Special Reports/Preemptions: Are they still necessary?

[letemroll92]

Hello Everyone, long time reader of the site but haven't posted since I first signed up. But there is one thing that has prompted me to start a topic and that is the ever-infamous network preemption (or "special reports"). Like many other people, I absolutely hate when Price (or any other of my favorite shows) gets interrupted for a breaking news story but I understand that for many years it was a necessary part of broadcasting, especially before the internet and social media existed and most people still got their news in the morning paper. But now in 2018 I feel there are better ways to go about it than the traditional interruption of a program. For instance, rather than cutting out the show, have a ticker appear on the bottom of the screen and say: "BREAKING: President delivers speech. Go to CBSNews.com to watch and for more related news". That way you still get the news without interrupting the show.

Also unless it's something truly breaking (like a mass shooting or 'country x firing missiles at country y', etc) I feel that more and more preemptions are frankly over a story not worthy of interrupting a program. If someone really wanted to watch a political speech they'd go to their preferred cable news channel and not one of the networks. I get that it's all about ratings and CBS obviously doesn't want a viewer to change the channel but I think the average household viewer today is more likely to turn off the TV on frustration rather than stick around and hope for the show to come back on. So in essence while the breaking news may attract some viewers to tune in, others will tune out essentially having more of a negative than positive effect on ratings.

But what do you all think? Should networks still do preemptions or do you think that it's an outdated form of news that can be modified/replaced? Anyone have any suggestions they think might work better?

(Also while I know a lot of preemptions deal with political news, please refrain from making off-topic political statements/opinions)

[htmlcc92]

I think doing it the way they do it now is the most effective way to get any widespread emergency or otherwise urgent message out to the public.

Where I live, I don't have to worry about it, but there are still places in the country with slow Internet connections who might not be able to easily access a news website, especially to watch a live streaming video. More people are more likely to at least have a television and an antenna.

Additionally at least for me, I am not always where I can get Internet. Sometimes I'm at the dentist office, for example, where there is not Wifi available for waiting patients to use. So if I see that message on the television in the waiting room telling me to visit their website, I'm out of luck as I don't have a data plan for my phone or other devices.

And then there's the fact that their website, CBSNews.com in this case, might not be able to handle so much traffic all at once, forcing the website down and forcing their viewers to choose a competitor's website. With television, there's no danger of the television signal going out if too many people trying to watch at the same time.

Those are my thoughts on the subject. I know everyone has their own opinions and that's healthy to get some debate going!

[TPIRfan#9821]

My view is this: Is The Young and the Restless, or Let's Make a Deal, or The Price is Right, or The Talk more important than a president making a keynote speech? If it is, then CBS has every right, and moreover is expected, to display the speech instead of the current program. If not, then CBS shouldn't display the speech. Is it outdated? Maybe, but if the goal is to get the news out as quickly as possible, that is the easiest way to do it.

I get that isn't how ratings work, but that's just my opinion.

[imhomerjay]

In a word....yes. Yes they are. Whatever quibbles one may have on a case by case basis, someone is making the judgement call to the best of their ability based on perceived overall newsworthiness. If we’re going to rank importance to the world, however entertaining they may be, talk shows, soaps and game shows will more often than not be on the losing side of that equation.

[Axl]

I get that it's all about ratings and CBS obviously doesn't want a viewer to change the channel but I think the average household viewer today is more likely to turn off the TV on frustration rather than stick around and hope for the show to come back on. So in essence while the breaking news may attract some viewers to tune in, others will tune out essentially having more of a negative than positive effect on ratings.

Ratings are not a currency that networks get to take to the First Bank of Nielsen and convert into dollars.  They make money by selling ads.  Special reports almost never have ads and they cause already-sold ads to be preëmpted, so the ratings are irrelevant.  Networks do not make money from news cut-ins.  Believe it or not, they actually do them just because they think it's something they ought to do.

[bigblue999]

Let's not forget not everyone has a social media account; some people prefer getting their information from TV or newspapers only.

[danderson400]

If it's something like 9/11, yes. But it does seem to me that sometimes they do it unnecessarily. Like in 1989, during the Sale of The Century finale, NBC did it for a speech by Bush that could have waited a few more minutes.

[imhomerjay]

So...it could have waited until your preferred show was over. What about the next show someone else wanted?

Many presidential speeches do (and did) warrant coverage.

[Axl]

Like in 1989, during the Sale of The Century finale, NBC did it for a speech by Bush that could have waited a few more minutes.

Keep in mind that 1989 was pre-internet.  At the time, there was no other way to disseminate that information in real time except to put it on TV/radio.

The president's speech was about the Exxon Valdez oil spill, which was at the time the biggest man-made environmental disaster in US history.

[jlgarfield]

Keep in mind that 1989 was pre-internet.  At the time, there was no other way to disseminate that information in real time except to put it on TV/radio.

The president's speech was about the Exxon Valdez oil spill, which was at the time the biggest man-made environmental disaster in US history.

Re: The East Coast did not see the $ale finale, but the West Coast NBC stations did see it in full.

[Wayoshi]

I think Tuesday’s partial preemption, just watching another Trump speech and waiting for the next insane thing he said, was unnecessary. The ticker tape idea mentioned in OP would have sufficed.

Yesterday’s was entirely fine.

[imhomerjay]

Was Tuesday the UN address? Each week so much happens it seems to become jumbled up by the end of the week.

If it was the UN, or a press conference (from someone who rarely does those), I would submit (regardless of who occupies the presidency) that it's warranted to cover an address to the General Assembly in light of world affairs, or a press conference (at least in part) for similar reasons.

[Reloaden]

Anything weather related or a natural disaster or shooting or terror attack etc of course. I was annoyed that the whole Kavanaugh case was on tv all day long.


These days i always get alerts on my phone and you have 24 hour news stations so i think if its really something concerning and big then it should be preempted.

[blozier2006]

I was annoyed that the whole Kavanaugh case was on tv all day long.

Well, considering the tiny detail that these hearings are for a guy who, if appointed, will have power for the rest of his life, I think all-day coverage was warranted.

[jaywilliams]

Well, considering the tiny detail that these hearings are for a guy who, if appointed, will have power for the rest of his life, I think all-day coverage was warranted.

Nine times out of ten when TPIR or Let's Make A Deal gets pre-empted for breaking news coverage, those bumped episodes will usually get rescheduled for later in the season with the first opportunity being the week of Cyber Monday (for the sake of Price) or the few days between Christmas and New Years (which would apply to LMAD and could possibly apply to Price as well).