Entertainment desk
< August 8	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 10 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 9

TV News Anchors

As this relates to TV, I am asking it here at the Entertainment Desk. I have always wondered about this ... it came up again today ... so I have finally decided to ask. I notice that whenever there is a replacement / stand-in news anchor on a TV news cast, they always make a point of saying: "Good evening, this is John Smith for Channel 8 news ... Bob Jones has the night off." I notice this on all news programs on all stations all the time. Why on earth do they all specifically make a point of telling us that the "usual" anchor has the night off? First, who really cares? And, second, I think most people can assume that -- since Regular Anchor is not on the TV screen -- he must have the night off for any of various reasons (sick, vacation, whatever). So, why do they make such a big deal about this seemingly trivial matter? Is there some type of "behind the scenes" reason? Is there some reason / standard / convention in the industry? The only thing I can come up with is some very large ego on the part of the news anchor who -- even though he is not physically there -- wants some credit on the broadcast. But even that seems implausible and far fetched ...no? Is there some legal / contractual obligation? This has always confused me. I mean ... I doubt that loyal viewers at home (who are accustomed to seeing Regular Anchor) are terrified that the anchor has dropped dead -- I am sure the loyal viewers have the intelligence to assume a less morbid / more commonplace reason for Regular Anchor's absence. Anyone who knows ... or has some ideas ... please shed some light. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 02:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It is tradition. There is no reason for them to ever use their names. Nobody cares. But, it is tradition to always everyone's name whenever possible. Since the tradition exists, you are insulting an anchor by not following tradition. -- Kainaw^(what?) 04:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Perhaps I can buy the tradition argument. Any idea what the basis / roots of this tradition are? (Joseph A. Spadaro 07:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

This is something my wife and I always laugh at also. I would note that, having watched news programmes in maybe 20 or 30 countries around the world, I have only ever heard it from US news Anchors. Rockpocket 05:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I live near Atlanta GA in the US, and they always will say (ads for the news), like "11 alive news at 11 with person 1 and person 2". Well, if person 2 wasn't anchoring, when earlier they had specifically said person 2 was the anchor, it would be a strange advertisement for the news. On the other hand, most people (myself as well), will usually watch one channel's news broadcast, (I usually watch CBS news), perhaps some people grow "Attached" to the anchors.--GTPoompt (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here in Canada the anchors are sometimes announced by a voice-over right before the anchor begins speaking, so it's particularly apt in that case. iames 14:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably quicker than dealing with the hundreds of calls they get if an anchor isn't on the news one night and they don't explain why. Neil ム 15:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, does that really happen? The hundreds of phone calls, that is. I mean, do people really freak out when their usual anchor is not on? ... Can't they use common sense and know that -- geez, just perhaps -- the anchor is sick or has a day off or is on vacation ... ? (Joseph A. Spadaro 15:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

For some people it is very important to have the same person deliver their news on TV everyday for decades. If that person is not there, why should they trust the replacement anchor? It is comforting to know that the regular anchor is alright and is aware that there is a replacement. Also, some people are crazy. Adam Bishop 17:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed (Original Research alert) that in broadcasting, it is very common that on-air personalities who have been fired are not given any further airtime; they just disappear with no trace. I suppose this prevents them from saying nasty things about the station. Perhaps, then, the announcement that Bob Jones has the night off is a slight reassurance that he's not been fired. --LarryMac | Talk 17:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I agree -- meaning, I can see and understand the "comfort" / trust / credibility of having the Regular Anchor there. I am just saying ... if the Regular Anchor is not there ... I assume people are intelligent enough to know that most likely and in all probability, it is a sick day, a vacation day, a day off, etc. Highly unlikely / doubtful that he was abducted by aliens and can't report that night's news -- or that he was the victim of some serial killer -- or that he got killed in an auto accident, etc. I mean common sense would dictate this -- and no one should be freaking out if Regular Anchor is not there for one blessed day. Ugh. (Joseph A. Spadaro 17:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

(OR alert!!) As others say above, I would propose it may have something to do with the "cult of personality" associated with the person providing news in North America. As a foreigner, I was amazed at the amount of analysis and debate over Katie Couric taking the anchor at CBS and how that might/might not effect ratings. In other countries a change in news anchor may be noted in the media, but there is rarely much comment on the effect that will have on viewership. After all, the majority of the editorial and production staff are unchanged, its just the man/woman reading off the autocue 90% of the time. There is much comment in the US about how people have to "trust" their news anchors. [1] That appears pretty superficial to me, I couldn't care less whether they guy reading the news is a complete scoundrel, so long as he can read he autocue well and ask the questions he is supposed to. But then again, compared with television news programmes around the world, many US news programmes are extremely superficial (The news of one local station of mine will occasionally lead with who was voted out on American Idol!) So perhaps its not surprising that so much focus is on the face providing the news, rather the the substance of the news itself. Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy is a very effective parody of this phenomenon. I would propose that explaining the regular anchor is off would be a corollary to this: if you think your audience has a strong affinity or bond with your regular anchor, it makes sense to reassure that they will be back tomorrow and haven't been fired... or killed in a mass brawl of rival news-anchors. Rockpocket 18:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the bit about "After all, the majority of the editorial and production staff are unchanged, it's just the man/woman reading off the autocue", I remember reading at the time that Lloyd Robertson moved from CBC to CTV that one of his reasons was that the CBC felt anchors should just read what they were given, whereas at CTV he would be able to contribute to writing the material he read. --Anonymous, August 13, 2007, 22:57 (UTC).

reward

okay i have skimmed thru wikipeida.theres an area u reward guys to get an answer for a question.anyways am the guy asking bout the celebrity clip.i posted it around yesterday.the guys who is saying "experience" al offer 17000 shillings which is an equivalent to 200 us dollars to the guy who gets the actors voice.my email is •removed• . if u have an answer reach me.whoever the guy is the quote was an interview quote and its posted at about.com its a hollywood site about actors.it contains hundreds of celeb interviews.

I am now interested as to the importance of this question although I have no intention of helping. Are you trying to win a radio competition? E-mail address removed. Lanfear's Bane

I'm sorry, but I am really having a hard time understanding just what it is that the OQ is asking. Corvus cornix 20:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

who is saying the word "experience".i had even attached the celebrities voice .lets just say its going to give some peace of mind.infact am upping my offer to 300 us dollars.it was a competition that ocurred sometimes back and no one ever got the answer.

GTA trainer

i have downloaded the "car spawner" trainer for GTA San Andreas. but i dont know how to play it. can somebody help me?

If you are unsure of how to play GTA San Andreas then you should have received an instruction booklet with the game when you purchased it, or the game may have a tutorial. If you are unsure of how to use the "car spawner" then I suggest you refer to the site you downloaded it from or the creators website, if any. Lanfear's Bane

Try GameFAQs, this is more their speciality. Neil ム 15:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who was this coach?

I had watched the series "Most Outrageous Videos" on NBC on channel 5 here in the St. Louis area. I saw a clip where a hockey coach goes out on the ice with a wooden cane on the ice. The announcer said that he had suddenly became a blind man, and the coach was acting like a blind man. Then, after a while, the coach throws the cane in an angry manner and mouths off. It was in the "Angry Mismanagement" segment. I'm just wondering...who is this coach who threw the cane?

What level of hockey was this? What teams were playing, what year was it? Adam Bishop 17:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that video. I forget what level of hockey it was, though. The coach wasn't using a real cane; he was holding a hockey stick by the blade end pretending it was a cane. — Michael J 23:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radio royalties

Today a local (Vermont, USA) radio station was doing a promotion where you could request any song (with minor stipulations) and they would play it. Their stipulations were that it not have any vulgar language and that they would be able to find it either in their library or online (they were using the iTunes music store). So, this got me wondering about the royalties and how that works. If they download a song that's not one of their regular artists and isn't from a label that they usually play music from, how do they get the royalties to the respective music labels and artists? Are they required to write the song and artist down and then go back later and research who should get the royalties? Dismas|^(talk) 22:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radio stations are required by the FCC to keep track of what songs they play, so that the proper royalties are paid. Corvus cornix 22:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The process is often simplified to keeping track of every song played - plus artist and writers' names - for one week every three months or similar, plus sending in a log of the regular playlist. This is a little less fair from the point of view of royalties, but is easier from the book-keeping point of view. Since different stations have different log weeks (here in New Zealand called "APRA weeks" for obvious reasons) things all even out in the end. As far as the other end of the process is concerned, performing rights associations like APRA and ASCAP require their songwriter-members to submit information on each song they write, giving title, style, length, first recording artist, writers' names and agreed division of royalties. It's a relatively simple job from their end to compare lists and tally things up, after which royalties are sent out to the writers. Similar sorts of things go on with songs used on soundtracks of tv, radio and film releases. An analogous process is done with live venues - there each venue that allows live music pays a fee to the performing rights association annually. Any songwriter registered to the performing rights association has the option of listing any song that they wrote and which has been played live at that venue, which is thens ent is as a "miscellaneous performance return". Grutness...wha? 01:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]