Omaha Local News Channels

Ryan j · Post by **Ryan j** » Tue Feb 25, 2014 8:01 pm

For whatever reason, I usually watch WOWT and they seem to make a mistake almost every night.

(wrong video footage, no audio, mic not working etc etc).

Garrett · Post by **Garrett** » Tue Feb 25, 2014 9:22 pm

I don't think any local broadcasts are particularly great. NBC Chicago certainly doesn't feel that incredible.

Omababe · Post by **Omababe** » Wed Feb 26, 2014 7:19 am

S33 wrote:Spend any amount of time away from Omaha, and you can quickly see how bad our local broadcasts really are. It isn't "which one is better," it's simply a competition of a lesser degree of suckage.

Agree 110%! Even in many markets smaller than Omaha the production and delivery are far superior.

One notable exception. One station in Grand Junction. Same ownership as WOWT. The term "web channel" gave it away.

In my not so humble opinion, for a good local newscast, it will not be immediately obvious, from the point of style and delivery, to a person just tuning in, whether it's local news or a network newscast.

NovakOmaha · Post by **NovakOmaha** » Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:38 pm

I've now been gone from Omaha for over 5 years, though I do visit on a somewhat regular basis. At home I watch the NBC affiliate in Detroit and the production is, to use the word superior isn't even enough, so much more professional compared to the Omaha stations. Go to Clickondetroit.com and watch sometime. The weather people don't go ballistic if bad weather is expected, the anchors can banter without embarrassing themselves and the sportscasters are funny and informative. I agree that not all larger market stations are that much better than Omaha. It must just be the management style.
I just cringe when I am back in Omaha and watch any of the local channels. It's horrible.

One thing that strikes me is the local newspapers. Here in Detroit there are two dailies, The Free Press and the News. Both are chain-owned. I've never found the papers to be very newsy. Tons of ads. As little content as they can get away with. In no way take this to mean that I am saying that the local Omaha monopoly fishwrap is good, just that it has more news. Maybe it's just me.

S33 · Post by **S33** » Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:11 pm

NovakOmaha wrote: the anchors can banter without embarrassing themselves and the sportscasters are funny and informative.

But there was one quality sportscaster, who was pretty dang funny, and that was Matt Schick, but he got the |expletive| out as soon as ESPN came calling, and rightfully so.

jessep28 · Post by **jessep28** » Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:03 pm

Because of our fine local news stations, this exists. Granted, it was KXVO, KPTM's adopted step-sister of a station.

[BBvideo 560,340][/BBvideo]

S33 · Post by **S33** » Fri Feb 28, 2014 9:32 am

Thought this was funny...

Channel 7's latest prediction for this weekend's weather is 2-14 inches of snow. How could one go wrong...

I should be a doctor: "Sir, you have cancer or you don't"

GetUrban · Post by **GetUrban** » Fri Feb 28, 2014 9:50 am

S33 wrote:Thought this was funny...

Channel 7's latest prediction for this weekend's weather is 2-14 inches of snow. How could one go wrong...

I should be a doctor: "Sir, you have cancer or you don't"

They've got us covered!

Guess we could still get 0-1"....that would be funny!

icejammer · Post by **icejammer** » Fri Feb 28, 2014 9:59 am

Where are you getting this 2-14"? Their newscast this morning had it at 3-6", and that's what they show on their website as well.

Post by **Brad** » Fri Feb 28, 2014 10:14 am

S33 wrote:Thought this was funny...

Channel 7's latest prediction for this weekend's weather is 2-14 inches of snow. How could one go wrong...

I should be a doctor: "Sir, you have cancer or you don't"

Even right now (10am) the computer models still don't know what's going on.

The NWS Probability Map shows we have a 50/50 shot at at 2", yet the NAM and GFS both show us around the 6-8" range...

Post by **Coyote** » Fri Feb 28, 2014 10:17 am

icejammer wrote:Where are you getting this 2-14"? Their newscast this morning had it at 3-6", and that's what they show on their website as well.

Yesterday they reported two different computer model's predictions. I forget what they were called; the European???... One predicted 2 inches, the other predicted 14.

S33 · Post by **S33** » Fri Feb 28, 2014 11:09 am

icejammer wrote:Where are you getting this 2-14"? Their newscast this morning had it at 3-6", and that's what they show on their website as well.

Was reading it from their website. Talked about the discrepancy between the two models. What I gathered from it, is that they are still uncertain with how to apply the data with each model.

Post by **Brad** » Fri Feb 28, 2014 11:11 am

I am actively rooting for 4 to 6. I have a photo I need to take and couple others I want to take.

Busguy2010 · Post by **Busguy2010** » Fri Feb 28, 2014 5:40 pm

It would be hard to take a stance when none of your models are close to the same number. Lately KETV has been saying 3-6" but it still seems like they are uncertain. I am hoping they are wrong and we get a foot. This winter has been boring.

jessep28 · Post by **jessep28** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:05 pm

I'm not intending to thread jack here, but if our computer models can vary that widely on a weather event 24-48 hours out, how are we to trust any of the predictions regarding climate change?

Post by **BRoss** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:46 pm

jessep28 wrote:I'm not intending to thread jack here, but if our computer models can vary that widely on a weather event 24-48 hours out, how are we to trust any of the predictions regarding climate change?

Well the argument for global warming is based on historical trends, not about predicting the future. Nobody is actually sure on what its effects will be. More chaotic weather is one theory.

RNcyanide · Post by **RNcyanide** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 3:05 pm

Busguy2010 wrote:It would be hard to take a stance when none of your models are close to the same number. Lately KETV has been saying 3-6" but it still seems like they are uncertain. I am hoping they are wrong and we get a foot. This winter has been boring.

I would love that. I've been wanting a good snow.

bigredmed · Post by **bigredmed** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 3:51 pm

HR Paperstacks wrote:
jessep28 wrote:I'm not intending to thread jack here, but if our computer models can vary that widely on a weather event 24-48 hours out, how are we to trust any of the predictions regarding climate change?
Well the argument for global warming is based on historical trends, not about predicting the future. Nobody is actually sure on what its effects will be. More chaotic weather is one theory.

The models are based on different data sets. This weekend's storm discrepancy is based on different model's use and weighting of climate data (jet stream direction, polar temps, ocean temps, etc). Normally, they vary, but usually not this wildly (as told to me by an actual meteorologist).

The climate models are similarly variance prone, but of late, we have seen deviousness creep into the models more than climate data as a cause of error (data compression to make the temp changes look more dramatic, and clipping off the climate data to include only part of the recent Maunder Minimum were two of the original (and sadly, still done) sources of man-made error in the climate models.)

nativeomahan · Post by **nativeomahan** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 8:16 am

The fact that two years ago March blew away the all time record for warmest March ever recorded, for the entire nation, by an astounding margin, and today (March 2, 2014) is expected to blow out the all time record for being the coldest March day (ANY March day) ever recorded, by a wide margin, says something about something going wrong with weather patterns. Our records go back over 140 years. California is experiencing its worst drought...ever recorded. And all time record winter warmth for the American Southwest this year. And my cousin in Chicago, along with 7,000,000 of his neighbors, are experiencing one of the very coldest and very snowiest winters ever recorded. These wild climate records, all occurring in close time proximity to one another, are very likely not occurring by random chance.

S33 · Post by **S33** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 9:41 am

HR Paperstacks wrote:
jessep28 wrote:I'm not intending to thread jack here, but if our computer models can vary that widely on a weather event 24-48 hours out, how are we to trust any of the predictions regarding climate change?
Well the argument for global warming is based on historical trends, not about predicting the future. Nobody is actually sure on what its effects will be. More chaotic weather is one theory.

Sorry, I have to fix this for you real quickly...

"The argument for global warming is not based upon historical meteorological data, it's simply argued by taking a microscopic snapshot of data collected over the tiniest imaginable amount of time over the long course of Earth's history"

In a literal sense, drawing any actionable conclusion from 100 years of data in Earth's climatological history, would be like determining the outcome of your professional careers by observing one one-hundredth of a second on a single given day of your career. Actually, it would be even far less than that.

I'm not arguing the presence of global warming or lack thereof, or whether it was man-made or not, I'm simply saying that it is stupid to take what little data we have and draw definitive conclusions - unless, of course, one needs to make a political argument, then go right ahead, because those are never based upon accurate, in-context data.

S33 · Post by **S33** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 9:46 am

nativeomahan wrote:The fact that two years ago March blew away the all time record for warmest March ever recorded, for the entire nation, by an astounding margin, and today (March 2, 2014) is expected to blow out the all time record for being the coldest March day (ANY March day) ever recorded, by a wide margin, says something about something going wrong with weather patterns. Our records go back over 140 years. California is experiencing its worst drought...ever recorded. And all time record winter warmth for the American Southwest this year. And my cousin in Chicago, along with 7,000,000 of his neighbors, are experiencing one of the very coldest and very snowiest winters ever recorded. These wild climate records, all occurring in close time proximity to one another, are very likely not occurring by random chance.

Unless you are some crazy Christian fundamentalist who believes the Earth is only 6,000 years old, never argue any type of climate patterns using only 140 years of data on a planet 4.5 billion years old.

Fact is, we just got here, and only recently have built these fancy instruments and proliferated them globally to record our weather patterns. We will always be breaking records of all types because we just started recording the data.

Cheebus Christ, people...

bigredmed · Post by **bigredmed** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 10:22 am

S33 wrote:
HR Paperstacks wrote:
jessep28 wrote:I'm not intending to thread jack here, but if our computer models can vary that widely on a weather event 24-48 hours out, how are we to trust any of the predictions regarding climate change?
Well the argument for global warming is based on historical trends, not about predicting the future. Nobody is actually sure on what its effects will be. More chaotic weather is one theory.
Sorry, I have to fix this for you real quickly...

"The argument for global warming is not based upon historical meteorological data, it's simply argued by taking a microscopic snapshot of data collected over the tiniest imaginable amount of time over the long course of Earth's history"

In a literal sense, drawing any actionable conclusion from 100 years of data in Earth's climatological history, would be like determining the outcome of your professional careers by observing one one-hundredth of a second on a single given day of your career. Actually, it would be even far less than that.

I'm not arguing the presence of global warming or lack thereof, or whether it was man-made or not, I'm simply saying that it is stupid to take what little data we have and draw definitive conclusions - unless, of course, one needs to make a political argument, then go right ahead, because those are never based upon accurate, in-context data.

We actually have data for weather going back several centuries, just not as good a data set as we have had since the 1880. The climate people make inferences based on ice cores and fossil records. The solar cycle has been recorded faithfully since the 1700's. We have accurate data regarding the Maunder Minimum and the rather nasty cold weather we had then. We are in a similar solar cycle now. The cold weather is not that surprising since the last time this solar cycle happened, this is what they got. 25% of the inhabitants of the northern hemisphere experienced starvation. The period lasted throughout the 1700's and into the middle of the 1800's, followed by a warming period (that we have come out of recently.) Want to get a sense of how cold it was then? Look at paintings of our founding fathers. Full coats and heavy clothing in July in a solid brick building and no ventilation.

S33 · Post by **S33** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 10:31 am

bigredmed wrote:
We actually have data for weather going back several centuries, just not as good a data set as we have had since the 1880. The climate people make inferences based on ice cores and fossil records. The solar cycle has been recorded faithfully since the 1700's. We have accurate data regarding the Maunder Minimum and the rather nasty cold weather we had then. We are in a similar solar cycle now. The cold weather is not that surprising since the last time this solar cycle happened, this is what they got. 25% of the inhabitants of the northern hemisphere experienced starvation. The period lasted throughout the 1700's and into the middle of the 1800's, followed by a warming period (that we have come out of recently.) Want to get a sense of how cold it was then? Look at paintings of our founding fathers. Full coats and heavy clothing in July in a solid brick building and no ventilation.

I don't know if you can consider some of that "accurate" data in the science community, but I get what you are saying.

But yes, Scientists have other ways of determining climate norms in different time periods, and have ways of measuring the amount of carbon that was present in the atmosphere, and using that data in an argument is fine, but most people don't. Many climate "experts" want to talk about the difference of our weather versus their great grandparents weather, and it's silly.

Even then, I don't see how it's irrefutable evidence of "global warming". Climate change, yes, because that is what the climate does, it changes.

bigredmed · Post by **bigredmed** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 11:06 am

S33 wrote:
bigredmed wrote:
We actually have data for weather going back several centuries, just not as good a data set as we have had since the 1880. The climate people make inferences based on ice cores and fossil records. The solar cycle has been recorded faithfully since the 1700's. We have accurate data regarding the Maunder Minimum and the rather nasty cold weather we had then. We are in a similar solar cycle now. The cold weather is not that surprising since the last time this solar cycle happened, this is what they got. 25% of the inhabitants of the northern hemisphere experienced starvation. The period lasted throughout the 1700's and into the middle of the 1800's, followed by a warming period (that we have come out of recently.) Want to get a sense of how cold it was then? Look at paintings of our founding fathers. Full coats and heavy clothing in July in a solid brick building and no ventilation.
I don't know if you can consider some of that "accurate" data in the science community, but I get what you are saying.

But yes, Scientists have other ways of determining climate norms in different time periods, and have ways of measuring the amount of carbon that was present in the atmosphere, and using that data in an argument is fine, but most people don't. Many climate "experts" want to talk about the difference of our weather versus their great grandparents weather, and it's silly.

Even then, I don't see how it's irrefutable evidence of "global warming". Climate change, yes, because that is what the climate does, it changes.

First: I didn't say that it was accurate data.
Second: Not a fan of the whole "global warming" craze, especially as it came on the heels of the recent "global ice age" craze 10 years before.
Third: The climate data has been corrupted for what appears to be nefarious reasons. The hockey stick is one of the early corruptions uncovered. The ignorance of the Maunder Minimum and the tendency to cut the first half of this period off the climate records so that all you see is the last half of the trough cold period and the warming post-Maunder is another classic bit of data massage.

You and I are on the same page when it comes to the Global Warming thing. Just that we have several centuries of data for Europe and while it may be less accurate than the precise measurements possible today, it has not been shown to be wildly wrong. The available data for points in North America also is reasonably accurate. After 1880, the data points are collected with more precision globally and certainly here in the US and in Western Europe. From this point, accurate data exists to recreate storms for the purpose of research and comparison.

bbinks · Post by **bbinks** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 12:15 pm

When I was a child, I don't recall the weathermen using models. They had no graphics embedded on the broadcast, no greenboard to stand in front of. They had a large map of the USA, and wrote on it with dry-erase markers. They had more accurate forecasts then, then they do now. I guess the days of using satellite imagery and intuition/experience are long gone.

Collin · Post by **Collin** » Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:31 am

Late Night with Seth Meyers had a WOWT mug on the desk

Post by **Coyote** » Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:19 am

Collin wrote:Late Night with Seth Meyers had a WOWT mug on the desk

Was this tonight?

Stargazer · Post by **Stargazer** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 8:50 pm

I think KMTV or WOWT should hire KOLN's Taylor Kilgore... might see a boost in their ratings.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TitosBuritoBarn · Post by **TitosBuritoBarn** » Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:16 am

This may have been discussed already and I've completely missed it, but typically call letters for media stations begin with K west of the Mississippi River, and W east of the Mississippi River. How is it that WOWT doesn't conform to this?

Post by **Coyote** » Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:33 am

Grandfathered.

bigredmed · Post by **bigredmed** » Wed Mar 19, 2014 7:42 pm

TitosBuritoBarn wrote:This may have been discussed already and I've completely missed it, but typically call letters for media stations begin with K west of the Mississippi River, and W east of the Mississippi River. How is it that WOWT doesn't conform to this?

WOW was a high wattage station in Omaha before the convention was codified. Stands for Woodmen of the World. They owned it originally. Subsequent owners kept the license till channel 6 got sold and became WOWT. Basically, the equivalent of the Amateur Service's vanity call sign program.

iamjacobm · Post by **iamjacobm** » Fri Mar 21, 2014 7:39 am

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/03 ... 05638.html

KETV news station clearly thought that two weeks was long enough to wait before turning the Malaysia Airlines news story into a quirky promotional game.

According to The Daily Dot, the Omaha-based news station tweeted a photo to promote one of its stories on Malaysian Airlines Flight MH370.

No effort was spared in the production values. The promotional photo was carefully mocked up to merge a Lost TV show advert, with the words 'Flight 370'.

Collin · Post by **Collin** » Wed Jun 18, 2014 12:11 pm

TVSpy made this info graphic on what the local stations covered in the first five minutes on Monday. Link

nativeomahan · Post by **nativeomahan** » Thu Jul 31, 2014 11:16 pm

Am I losing my mind, or did the male news anchor on Channel 3 suddenly start sporting some sort of furry animal atop his follicle challenged head? I bust out laughing every time he comes on the screen.

Uffda · Post by **Uffda** » Fri Aug 15, 2014 9:41 pm

I knew there was a reason I like the KMTV morning show and it was because of the weathermen/meteorologists.

damonhynes · Post by **damonhynes** » Tue Aug 26, 2014 7:40 pm

Hey, y'all: I miss Ted's blog too, so I started a FB page in the same vein.

OmaNews FB Page

I'd love for more feedback and observations. Thanks!

nativeomahan · Post by **nativeomahan** » Thu Sep 04, 2014 6:05 pm

Just watched channel 6 reporter Jackie Ochoa spend 15 seconds live on the air doing a remote, not knowing she was live. She gave out the most gigantic yawn and facial contortion I have ever seen come out of a woman, followed by an announcement to somebody that she has no idea what time it is. Indeed.

GRANDPASMUCKER · Post by **GRANDPASMUCKER** » Thu Sep 04, 2014 9:02 pm

nativeomahan wrote:Just watched channel 6 reporter Jackie Ochoa spend 15 seconds live on the air doing a remote, not knowing she was live. She gave out the most gigantic yawn and facial contortion I have ever seen come out of a woman, followed by an announcement to somebody that she has no idea what time it is. Indeed.

I saw that too. That was a gaff of preposterous proportions.

nativeomahan · Post by **nativeomahan** » Thu Sep 04, 2014 9:17 pm

Cox Cable loops Channel 6 "News" on channel 120. I am going to try and capture it on my smartphone if they replay it.

Here it is: " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

skinzfan23 · Post by **skinzfan23** » Thu Sep 04, 2014 10:07 pm

Nice

At least she is easy on the eyes.

Which evening news do you watch the most (5p 6p 10p)