A really different kind of host switch

[Jimmy Owen]

Wouldn't it be better to omit erronious information?

I'll take "Ironic Spelling Errors" for $1000, please!

Dam spelchek

[Jimmy Owen]

Wouldn't it be better to omit erronious information?  The TV Guide Magazine never listed hosts of non-celebrity shows unless it was the debut show.  What I did like about the magazine was that you could look up who played what character on the movie or series episode you just watched, remember that actor or actress and scan the listings for that person in other shows.

I'm sure any on-line guide that wishes to show cast information is programmed to deliver something if something is available.  It's not going to have the AI to know which episode is which if no other information is available to give an accurate cast listing.

The days of having an incredibly detailed and meticulously edited guide, whether it be TV Guide or someone else, is long gone and will never be back.  In that era, being pretty much the de facto only place you could get information except from your local paper, it would have the revenue stream to support the 700 or so odd channels there were in the 1970s with strong copy and a lot of ancillary information, sourced from only 4 networks with a smaller stranglehold on the overall schedule of the affiliate.  We support over 25,000 channels now, and even that is not exhaustive.  We don't have The Okemos Channel, for example.

That doesn't mean I can't want it  I know we can't go back to 1975, but there's got to be a middleground.  I wouldn't even put cable channels in the TV Guide mag, since cable subscribers have on screen guides.  Just the local channels with detailed info would meet my needs.

[Tim L]

I just recently won a January 8-14, 1954 Lake Erie Edition TV Guide on ebay.  It will have only 5 listed channels..What I like about the old TV Guides from this era, up until the early 1970's is that they many times will list specific anchors on each local newscast, as well as have more detailed listings in  general.

 Most major editions,  also went to the expense of having an "editor" in each city to write columns each week on local happenings, such as upcoming new local or syndicated shows, schedule changes. comings and goings of local people in TV, personal appearances of local and network stars, physical changes at individual stations (Channel number changes, network switches, transmitter power increases, etc.) and possible new channels, though many times this didnt come to pass..A late 1953 Lake Erie "Dateline" listed these probable channels in the Cleveland Market by fall 1954..


WNBK Channel 3 Cleveland
WEWS Channel 5 Cleveland
WXEL Channel 8 Cleveland
WHK-TV Channel 19 Cleveland (Not used until WOIO in 1985)
WKBN-TV Channel 27 Youngstown
WAKR-TV Channel 49 Akron
WERE-TV 65 Cleveland
WFMJ-TV 73 Youngstown (would move to 21 by Summer 1954)

The local colums appeared to be phased out by 1960..

[mmb5]

That doesn't mean I can't want it  I know we can't go back to 1975, but there's got to be a middleground.  I wouldn't even put cable channels in the TV Guide mag, since cable subscribers have on screen guides.  Just the local channels with detailed info would meet my needs.

The middle ground is the magazine still exists.  Remember we sold it for $1, and Wall Street thought we got too much money.

Even in the "golden" era, TV Guide was reliant on what was given to them, not on what they sought out.  The networks would mail scripts for the editors to write the blurbs.  The networks and cable channels now pretty much give a blurb that our editors have to rewrite so that you could cut at some point and only take the words before it.  And to answer the next question, the archive of scripts is long, long gone.

[Jimmy Owen]

That doesn't mean I can't want it  I know we can't go back to 1975, but there's got to be a middleground.  I wouldn't even put cable channels in the TV Guide mag, since cable subscribers have on screen guides.  Just the local channels with detailed info would meet my needs.

The middle ground is the magazine still exists.  Remember we sold it for $1, and Wall Street thought we got too much money.

Even in the "golden" era, TV Guide was reliant on what was given to them, not on what they sought out.  The networks would mail scripts for the editors to write the blurbs.  The networks and cable channels now pretty much give a blurb that our editors have to rewrite so that you could cut at some point and only take the words before it.  And to answer the next question, the archive of scripts is long, long gone.

While I still subscribe, I have to admit I haven't read it lately.  It's too much like Entertainment Weekly for my taste.  If circulation is up, I guess it's working.  It's like today's game shows.  I don't like them, but others do, so they must be doing something right.  I'm just not a fan.  I used to look forward to the Fall Preview issue, but this year's came and went.  Was it worth reading this year?

[trainman]

Most major editions, also went to the expense of having an "editor" in each city to write columns each week on local happenings, such as upcoming new local or syndicated shows, schedule changes. comings and goings of local people in TV, personal appearances of local and network stars, physical changes at individual stations (Channel number changes, network switches, transmitter power increases, etc.) and possible new channels, though many times this didnt come to pass..

I believe most if not all of those were holdovers from the "pre-national" era (i.e., before the various local TV magazines in various cities got brought under the "national" TV Guide umbrella by Walter Annenberg).