I have watched WGRZ for many years and always enjoyed it and valued their news worthiness but Most Buffalo at 4pm is getting ridiculous. I like Kate and Maria separately but when you put them together it turns infantile. Maria is laughing at everything and it gets silly and ridiculous. They have meaningless comments about anything an animal does and sit there just laughing. Today we are expecting a storm and Maria was acting silly and laughing while we are all worried about the storm we've been warned about all week. Kate is light hearted which is her job and she is very good at it but add Maria to it and it gets just plain goofy. We don't need two giddy women acting like little kids on our news channel. This is getting out of hand. Is there any supervision at channel 2? read more

Buffalo Bills Monday Night Football. Why did you screw up the coverage by putting split screen repeatedly with a game that was being shown on a different channel ABC ? I am a Bills fan, and want to watch the Bills game all the time on my whole TV screen. If I wanted to see the other game I would have watched ABC. read more

Inasmuch as viewers object to the use of {their notion of) infantile" and "moronic" expressions by on-air reporters, why are they not objecting to the use, by all reporters and journalists, of such non-existent terms as "majorly," "impactful," "impact" as a verb --- "impacting" and "impacted" --- and, most recently, the grossly and obviously incorrect "impacts" as a plural noun and the silly redundancy of "these ones" and "those ones." NOTE: Other than a reporter using "impactful" a lot, everyone on air at WGRZ-TV speaks and dresses impeccably, which is greatly appreciated. It's a bit troubling, though, that most Americans don't see what's wrong with "impactful" and why it's never been used before its recent, cringe-worthy introduction as the latest incorrect offspring of "impact," the noun. The first birth began the use of "impact" as a verb at least ten yrs. ago, as in "impacted" and "impacting," suspected by those educated before 1966 to be the result of younger journalists --- GEN X, Y, Z, and possibly the Boomers' youngest half --- having difficulties distinguishing the meaning and spelling of "affect," the verb, from that of "effect," the noun, despite it being as easy as connecting the "a" in affect to "action," the role of a verb, and/or connecting the "e" to a noun like eel or envelope. Voila! Problem solved, AND one need remember only one clue to use both words correctly. If the public is "affected" by XYZ, we know what is meant and only need info on type of effect . . . positive, negative, etc. "Impact" means "forceful contact; the force of impression of one thing on another; a significant effect," as in "the impact of science on society" and "an environmental impact study." The difference between "impact" and its synonyms is that the contact described is the result of one thing being "impelled toward the other," as in the car that splits in two upon "impact" with a tree. (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition, Merriam-Webster, Inc. 2009, pg. 622.) So, besides sounding terrible to those who know it's wrong, what does it mean, really, for the public to be "impacted" by a thing or for a thing to be "impacting" them? "Impacted" can be used as an adjective (impacted tooth), but how does the above translate into use as a verb and into "impactful," the use of which experts label "barbarous"? Grateful is full of gratitude; painful is full of pain. But, what are you or anything else full of if "impactful"? What does it mean when a reporter says "We're talking about impactful winter weather --- snow heading our way . . ." instead of using a word that's more accurate and clarifying, like "disruptive winter weather" for example? What does "Then we've got the more impactful storm system arriving late in the day" mean? And what is impelling toward what? Too many Americans would now say "the blast impacted the bystanders." Compare that with "the bystanders felt the concussion of the blast," which, in that context, implies they felt the "disrupting or weakening effects" of the explosion. (Ibid) We have the words to be precise, and, thus, more informative or colorful or meaningful in our communication, so why bother saying anything if all you have is only vague, invalid words that don't make sense? Doesn't all the above illustrate the difference between a lazy mind and a vibrant, working mind? That millions of Americans use these terms doesn't make them correct. It just means most Americans speak and write incorrectly . . . and don't know it or don't care enough to open a dictionary, yet they all want their children to receive the very best education. Writing and speaking are cognitive activities. We all need to be deeply concerned that, so far, younger generations continue to ignore that, as seen in the errors in articles and essays posted on the Internet, but it's those related to education and/or written by educators that should really scare the **** out of everyone. Parents need to join teachers and principals to make sure public schools and the K-6 curriculum do NOT repeat the last 50+ yrs. An inadequate system = inadequate results = seriously adverse consequences affecting our entire society and the high standards of quality & excellence that are slipping away. So, your first assignment, should you choose to accept it, is: Use the facts to determine why it's only the last 50 yrs. we don't want repeated rather than the last 100-200 years of K-12 public education (emphasis on K-6). HINT: If the pundits are right to claim an improved K-12 public school system requires eliminating or restructuring (using lots of technology) the Industrial Era system of the last 150-200 years, then why did students' test scores not decline until AFTER 1966? What changed? What if the problem is not the Industrial Era system but what "they" did to it after 1966-70? The answer is the key to the first steps toward improvement that MUST be taken, but why? read more

Their "investigative team" is useless. They are only concerned with stories that might win them some sort of award, and could care less about the struggles and issues facing underprivileged people in WNY. We have a very serious housing issue with a local subsidized apartment complex, and contacted Michael Wooten. He promised us he would help, only to bail on us and stopped returning messages. As far as I am concerned, he and the investigative reporters at WGRZ are useless. read more

I so miss WGRZ-Tv!!! Living in the fringe area of the southern tier, we have to depend on cable or satellite service. We use Dish which we are very happy with, and it has served us well. A few months ago, WGRZ's contract came up and WGRZ is greedy and wants more money for providing their programing to Dish. Humbug to WGRZ. We are stuck with the lousing news and weather reporting of the two other stations. Please WGRZ, pay Dish what they want, Dish has not raised the rates that much. My only recourse it to buy a very expensive tower and antenna and rotor, and that is not in my budget!! And no way am I switching to cable or the other satellite network! Guess I will just stop shopping at the WGRZ advertisers!! read more

I can't stand how infantile some of the news anchors are, saying things like "we want to give a 'shout out' to...". "Shout out"? Really? How about speaking like mature adults? And were terms like "gully washer" really taught in meteorology class? Ugh. It's like listening to middle school kids... read more

Whenever I go to the station to tape an episode of WNY Living, everyone is very friendly and welcoming. I have worked with Dave Gillen for years and he is always professional, courteous and a pleasure to be around. The same goes for Janet Snyder and I always have a great time on her morning show. The camera crew are excellent as well! read more

They have the worst streaming in Buffalo, the news stream routinely starts 3 to 5 minutes into the newscast so the first 2 or 3 stories are missed. On the website it promises to start 5 minutes before the newscast but almost never starts then. On weekends it's hit or miss whether the newscast will be steamed at all. It's not because the newscast has been pre-empted, I've checked and seen the news being broadcast on my television and they've just been too lazy to stream it. After contacting the station on their website and Facebook page the only reply I received was from their webmaster who was quite unprofessional and insisted that there was no problem. Since I'll be cutting the cable soon and the only way I'll be able to watch WGRZ news is by streaming it, there IS a problem. read more

I agree with reviewer...infantile but more...moronic is a better description. Not capable of originality. Cookie cutter approach to news and tons of weather people that want you to believe they do their own forecast...really...where are ur satellites? Everything they do is from national weather service....so superdoppler 6000 or futurecast...all fake referrals to fake process and equipment. This is 2019...im and most people are fully capable of getting their online forecast read more