Kirk, as always you make some great points. Yes, ESPN and CNN were certainly the early adopters of the "lower thirds." As I recall, they became prevalent in New York City, and around the country, during 9/11 coverage. Initially used to update disaster information, flight cancelations, and other important information in the first critical days and weeks after the terror attack.
After that, they stayed, earning a permanent place in newscasts throughout the country--surviving to this day.
But I wonder, should all news time periods abandoned the lower thirds.?
I think you would certainly agree that lower thirds have their place in emergency situations--severe weather, massive floods, fires, etc. And I would agree time to chuck the lower thirds for afternoon and evening newscasts.
But what about the morning newscasts? It's been a while since I've seen research on how viewers watch a morning newscasts, but as I recall, it's a busy time in the household. So, how many viewers are sitting down and watching the morning news as opposed to having it on in the background and listening? I think the average viewer only watches a morning newscast for approximately 20 minutes. With news at our fingertips now, I wonder if that has changed?
Seems to me the "morning crawl" or lower thirds provides a service for viewers, providing frequent weather updates (# 1 reason folks watch a morning--in fact--all newscasts.) And headlines for other major local and national stories. As such, the lower thirds provide a tease of sorts to alert to busy viewer who glances at the screen about some story that may interest them. Morning news, like all newscasts is linear---it seems to take forever to watch a story these days, especially in the morning--often a rehash from the night before--or the lasted pistol packing punk hold up at the local 7-11 (complete with surveillance video.) But I digress.
Thus morning newscast lower thirds provide a service to those who who have a busy morning but might in interested in the weather (if they missed the four weather hits in a half hour segment) or a story of interest. So let's keep the morning newscast "crawl."
As for the lawyer and car sales ads---well, I was about to say ditch them too. But let's face it. Local stations are struggling financially. If a crawling ad can help pay a news salary, I see keep them!
Nick, I’ve always drawn the distinction between “tickers” and “crawls” — as the latter being essential for stations in emergency situations like severe weather or major disasters. In those cases they are truly useful and needed. But I would probably also yield that your position on keeping tickers on in certain newscast situations, for instance in mornings, might still make some sense. However, I also know that the first thing people go to when they wake up each morning is their phone rather than to the television set, so I don’t think a newscast without a ticker would always be lesser, except as you also correctly note—in the ad sales category. Then I am quite sure my argument for less clutter would lose to making less revenue!
Makes sense and I agree about the phone. I go to several apps for news while watching a morning show. Not much news on the Today show after 7:35. But occasionally I'll see something on the crawl that interests me--and then I'll Google it or head to the AP app. Sometimes the story isn't there. Oh, we live in a brave new world--happy I was practicing in the "good ole days."
Never liked the ticker - seems it took over all news broadcasts at 9/11 - necessary at the time - but then never went away. It's great when you're muted at the gym, but most of the time does the exact opposite of what we are TRAINED to do with video storytelling - focus on the story ! Good riddance I say, and if the worldwide sports leader has to lead us out of the cluttered wilderness, so be it.
Kirk, as always you make some great points. Yes, ESPN and CNN were certainly the early adopters of the "lower thirds." As I recall, they became prevalent in New York City, and around the country, during 9/11 coverage. Initially used to update disaster information, flight cancelations, and other important information in the first critical days and weeks after the terror attack.
After that, they stayed, earning a permanent place in newscasts throughout the country--surviving to this day.
But I wonder, should all news time periods abandoned the lower thirds.?
I think you would certainly agree that lower thirds have their place in emergency situations--severe weather, massive floods, fires, etc. And I would agree time to chuck the lower thirds for afternoon and evening newscasts.
But what about the morning newscasts? It's been a while since I've seen research on how viewers watch a morning newscasts, but as I recall, it's a busy time in the household. So, how many viewers are sitting down and watching the morning news as opposed to having it on in the background and listening? I think the average viewer only watches a morning newscast for approximately 20 minutes. With news at our fingertips now, I wonder if that has changed?
Seems to me the "morning crawl" or lower thirds provides a service for viewers, providing frequent weather updates (# 1 reason folks watch a morning--in fact--all newscasts.) And headlines for other major local and national stories. As such, the lower thirds provide a tease of sorts to alert to busy viewer who glances at the screen about some story that may interest them. Morning news, like all newscasts is linear---it seems to take forever to watch a story these days, especially in the morning--often a rehash from the night before--or the lasted pistol packing punk hold up at the local 7-11 (complete with surveillance video.) But I digress.
Thus morning newscast lower thirds provide a service to those who who have a busy morning but might in interested in the weather (if they missed the four weather hits in a half hour segment) or a story of interest. So let's keep the morning newscast "crawl."
As for the lawyer and car sales ads---well, I was about to say ditch them too. But let's face it. Local stations are struggling financially. If a crawling ad can help pay a news salary, I see keep them!
Hope you had a great vacation.
Nick
Nick, I’ve always drawn the distinction between “tickers” and “crawls” — as the latter being essential for stations in emergency situations like severe weather or major disasters. In those cases they are truly useful and needed. But I would probably also yield that your position on keeping tickers on in certain newscast situations, for instance in mornings, might still make some sense. However, I also know that the first thing people go to when they wake up each morning is their phone rather than to the television set, so I don’t think a newscast without a ticker would always be lesser, except as you also correctly note—in the ad sales category. Then I am quite sure my argument for less clutter would lose to making less revenue!
Makes sense and I agree about the phone. I go to several apps for news while watching a morning show. Not much news on the Today show after 7:35. But occasionally I'll see something on the crawl that interests me--and then I'll Google it or head to the AP app. Sometimes the story isn't there. Oh, we live in a brave new world--happy I was practicing in the "good ole days."
Never liked the ticker - seems it took over all news broadcasts at 9/11 - necessary at the time - but then never went away. It's great when you're muted at the gym, but most of the time does the exact opposite of what we are TRAINED to do with video storytelling - focus on the story ! Good riddance I say, and if the worldwide sports leader has to lead us out of the cluttered wilderness, so be it.