I have come to the conclusion that RadioActive is here to troll the viewers, and RadioAaron is here to troll RadioActive. 🤔

They actually have one, an adjacency that goes right before the forecast itself. It's The Preszler Law Firm, which uses the tagline, "You Don't Pay Unless They Win."

RadioActive wrote:

The real irony of this is that most producers absolutely hate leading with weather.

Gee! It's almost like they know it's bad television!

RadioActive wrote:

Except when it isn't and serves a purpose. Like this week. But don't take my word for it, which you obviously don't.  The fact every other station in town led with weather is proof someone thought it was a good idea.  

We're back at the original question, what is the purpose? What is that experience giving me that I can't get somewhere else? "Oh gee! They're saying it's snowing...... good thing I watch CityTV at 6 O'clock because my house doesn't have windows, my phone doesn't have a weather app and enviroment Canada doesn't send me localized alerts if something is truly dangerous. Good thing I kept my eyes closed all day until 6 O'clock to watch someone tell me the weather!"

Global, City and CBC Toronto combined had a lower rating than CFTO. I agree their product is filled with errors of late, but when it comes to weather specialists, there is no point. Case closed. 

Never thought I'd see the day I became to you what P1 is to me! 

I do watch newscasts, not as a fan, but as someone working in the industry. I am well experienced, and that experience extends into this year.

The problem is retired guys don't understand that the pie is shrinking at such a pace that those of us left in the business can't continue to justify the ways of the past just because the generation before us were told how to do it once in 1979. Plus, I feel it's safe to assume that you left over ten years ago, so a lot has changed since then. Corus is either going to combust or be sold for parts, I'm fairly shocked City is still around as a network, and Bell told MP's that CTV news loses 40 million dollars a year...... it's a bad picture.

I absolutely care for the elderly, including my neighbours, but once again you're acting like these stations produce newscasts as some charitable act for the greater good. It's a business, it's peoples livelihoods, it has financial implications to make poor decisions, you can be fired, and ALL decisions are centered around those aged 18-54 whether you like it or not, that is a fact. If anything, CBC should be the ones doing news for everyone without regard for advertiser demos. 

What matters to you might not matter to others, and certainly is unlikely to matter to the majority. Just because you enjoy waiting around all day to see a dedicated person present a radar map doesn't mean that it's good enough television to make it part of everyones routine. You have to have a unique offering that plays to the masses, offering value to someone's life they can't get somewhere else. If I'm a newsroom manager and I'm given a budget to cover my staffing needs, am I best to spend my last spot hiring a weather person to fill 5 minutes a night from the studio, or should I spend that money to hire a reporter that will work on real journalism and make people share and tune into my product (newscast)? You can't have both. That's the reality people working in newsrooms face in 2026. There isn't endless money rolling in like there was 25 years ago. I agree their presentation can be improved if the anchors are going to do it, but I don't see why you'd waste money hiring someone. Why do you think more than half of the weather presenters (in this continent and beyond) are hot females? It's because they know nobody in the demo gives a crap about the forecast but will tune in for Tataina's tatas. They can hire a weather person if they want, but it's not going to help them long-term because you're telling me something at 6 O'clock I knew when I woke up. Also, nobody has to work beside me... I work from home. Case closed ;) 

I spend a lot of money on the products advertised on television. 
News on CTV is an advertising business. 
If weather is gone I have no desire to spend any money on the products advertised. 
I am very thankful for weather coverage on CTV Toronto. I don't care what the other options are.
I have no use for a lawyer, but there are other ads. Good to know what Pizza place I might want to order from. 

I'm not arguing that "almost everything in a local newscast is irrelevant because you can find it online" - I am saying weather reports (on regular weather days) and weather reporters are a poor use of shrinking ad dollars in 2026, and the money is better spent on journalism. I do agree that the presentation with anchors has been poor and needs addressing...

For what it's worth, I'd bet the Rogers, Bell and Corus' of the world would love to cancel most (if not all) of their local newscasts, but they can't. They're required to have OTA stations with transmitters if they want to simsub lucrative American programs, and they're required to have 14 hours of local newscasts per week on those channels, they can't charge subscriber fees, they must spend a certain amount of revenue, they have to offer closed captioning and described video, they have to spend a certain amount on Canadian productions, they have to show a certain percentage of Canadian programs but can't produce all of them themselves, and they have to report on all of this every year.....

Not to mention... imagine the public backlash if that actually occurred and they pulled out of network TV altogether? A lot of folks would be cancelling their Rogers, Bell and Shaw services as a protest. My point is, they're more-or-less stuck..... so I take issue with you inferring that they can easily wash their hands of this if they so choose

News ratings are down 70% from their peak in this country. You can't expect the same product to be delivered and wish for it to continue for years to come. We must adapt