas aren't very smart? Instead of calling networks idiots every time they do something differently than what you would have done maybe you should re-think some of the "ideas" you have convinced yourself are what's best for all viewers.

How come Global Montreal covering Lac-Megantic is a bad idea?

[PokerFace]

http://www.deadline.com/2013/07/tv-n...uilty-verdict/
[Zimmerman trial verdict on Saturday ... Network programming interruptions and coverage]

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/...martin_b188110
[George Zimmerman trial verdict coverage]

The broadcast news divisions and cable news channels had been waiting all day for a verdict in the George Zimmerman trial. It finally came just before 10pm ET, leading the broadcast networks to produce rare, live, primetime special reports for the not guilty verdict.

But one network, ABC News, began their special report too late and missed the verdict. ABC joined as the jurors were being polled. The network was showing the canceled “666 Park Avenue,” and even promoted the live verdict in a crawl.

On NBC, Lester Holt anchored a special report, interrupting the final seconds of a made-for-TV movie based on the American Girl doll Saige. Holt took viewers to the verdict, seconds before it was being read. NBC’s report lasted until 10:08.

CBS was first on the air at 9:58, joining during the closing credits of “48 Hours” in the Eastern and Central time zones. The Jim Axelrod-anchored special also went off the air at 10:08.

Despite missing the verdict live, the timing for ABC could not have been better. The network already had “20/20″ on the schedule. The live special report anchored by David Muir began with the verdict then recounted the 16-month long case through the 10pm hour.

[TVViewer]

[QUOTE=InMontreal;63230]

When exactly did CBS and NBC cut from regular programming to cover this?

CBS had 8pm Elementary rerun, 9pm 48 Hours, 10pm 48 Hours.
NBC had 8pm NBC Movie, 10pm Get Out Alive pilot rerun...
Global had a movie and opted not to simsub the Get Out Alive rerun.
Fox had MLB special, with local news at 10pm.
ABC had 8pm ALL-NEW episode of Zero Hour, 9pm ALL NEW series finale of 666 Park Avenue that will NEVER EVER AIR AGAIN, and 10pm 20/20.

ABC was the only one with first-run burn-off episodes that night. CBS can easily rerun the 48 Hours episode, and NBC can easily air the movie again and air the Get Out Alive pilot again. Not the case for ABC unless the whole episode was pre-empted. They could have waited 15 or 30 seconds until the fade out to the executive producer's name. Anyways, on my VCR recording, there was a 5-sec countdown following the cut, and an introduction from a national ABC News anchor. It's not like they'd lose something big, like the suspect would run away, within those missing 15-30 seconds ! They cut away too early for no reason. Nothing was urgent.

You just don't get it. When a breaking news story is important enough for the network to interrupt regular programming (and this story was to Americans) it doesn't matter what the regular programming is.

OK, now you're making me laugh en tabarnac que ça n'a pas d'ostie d'allure !
- Everytime there was elections in BC and Alberta, you praised the local Global stations for covering the whole night and you carefully mention that local Citytv stations did NOTHING, business as usual, with a minimal effort from CTV.
- When there was flood in Calgary, CICT-DT nixed the whole friday evening of reruns to cover this, and CIVT-DT (Global Edmonton) helped out, simulcasting the coverage.
- When a train accident caused an explosion with a huge part of downtown Lac-Megantic destroyed in the night of friday to saturday, what was on the air on Global Montreal on saturday morning ? Regular programming as usual. And we both know why: CTV News Channel was covering it but not CFCF-DT, CBC News was covering it but not CBMT-DT. It's a tragedy that affects the community and Global Montreal wasn't there until the 6pm news.

I'm not sure why you are bringing up what happened in Lac-Megantic but i'm not surprised that despite the fact all 4 conventional stations in Montreal (CTV, Global, CBC, Citytv) broadcast regular programming you are only criticizing one for doing so, the one struggling the most financially.

CKMI-DT is a money-losing station, and they're happy to lose money producing the low-rated morning news with benefit money (money they would have to spend anyway) and do nothing to improve its ratings.

This is what's so amusing about you. If they don't do what you think they should do they must be "happy to lose money", they don't go with your ideas so they must be doing "nothing to improve ratings", ABC doesn't wait to cover breaking news so they must be "Careless bastard idiots". Basically, any broadcaster that does something you personally disagree with is run by idiots trying to lose money, you are welcome to your opinion but comments like these are why I never take you seriously.

[InMontreal]

You just don't get it. When a breaking news story is important enough for the network to interrupt regular programming (and this story was to Americans) it doesn't matter what the regular programming is.

I'm not sure why you are bringing up what happened in Lac-Megantic

Well, YOU did bring this up when you linked to the Global Montreal Morning News thread in a reply to my message ("ultimate goal to fail"). It's funny everytime Global screws up, you go on denial mode, trying to hide it under the rock.

And yes, it's right on topic. An explosion, and earthquake, a flood, a hurricane, a criminal on the loose, THAT's public safety news that needs to break from regular programming. Not wait at 6pm, NOW.
But a judicial verdict of some fellon, that is *not* *time-sensitive* breaking news, does that justifies cutting from regular programming? Hell no.

NBC or CBS got live verdict news first, so what ? How will your life be forever changed if you learn the news at 10:00pm instead? Nothing, it's just the judicial system.

but i'm not surprised that despite the fact all 4 conventional stations in Montreal (CTV, Global, CBC, Citytv) broadcast regular programming you are only criticizing one for doing so, the one struggling the most financially.

I'm criticizing the only english station in the province with an operational newscast that doesn't operate a nation-wide all-news network.
SRC/CBC, CTV and TVA/LCN were on site at Lac-Mégantic, broadcasting live on their all-news channel, regardless their financial status, while americans sent up their CBS, ABC and CNN correspondants on site. Citytv doesn't operate a national or local newscast yet. But where was Global Montreal ? Airing archive fisherman shows from their Toronto headquarters.

CKMI-DT had an opportunity to do live on-site reporting, local viewers in Montreal, Quebec City and Sherbrooke would get informations from the only conventional english station covering the event (and adopt the station's "quality newscast" you so praise about), international networks had an opportunity to tap into CKMI's feed for information source.

But no. Instead of admitting Global's screwup, YOU blame ME for having "ideas" and wrong priorities, like live coverage of a major event affecting a local community. Wow. You're unbelieveable.

[TVViewer]

[QUOTE=InMontreal;63272]

Well, YOU did bring this up when you linked to the Global Montreal Morning News thread in a reply to my message ("ultimate goal to fail").

I just used a recent example of how high you regard your baseless opinions. You actually think a private business has an "ultimate goal to fail" if they don't use your ideas. Just like ABC is "careless bastard idiots" for doing what everyone else did and break into programming to cover the verdict of a very high profile case.

It's funny everytime Global screws up, you go on denial mode, trying to hide it under the rock.

I don't consider no live coverage of this story on any of the conventional stations a "screw up" given the circumstances.

And yes, it's right on topic. An explosion, and earthquake, a flood, a hurricane, a criminal on the loose, THAT's public safety news that needs to break from regular programming. Not wait at 6pm, NOW.
But a judicial verdict of some fellon, that is *not* *time-sensitive* breaking news, does that justifies cutting from regular programming? Hell no.

NBC or CBS got live verdict news first, so what ? How will your life be forever changed if you learn the news at 10:00pm instead? Nothing, it's just the judicial system.

Again, this is your opinion. The U.S. network news operations know what they are doing. This trial was extremely important to many people in the U.S., it was something many viewers wanted to see live. You didn't want to be the only one without coverage. Once again, you are assuming that your personal beliefs are the same as everyone else. There's a reason broadcasters do the exact opposite of what you think.

Speaking of "time-sensitive", By the time reporters actually arrived in the area the explosion was no longer "time-sensitive breaking news", still a major story but not breaking news. They would be breaking into regular programming to report something that happened hours ago.

I'm criticizing the only english station in the province with an operational newscast that doesn't operate a nation-wide all-news network.
SRC/CBC, CTV and TVA/LCN were on site at Lac-Mégantic, broadcasting live on their all-news channel, regardless their financial status, while americans sent up their CBS, ABC and CNN correspondants on site. Citytv doesn't operate a national or local newscast yet. But where was Global Montreal ? Airing archive fisherman shows from their Toronto headquarters.

CKMI-DT had an opportunity to do live on-site reporting, local viewers in Montreal, Quebec City and Sherbrooke would get informations from the only conventional english station covering the event (and adopt the station's "quality newscast" you so praise about), international networks had an opportunity to tap into CKMI's feed for information source.

But no. Instead of admitting Global's screwup, YOU blame ME for having "ideas" and wrong priorities, like live coverage of a major event affecting a local community. Wow. You're unbelieveable.

How do you know CBC News Network, CTV News Channel, LCN, etc. had live coverage? You refuse to pay for TV so how did you have access to these news channels on a Saturday morning? Do you actually know what every news channel actually broadcast for a fact or are you just assuming? That being said, repetitive news coverage is what all news channels do, you can't expect a conventional station to do the same.

As soon as the Global Montreal reporter and Global National Quebec correspondent arrived in the area they got to work putting together reports for Global's newscasts. Additional reporters arrived on Sunday. International networks barely covered this story but CBS used Global's reports. I'm not sure if NBC did but they could have.

You are expecting the local conventional station struggling the most financially to match news coverage of all news specialty channels while all the other conventional stations continue to broadcast regular programming. Only you would think Global doing the same thing as CTV, CBC, and Citytv is a Global screw up. You are my favorite person to debate, you just make it so easy.

[InMontreal]

Just like ABC is "careless bastard idiots" for doing what everyone else did and break into programming to cover the verdict of a very high profile case.

I don't consider no live coverage of this story on any of the conventional stations a "screw up" given the circumstances.

So, according to yours truly, live news coverage on conventional stations is solely based on who will blink first, like "I'll do it if my strongest competitor do it as well" ? Wow, you have low standards on what viewers expect from their local television stations.

Again, this is your opinion. The U.S. network news operations know what they are doing. This trial was extremely important to many people in the U.S., it was something many viewers wanted to see live.

Again, they could have waited one more minute and it wouldn't change a thing. Anyway, ABC missed the live verdict due to a long anchor introduction...

Speaking of "time-sensitive", By the time reporters actually arrived in the area the explosion was no longer "time-sensitive breaking news", still a major story but not breaking news. They would be breaking into regular programming to report something that happened hours ago.
(...)
That being said, repetitive news coverage is what all news channels do, you can't expect a conventional station to do the same.

OK, so why did Global Calgary cover the floods for many consecutive hours, but not Global Montreal covering Lac-Mégantic ? Both were not time-sensitive, but major stories.

How do you know CBC News Network, CTV News Channel, LCN, etc. had live coverage? You refuse to pay for TV so how did you have access to these news channels on a Saturday morning?

I do have access to the internet, Facebook and Twitter.
Speaking of which, on saturdays, only Radio-Canada and TVA have a newscast at noon. Not CBC, not CTV, not Global.

International networks barely covered this story

OK, now you're delusional and as I already mentionned, when Global screws up, you try to minimize the story effects to justify their inaction.
That news made the front page in newspapers of 40 countries.
Article en français : http://j-source.ca/node/10162
(Too bad you can't read french... I remember out APTN-related conversation where you demote french as an official Canadian language...)

CNN from Atlanta, Georgia, 1320 miles away, was there as early as 7am on saturday morning for live on-air coverage.
Global Montreal, 252 km away from their Peel/Ste-Catherine studio, was M.I.A. LOL.

You are expecting the local conventional station struggling the most financially to match news coverage of all news specialty channels while all the other conventional stations continue to broadcast regular programming.

Hmmm, yeah, exactly what I expected. Nobody cares about a station's financial status, they care about quality news.

[TVViewer]

[QUOTE=InMontreal;63275]

So, according to yours truly, live news coverage on conventional stations is solely based on who will blink first, like "I'll do it if my strongest competitor do it as well" ? Wow, you have low standards on what viewers expect from their local television stations.

I never said that. I just don't think any of the conventional stations made a mistake with their decision to not break into regular programming for special coverage of this particular story given the circumstances.

Again, yhey could have waited one more minute and it wouldn't change a thing. Anyway, ABC missed the live verdict due to a long anchor introduction...

The longer they are not on the air the worse it is.

OK, so why did Global Calgary cover the floods for many consecutive hours, but not Global Montreal covering Lac-Mégantic ? Both were not time-sensitive, but major stories.

The floods resulted in Calgary being under a state of emergency (you probably know as much about the floods as you know about the George Zimmerman trial). It's ridiculous to compare a large market station with significant resources covering a major flood to that of a small market station covering a major non time-sensitive story

I do have access to the internet, Facebook and Twitter.
Speaking of which, on saturdays, only Radio-Canada and TVA have a newscast at noon. Not CBC, not CTV, not Global.


OK, now you're delusional and as I already mentionned, when Global screws up, you try to minimize the story effects to justify their inaction.
That news made the front page in newspapers of 40 countries.
Article en français : http://j-source.ca/node/10162
(Too bad you can't read french... I remember out APTN-related conversation where you demote french as an official Canadian language...)

When all the conventional networks do the same thing, you say Global's screws up. Delusional does not even begin to describe you.

CNN from Atlanta, Georgia, 1320 miles away, was there as early as 7am on saturday morning for live on-air coverage.
Global Montreal, 252 km away from their Peel/Ste-Catherine studio, was M.I.A. LOL.

Uh, that article never said CNN actually had a reporter there at 7:00AM on Saturday, just that Saturday at 7:00AM was the first they mentioned it. Yes, a 24/7 news channel mentioned the story. That's kind of what all news channels do, cover news, 24/7. Global Montreal is now expected to break news at the level of CNN?

Hmmm, yeah, exactly what I expected. Nobody cares about a station's financial status, they care about quality news.

Nobody cares about the things you complain about, which is why you are usually the only person complaining. I'm done with this. If you wish to continue to use this disaster as an opportunity to complain about the TV station you have some bizarre hatred for then keep going, I'm pretty sure everyone else can see how ridiculous it is for you to find a way to start complaining about Global when they acted no differently than any other local station. Just like how it was ridiculous to complain about ABC for doing what the other networks did and break into programming to cover a major story you wrongly assumed nobody cared about, you are notorious for ridiculous complaints.

[PokerFace]

I still think it's ridiculous to think that the conventional networks (in North America at least) need to carry breaking news stories, or live sports.

If they focused strictly on entertainment, and left the breaking news to the news channels and the sports to the sports channels, television would be easier to follow.

Unfortunately, since live programming gets a lot of eyeballs and since the networks have a well-paid news team, as well as well-paid sports announcers, scheduled prerecorded programming will occasionally be interrupted or delayed for breaking news and live sports coverage (some even prerecorded).

One could argue that the reading of a live verdict for an important (or popular) case is indeed time sensitive, simply because it is history in the making. Like OJ's Ford Bronco ride, the reading of his verdict, or the first moonwalk, this is the kind of stuff that many people want to experience live. The heartbeat increases, the anticipation mounts, the verdict is read, and then you can contemplate what it all means. You might even feel like texting or calling your friends to get their reactions, or be the one that actually breaks the news to them.

ABC viewers were robbed of the live verdict reading, even though the result was leaked before it was read and had they been watching one of the news channels, there would be no surprise from the verdict reading, but rather a simple confirmation that Zimmerman was indeed found Not Guilty (cue the riots in the streets).

If viewers were tired of the countless hours of trial coverage, they might have decided to tune into ABC to watch a cancelled series come to a conclusion, knowing that if there was a verdict, it would be read live on ABC ... oops, ABC was a little late. No big deal, but history was missed. And what if you were in the bathroom when the verdict was read live on NBC and CBS? Well, you also missed history in the making.

Saturday night network ratings are generally not very good for scheduled programming, so regardless of what happened, most people interested in the case were most likely out on the town, or watching one of the news channels.

Disasters warrant conventional network TV coverage, but mostly as a public service to the few without Cable/Satellite/Internet/radio coverage. The Calgary flooding was obviously more urgent than the Montreal Runaway Train incident, but both were newsworthy enough to warrant live tv coverage.

The Internet is still my favourite source for entertainment and news coverage, but that's often because some of the television networks and specialty channels have not yet abandoned the cord-cutters (Shaw has the most reliable and diverse streaming opportunities for Canadian cord cutters, and they are free).

[InMontreal]

The floods resulted in Calgary being under a state of emergency (you probably know as much about the floods as you know about the George Zimmerman trial). It's ridiculous to compare a large market station with significant resources covering a major flood to that of a small market station covering a major non time-sensitive story

Ugh. Actually, Montreal is the 2nd biggest market overall after Toronto. You probably meant Montreal as a small BBM-labeled-english-only market.
Anyways, for CTV Montreal, it's a big enough market to make money from their newscasts, so yeah, as Global Montreal is the sore loser in ratings, it's easier to blame the market than the station's performance.

When all the conventional networks do the same thing, you say Global's screws up. Delusional does not even begin to describe you.

As I said before, CBC and CTV news reporters from Montreal were sent out over there and covered live on their respective all-news channel.
Global Montreal reporters went there, but sat and waited for the 6pm newscast.

Uh, that article never said CNN actually had a reporter there at 7:00AM on Saturday, just that Saturday at 7:00AM was the first they mentioned it. Yes, a 24/7 news channel mentioned the story. That's kind of what all news channels do, cover news, 24/7. Global Montreal is now expected to break news at the level of CNN?

Yes. Global Montreal is a conventional LOCAL station. That's their JOB to report the news.
It's so sad that our remaining canadian broadcasters nowadays tell the viewers : if you want news, pay us and watch our all-news channel. Global can't do that, they don't have one of their own.

[TVViewer]

Disasters warrant conventional network TV coverage, but mostly as a public service to the few without Cable/Satellite/Internet/radio coverage. The Calgary flooding was obviously more urgent than the Montreal Runaway Train incident, but both were newsworthy enough to warrant live tv coverage.
.

I agree that the flooding was far more urgent. But just to clarify, when I say I "don't think any of the Montreal conventional stations made a mistake with their decision to not break into regular programming for special coverage of this particular story given the circumstances", I'm not saying the story was not newsworthy enough, I'm talking about the circumstances of getting a reporter and live truck to the area while the story is breaking. This didn't happen in Montreal, it happened hours away in Lac Megantic. Had this happened in a city closer to the studio it would have been much easier for CTV, Global, etc.. to cover the story live while it's actually breaking. Had this happened in or near a market like Vancouver, Calgary, or Edmonton there would have certainly been live coverage from Global as they produce Saturday Morning News in these markets and they already have a live reporter, crew, and news helicopter ready to go. The reality is stations with significantly more resources can cover breaking news more and better than small market stations with significant financial issues and fewer resources. It's just not realistic for a small market Montreal station to have the same resources as a station operating in a large market like Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, etc. It's not realistic for the weakest station out of the entire network to have the same resources as other small market stations within the network.


InMontreal is under this delusional and WRONG ASSUMPTION that everyone had reporters and a live truck there Saturday morning covering the story live on news channels he does not have the ability to watch. There's a major difference between mentioning the story for a few minutes and having a reporter and camera crew there live to cover it. Again, Lac Megantic is hours away from Montreal, Global and CTV's reporters didn't arrive to the area until the afternoon, and unless CBC's reporters know how to teleport I doubt they were there much earlier. By afternoon the story is no longer breaking and reporters only have a few hours to put together reports for the evening newscasts. Not only is he using a tragedy to complain about a television station he hates, but as usual he's complaining without knowing the facts. He assumed that everyone had a crew there hours before they actually did and he assumed that CTV and CBC (and even CNN) made the decision to produce live special coverage with live reporters for CTV News Channel and CBC News Network while Global's reporters "sat and waited" until the 6:00PM newscast. As usual, he is wrong.

[InMontreal]

I'm talking about the circumstances of getting a reporter and live truck to the area while the story is breaking. This didn't happen in Montreal, it happened hours away in Lac Megantic. Had this happened in a city closer to the studio it would have been much easier for CTV, Global, etc.. to cover the story live while it's actually breaking.

TVViewer, do you know how ridiculous you sound? You always try to justify Global's lack of leadership with distance, low funds and time of the day.

CTV sent out their Toronto-based CTV National News anchor Lisa Laflamme on site, 795 km away, did her newscast there.

Global have an office in Sherbrooke, 103 km away, and an office in Quebec City, 187 km away.

Had this happened in or near a market like Vancouver, Calgary, or Edmonton there would have certainly been live coverage from Global as they produce Saturday Morning News in these markets and they already have a live reporter, crew, and news helicopter ready to go.

So, for any money-losing market, as long as the news happens monday to friday between 9am and 7pm, it's fine. Reporters are off the hook on evenings, overnights, saturdays and sundays. Is that how journalism works ? Wow.

"Hey local journalists, you have fixed hours, saturdays and sundays are sacred days off for you. Stay home. We can't afford to pay extra hours when major news breaks in the province covered by the money-losing station that employs you."

The reality is stations with significantly more resources can cover breaking news more and better than small market stations with significant financial issues and fewer resources. It's just not realistic for a small market Montreal station to have the same resources as a station operating in a large market like Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, etc. It's not realistic for the weakest station out of the entire network to have the same resources as other small market stations within the network.

So according to YOU, major news can ONLY happen near Toronto, Vancouver, Edmonton and Calgary. Good to know.

[TVViewer]

[QUOTE=InMontreal;63341]

TVViewer, do you know how ridiculous you sound? You always try to justify Global's lack of leadership with distance, low funds and time of the day

.

You are the one somehow trying to use this horrible tragedy to complain about Global, and just like all your complaints you don't know the facts and are just basing everything on your own delusional assumptions. If I sound ridiculous to you I consider that a good thing.

CTV sent out their Toronto-based CTV National News anchor Lisa Laflamme on site, 795 km away, did her newscast there.

Global have an office in Sherbrooke, 103 km away, and an office in Quebec City, 187 km away.

When did she get there? Monday? Global had reporters there on Monday, they arrived Saturday afternoon, which was around the same time reporters from the other Montreal stations arrived.

So, for any money-losing market, as long as the news happens monday to friday between 9am and 7pm, it's fine. Reporters are off the hook on evenings, overnights, saturdays and sundays. Is that how journalism works ? Wow.

"Hey local journalists, you have fixed hours, saturdays and sundays are sacred days off for you. Stay home. We can't afford to pay extra hours when major news breaks in the province covered by the money-losing station that employs you."

I never said anything even close to that and that's definitely not how it works. Reporters from CTV, Global, etc.. left Montreal to head to Lac Megantic Saturday morning and arrived Saturday afternoon.

So according to YOU, major news can ONLY happen near Toronto, Vancouver, Edmonton and Calgary. Good to know.

Again, never said that. None of the words you are putting in my mouth are true. If you really get that from what i'm saying then you are not reading my words correctly.