Election coverage review

[Roger Kolakowski]

Moving to the Video side...I was impressed with Channel 5's Internet
streaming coverage, but just from a technical aspect.
The streams were "spotty" but really high (well not HD) quality for video
streaming and even using full screen there were very few hic-cups...as for
content it didn't seem as though they had a plan and just jumped on when
they felt like it; using the same studio feed as on the air.

I wonder where this fits into the expansion of licensed live feeds to the
internet? TV doesn't have the same RIAA problems as radio, so if they got
the sponsor's OK and ran local programming with a little more work on the
compression algorithms, they could start their own "WTBS Superstation!"

Roger
WA1KAT


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Donna Halper" <dlh@donnahalper.com>
To: "John Bolduc" <n1qgs@yahoo.com>
Cc: "Boston Radio" <boston-radio-interest@rolinin.BostonRadio.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 12:17 PM
Subject: Re: Election coverage review


> At 11:41 AM 11/9/2006, John Bolduc wrote:
> > >
> > > I noticed that too, but there were damn few radio stations covering
> > > any election news at all.
>
> Interestingly, Air America Radio had wall to wall election coverage
> with some excellent pundits from the left.  Rachel Maddow and David
> Bender anchored.  Alas, the poor night signal in Boston hurt them, so
> I doubt that anyone on our list spent much time listening-- I checked
> them out on the internet a couple of times, and whether you like AAR
> or not, I found their coverage to be very professional.
>
> That said, the media critics seem to have been impressed with the duo
> of Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann on MSNBC. Fox and CNN were neck
> and neck in the cable ratings, but MSNBC's numbers were up over 200%
> (!) from last time they covered an election. Overall, ABC was the
> clear ratings winner.
>
>