Talk:WCCO-TV

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Baseball Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Minnesota High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Television: Stations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Television stations task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

In this section, "Notable former on-air staff," the word "deceased" is repeatedly used redundantly. "Fred Smith (1935-2005)" is enough, not "Fred Smith (1935-2005); deceased". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.84.194 (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be better if WCCO Radio and WCCO-TV were split into 2 separate articles? - Hinto 22:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. While they started with a common history, WCCO-TV and WCCO-Radio are really two very different programming entities. -- Kaszeta 13:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm bringing up the matter again, and I have added a split template atop the page. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beaten to it... --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To all editors, please see the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Newscast_schedules.2C_redux, where the issue of removing locally originated programming schedules is discussed. Calwatch 05:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though they still seem to be using the CBS eye logo for their watermark, all new WCCO segments and the set seem to bear a newer rectangular logo. See here for example. I don't think it should be the primary logo yet at least, but are there any objections to adding it the logo mini-gallery? Sean Hayford O'Leary 06:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found Image:712big.jpg and noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. Someone will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If it was obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If there are other files on this page, consider checking that they have specified their source and are tagged properly, too. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 04:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:712big.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kcco old.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 15:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wccoblue4.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

contribs) 06:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Approved fair use rationale has been added. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice Mike Max has been doing weekends for over a month at least and not just filling in not sure if he is now the weekend sports or if Bob is on long term vacation or what. Just though i would point that out.

July 15th 2008 WCCO in press release that Chris Shaffer will now become the prime weather anchor during there evening news 5pm, 6pm, 10pm Mondays - Fridays. So i changed it in the main section that he is now the evening weather anchor. I think for now Ron Trenda will do mornings now until they hire someone to do the morning news and Mike Fairborne will go back to weekends i am guessing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jminnesota (talk • contribs) 05:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "WCCO-TV" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (January 2011) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

template. There are almost no references in the whole article.TjoeC (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that the Newswatch 4 moniker was used a couple times, and then also states Newswatch 4 was never used by WCCO. Obviously mutually exclusive. So which is it?TjoeC (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Please do not add unreferenced names as entries to the list of former employees in articles. Including this type of material in articles does not abide by current consensus and its inclusion is strongly discouraged in our policies and guidelines. The rationales are as follows:

1. WP:NOT tells us, Wikipedia is "not an indiscriminate collection of information." As that section describes, just because something is true, doesn't necessarily mean the info belongs in Wikipedia.
2. As per WP:V, we cannot include information in Wikipedia that is not verifiable and sourced.
3. WP:Source list tells us that lists included within articles (including people's names) are subject to the same need for references as any other information in the article.
4. Per WP:BLP, we have to be especially careful about including un-sourced info about living persons.

If you look at articles about companies in general, you will not find mention of previous employees, except in those cases where the employee was particularly notable. Even then, the information is not presented just as a list of names, but is incorporated into the text itself (for example, when a company's article talks about the policies a previous CEO had, or when they mention the discovery/invention of a former engineer/researcher). If a preexisting article is already in the encyclopedia for the person you want to add to a list, it's generally regarded as sufficient to support their inclusion in list material in another article. --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!}• 03:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC) 03:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]

So, there's obviously been disagreement about whether or not the removals by 69.235.231.211 are legitimate. First, in a technical sense, 69...is within policy to delete everything xe did. None of that material was sourced, and, as such, may be removed at any time if any editor questions its accuracy. WP:V requires verification for all non-obvious facts, and detailed station history, personnel, etc. are clearly non-obvious facts.

Of course, I can understand why another IP and Milonica reverted the removals--usually, when someone strips out half of an article, it looks like vandalism. The question is, knowing now that the edits are not vandalism, do Milonica or anyone else have a justification for why so much unsourced info should stay in the article? I haven't reverted either way yet, but I would, more than anything, like to just see the back-and forth reversions stop. 69... is close to approaching edit warring, even though I think xe is probably correct in this case; in any event, even if one is "right", the correct next step is to discuss on talk, rather than just reverting one another. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Qwyrxian has wisely described the situation here. I take no joy in policing but the rules are the rules. Thanks for recognizing that the edits are not vandalism and should never have been characterized as such. --69.235.231.211 (talk) 06:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, while the IP did remove 'some' of the unsourced material, I am also afraid that some of the sourced material may have fell to the deletion too. For example, the channel that the station broadcasts on is widely known via FCC records (digital channel 32, via PSIP displays 4). The edit also removed several other details from the infobox... power, haat, and other technical details that are ALL available on the FCC query at the bottom of the page. These technical details are on all other television articles on wikipedia and are all sourced via the FCC. Now I agree with removing some of the sections regarding affiliation and stuff like that but the technical side of the article is well sourced (by third parties as well as the FCC) so I would argue for that to be re-included, and I will re-include that because it is sourced and conforms will all other television station articles in this encyclopedia. WCCO is not special, WCCO does not need to hide its technical details for some reason or the other. --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 13:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. None of the removed data was annotated and I neglected to notice that the tech data is verified by the external links. Call it strict interpretation of the rules. Having said that, the edit reversal(s) could have been limited to the data which remained unsourced and uncited. (It is silly to suggest an intention to "hide" data; the issue before us is clear: following the rules of Wiki.) 69.235.231.211 (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about following the rules, but removing a significant chunk of the article without a good reason or notice (stated on the talk page) stated prompted me to revert the edits, as did Cluebot which follows the same rules I and you should too. You have to understand, when I see that big of a removal of content, especially by an IP address, the first thing that pops into my mind is vandalism. Further, seeing what was deleted included sourced information which I knew for a fact was real and true, lead me to warning you. There is a brief explanation of why I did what I did. --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 20:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So it looks like we got this all sorted out, right? Do we all agree that the info currently in the article is sourced, and that everything sourced has been restored? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it's resolved. Note to milonica: the edits were explained in the edit summary, a normal, acceptable and proper location for such notice. It is my opinion that your initial reaction to a large portion of material being excised was rational but to then go a step further and reverse the edits without additional consideration and review was a hasty and kneejerk reaction, especially when it was done more than once.69.235.231.211 (talk) 05:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was WCCO owned by Westinghouse from the day it signed on to 1995? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.175.21 (talk) 02:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the list of random names for the same reason that they are removed from other similar articles. A section on names should not take up half the article when there are no non-primary sources showing that those names are that relevant to the article. - SudoGhost 02:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• well i feel its ok to put who the main anchors are for wcco tv. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.105.224.42 (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia bases its content on reliable sources, not what people feel is okay. A list of people has to meet the criteria of WP:LISTPEOPLE, which isn't a hard criteria to meet; it ensures that any list of people is actually relevant to the subject at hand and not WP:UNDUE. If a given person is relevant enough to the article to warrant mentioning in a list of people, then reliable sources should be available to show that relevance. Otherwise, it's just a list of WP:UNDUE and random names with little meaning. - SudoGhost 19:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Firstly, let's be factual. The list of notable former staff does not consist of anywhere near half the article - so that claim is a red herring. Regarding notability, the names meet the Wiki criteria cited by SudoGhost; there are Wiki articles about 11 of the 25 people listed and the others have reliable sources. It can be reasonably assumed that SudoGhost is not familiar with Minneapolis-St. Paul TV history, for if he was, he would recognize the people listed and their standing in the local area; thus, he would not be arguing whether these people are appropriately cited wrt their notability (notability which is further confirmed by the hiring of many of the listed by the news divisions at major TV networks). The fact that SudoGhost has twice reversed edits to versions that contain non-notable people supports this view. Further, SudoGhost reverses edits containing material that he claims doesn't meet Wiki standards instead of removing the content, which, according to his logic, would be the appropriate action to take. Again, a moot point because the content meets Wiki standards but worth noting because, while SudoGhost wishes others to follow his invocations, he doesn't adhere to the same rules he cites. SudoGhost's repeated edit actions and rhetoric have the appearance of protecting a WCCO competitor and/or supporting a personal opinion rather than furthering the interests of Wikipedia and the sharing of knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.4.115 (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The version I was referring to was indeed half of the article, not in bytes by by page length. It's not a red herring if it's accurate and relevant. The names also do not meet WP:LISTPEOPLE; someone including their own name in a book they wrote is not an independent source; a website where someone works is not an independent source. To show notability, subject must have third-party sources that are independent of the subject. It doesn't matter one bit if someone is "familiar with" the history of a given thing; it needs to be verified, not alluded to. Your speculation as to the reason your edit is being reverted has no basis in fact, and is a personal attack. Please do not continue to add inappropriate names to the article or the page may be protected again. If the individual does not meet WP:LISTPEOPLE, it does not belong per that guideline and Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Stations, and the names as presented with the references given do not meet that criteria. - SudoGhost 05:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, there was no personal attack in my previous statement. It was speculation and there is good reason for it. The list of notable former staff in no way is/was half the article regardless of measurement; my gosh, I don't want to know where you were taught math. Your continued reverts to non-notables contradicts your stance and is, honestly, laughable given your position on this discussion. No cited source is a book written by a listed person. You clearly haven't reviewed all the sources and if you think you have, your comprehension is incorrect. Notability is relative; if you aren't familiar with a topic or a person, they won't be notable. All the people listed are notable for different reasons to people in the Minneapolis-St. Paul TV market; Wikipedia is a place to learn about such facts. Your continued vandalism to the article (that is what it has become) has risen to the level of sport for sport's sake and might be seen as an attempt to wipe history from this entity. Please stop.

Speculation to which you have no proof is a personal attack, and even if it were not does not reflect well upon your argument. Notability has to be established; it is not "relative" and if you have to live in a certain area and know someone to think they are notable, then they are not. If there are not independent reliable sources that can show notability, the name does not belong on the article. It is as simple as that. It is not vandalism to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and Wikipedia is not a place for every little trivial detail of a subject; either include reliable sources per WP:LISTPEOPLE and Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Stations, or the content will be removed. - SudoGhost 06:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand that, but how about at least the main 4 anchors like current main anchors: Frank, Amelia, Chris and Mark. so when people read about wcco they know who the main anchors are. to keep it short and simple — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.105.224.42 (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If there are reliable sources that would show that they are notable enough to include per WP:LISTPEOPLE, I'd have no problem with that. - SudoGhost 05:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a consensus at WikiProject Television Stations that former on-air staff needs to show some basic level of notability through reliable sources or a standalone article. Per [[WP::LISTPEOPLE]], this threshold is true for current staff, and doubly so for former staff. WP:LISTPEOPLE is not a difficult criteria to meet, so if a name fails to meet that basic requirement, it does not warrant a mention in the article. The section is called "Notable former on-air staff" for a reason. - Aoidh (talk) 10:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added sourcing for Loescher. 55401612MSP (talk) 07:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:LISTPEOPLE and the longstanding consensus at WikiProject Television Stations, the names of on-air staff need to meet the basic criteria at WP:LISTPEOPLE or they do not belong in the article. As for the idea that WL:ELNO requires no concensus, that's inaccurate. Wikipedia:External links is very clear on that matter: "Disputed links should normally be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them." A link to a few clips without context and to a random image don't really seem to improve the article, so I don't see any reason why they should stay in the article. - Aoidh (talk) 02:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Housekeeping note that the following personnel should be added to the article.

Al Austin - news reporter (later with CBS News)
Jerry Bowen - news reporter (later with CBS News)
Mary Davies - children's show personality "Carmen The Nurse" (1954–1977; deceased)
John Gallos - children's show personality "Clancy The Cop" and other characters, host of weekly Laurel & Hardy films program, host of public service programs and staff announcer
Phil Jones - news reporter (later with CBS News)
Randi Kaye - news reporter, news anchor (later with CNN)
Don Kladstrup - news reporter (later with CBS News then ABC News)
Bud Kraehling - weather anchor/staff announcer (1949–1996)
Skip Loescher - news anchor, news reporter (later press secretary for U.S. Sen. Walter Mondale and anchor/reporter at CNN; deceased)
Allan Lotsberg - children's show personality "Willie Ketchum"
Pat Miles - news anchor (1978–1988)
Ann Rubenstein - news reporter, news anchor (later with NBC News)
Hal Scott - sports anchor (1960s–1980; deceased)
Heather Tesch - meteorologist (later with The Weather Channel) 2606:6000:6704:F900:741A:C4B5:AD3E:21C4 (talk) 00:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are not notable and Wikipedia is not a directory. If the do have an article, then they can be listed; if not, then they need to be remained off of here. Corky | Chat? 00:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply a housekeeping note for future reference. These people are all notable in the context of station history, the local viewing area and those to whom they are notable: the viewers. 2606:6000:6704:F900:741A:C4B5:AD3E:21C4 (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to be properly sourced. But where is a list of current reporters? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Latest list for future reference (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WCCO-TV&oldid=837160366):

Notable former on-air staff

Al Austin - news reporter (later with CBS News)[26] (deceased)

Jerry Bowen - news reporter (later with CBS News)[27]

Clellan Card - children's show personality "Axel" (1954–1966; deceased)

Bill Carlson - entertainment reporter, midday news anchor (deceased)

Mary Davies - children's show personality "Carmen The Nurse" (1954–1977; deceased)[28]

Paul Douglas - chief meteorologist (1997–2008; later with StarTribune and WCCO Radio)

Ralph Jon Fritz – sports anchor (1968-2008; deceased)[29]

John Gallos - children's show personality "Clancy The Cop" and other characters, host of weekly Laurel & Hardy films program, host of public service programs and staff announcer[30]

Phil Jones - news reporter (later with CBS News)[31]

Randi Kaye - news reporter, news anchor (later with CNN)

Don Kladstrup - news reporter (later with CBS News then ABC News)[32]

Bud Kraehling - weather anchor/staff announcer (1949–1996; deceased)

Skip Loescher - news anchor, news reporter (later press secretary for U.S. Sen. Walter Mondale and anchor/reporter at CNN; deceased)[33]

Allan Lotsberg - children's show personality "Willie Ketchum"[34]

Bob McNamara - news reporter (later with CBS News)[35]

Pat Miles - news anchor (1978–1988),[36] later wth KARE

Dave Moore - news anchor (1950s–1998; deceased)

Barry Petersen - news reporter (later with CBS News)

Susan Peterson - news reporter (later with CBS News and NBC News)[37][38]

Ann Rubenstein - news reporter, news anchor (later with NBC News)[39]

Hal Scott - sports anchor (1960s–1980; deceased)

Don Shelby - news reporter/news anchor (1978-2010; retired)

Susan Spencer - news reporter, news anchor (later with CBS News)

Bill Stewart - news reporter (later with ABC News, murdered in Nicaragua in 1979 while on assignment)

Michele Tafoya - sports anchor/sports reporter (later with CBS Sports, NBC Sports, ABC Sports and ESPN)

Heather Tesch - meteorologist (later with The Weather Channel)[40]

Ben Tracy - news reporter (later with CBS News)

Jamie Yuccas - news reporter (later with CBS News)[41]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 67.49.181.119 (talk) 02:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Updated list (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WCCO-TV&oldid=932747301)

Notable former on-air staff

• Al Austin - news reporter (later with CBS News)^[1] (deceased 2018)
• Jerry Bowen - news reporter (later with CBS News)^[2]
• Clellan Card - children's show personality "Axel" (1954–1966; deceased 1966)
• Bill Carlson - entertainment reporter, midday news anchor (deceased 2008)
• Mary Davies - children's show personality "Carmen The Nurse" (1954–1977; deceased 2014)^[3]
• Paul Douglas - chief meteorologist (1997–2008; later with StarTribune and WCCO Radio)
• Ralph Jon Fritz – sports anchor (1968-2008; deceased 2017)^[4]
• John Gallos - children's show personality "Clancy The Cop" and other characters, host of weekly Laurel & Hardy films program, host of public service programs and staff announcer (deceased 2005)^[5]
• Phil Jones - news reporter (later with CBS News)^[6]
• Randi Kaye - news reporter, news anchor (later with CNN)
• Don Kladstrup - news reporter (later with CBS News then ABC News)^[7]
• Bud Kraehling - weather anchor/staff announcer (1949–1996; deceased 2015)
• Skip Loescher - news anchor, news reporter (later press secretary for U.S. Sen. Walter Mondale and anchor/reporter at CNN; deceased 2013)^[8]
• Allan Lotsberg - children's show personality "Willie Ketchem" (deceased 2019)^[9]
• Bob McNamara - news reporter (later with CBS News)^[10]
• Pat Miles - news anchor (1978–1988),^[11] later wth KARE
• Dave Moore - news anchor (1950s–1998; deceased 1998)
• Barry Petersen - news reporter (later with CBS News)
• Susan Peterson - news reporter (later with CBS News and NBC News)^[12][13]
• Ann Rubenstein - news reporter, news anchor (later with NBC News)^[14]
• Hal Scott - sports anchor (1960s–1980; deceased 2010)
• Don Shelby - news reporter/news anchor (1978-2010; retired)
• Susan Spencer - news reporter, news anchor (later with CBS News)
• Bill Stewart - news reporter (later with ABC News, murdered in Nicaragua in 1979 while on assignment)
• Michele Tafoya - sports anchor/sports reporter (later with CBS Sports, NBC Sports, ABC Sports and ESPN)
• Heather Tesch - meteorologist (later with The Weather Channel)^[15]
• Ben Tracy - news reporter (later with CBS News)
• Jamie Yuccas - news reporter (later with CBS News)^[16]

MPLSTVHISTORY

Though CBS shut down WCCO-TV satellite KCCO-TV in Alexandria as a result of its spectrum being sold in the FCC's spectrum incentive auction, it also had the option for the station to channel-share with its former parent WCCO-TV and move its license from Alexandria to a city in the Minneapolis–Saint Paul area, which would have effectively formed another duopoly in the market between the station and WCCO-TV (and possibly turned it into a CW affiliate owned by CBS, replacing WUCW (channel 23)). The station also would have likely changed its call sign and would have needed to change its virtual channel as well, likely to WCCO-TV’s virtual channel 4 (with it being either on 4.2 or 4.3), unifying their virtual channels in a setup similar to the existing commercial duopolies of KSTP-TV/KSTC-TV, and KMSP-TV/WFTC as well as noncommercial KTCA-TV/KTCI-TV which also unify their virtual channels corresponding to KSTP, KMSP and KTCA-TV’s respective former analog VHF channel assignments. 64222368Z260O (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]