I've stopped watching the news

Even though I can get basically the same information off of the web, I like watching the morning weather on my local NBC station.

 

I almost never watch TV news. Corporate America has pretty much rendered most news programs into easy-to-digest soundbites that don't cause controversy, lest you upset an advertiser or other money man.

The worst part is investigative journalism is dying, thanks to corporate America's whims. Too many of the higher ups are scared to death about an in-depth investigation that raises important questions, when they think too much about losing a revenue sources.

There are some good investigative journalists out there. The problem is many of them work for corporations who don't want investigative journalism.

 

This describes me as well. BTW, the local weather teams here in my hometown do a great job.

Exmediahack can no doubt elaborate but I've in the past worked with the nation's top local news consultant company...and I can say they are the no. 1 reason local news sucks. When you insist that the primary reason your station in this town is No. 3 is because your morning anchor doesn't wear the same jewel tone colors as the lead anchor at the 6 p.m. news at the top station in the big city 1,000 miles away does, well, that kind of consulting advice leads to homogenous dreck.

 

Yes, consultants are a huge issue. (And yes, my anchors are all wearing "jewel tones" now after a consultant mandate.) They lead to a complete disregard of the reality that every city is different. I can't tell you how many meetings with consultants I've sat through, watching examples of "really exciting things" other stations are doing that are just painful to watch.

There are other factors though --our budgets are getting smaller too, meaning our reporting staff is smaller and younger, just like in newspapers. A major station in a top 15 market may well have 3 reporters on the street for the early evening newscasts, and two of them are 3 years out of college. Those two are also shooting their own stories. Ten years ago it would have been 6 reporters with ten years each in the business.

You want to know the biggest thing keeping the quality down in TV news, though? It's the viewers. I could do a great half-hour looking at important local issues and profiling vital people in the community... or, I can show you a shitload of shootings, car wrecks and fires. Nobody will watch the first one. The more my newscast looks like a police blotter, the higher the ratings. I know it, and my bosses know it, and none of us likes it, but we've seen the ratings. Any attempt to add quality to a newscast is a compromise between the newscast we want to produce and the newscast we need to produce, because the one we want to produce won't have any viewers.

I once had a news director who was the biggest ambulance chaser I've ever seen. Our news vans suddenly had gun sights and body outlines painted on the side. Each newscast was non-stop police tape. It was soul-crushing to put together. Our ratings were better than ever. He's now the boss at one of the biggest local stations in the country.

 

It's fright porn for old people who want to justify their terror at leaving their homes and that it's no longer 1964. What's the viewing median age for local news? For cable news it's around 65, and I'll bet it's no different for local news.

 

I checked the bios on a local stations group of reporters. All nine or so began working at the station less than three years ago. It's not a big market, but there used to be a couple slots at every station for someone willing to stick around and be the go-to reporter when things went to hell.

 

Dan -- not sure which market you're in, but I used to work in both Eugene and Portland, and the main stations definitely had those people back then. Now, it sure doesn't look like it.

 

Recently a friend of mine, who is an anchor here, was reading a lead story about a local cop arrested for beating his wife. There were lots of details from the local police in my friend's report.

I stress the details came from the local police, and not from the newsreader delivering the story -- because the newsreader delivering the story was the cause of the fight between the cop and his wife -- when the wife found out they were sleeping together.

It wouldn't make for a believable story in a crappy drama!

 

I'll address some of the points here.

In TV news, we are in this odd stage where it seems where EVERY station wants a "hard-hitting, investigative reporter". It's all the trend in the job ads and, really, there are very few legitimate reporters with this background and curiosity. While nearly all stations want this, very few are willing to invest the time for a real investigative unit. That means a 5-day-a-week reporter who may only turn 1 or 2 stories a week. That's fairly unheard of.

Those are expensive stories, dedicating a reporter, photographer and, sometimes another producer for fact checking.

Most newsrooms would rather give lip service to the "hard-hitting, investigative" but, really, they want the reporter who works 5 days a week and turns 5 different stories each week. The "beast" needs to be fed every day.

It's not that news management is afraid of corporations or the governments... they're afraid of paying too much in salary for not enough content. That's why we're in the era of news at 4 pm, 4:30 pm, 5 pm, 5:30 pm, 6 pm, 10 pm (on a FOX partnership or a sub-channel) and the 11 pm.

More muffins but with the same amount of batter. Everyone gets fed but it's not as satisfying.

Salaries. They're going down for main anchors because stations have discovered that, really, they don't matter like they did in 1987. My own theory is that you don't need a perfect anchor to be #1 but you'll never get there with a lousy one.

As for the producers (who, generally, are journalism students who discovered halfway through they didn't have the stomach for street reporting and it was too late to be a chemical engineer) and the reporters (who are convinced they're an I-team investigation from a Top 10 market), they are usually a nickel-a-dozen and stations count on their turnover to make budget. One reporter or producer leaves, the station takes 3-4 months to fill it and pockets the salary saved. If you're paying a reporter a three-year contract at 31-34-37, after three years, they usually WANT that reporter to leave and bring in a newbie for 29-32-35. It's the budget churn.

Someone here also touched on consultants...

I've worked with them, off and on, for 20 years. I've found *some* of them to be useful. Two years ago, one found a tick in my delivery that I had never caught. I would "upspeak" at the end of some sentences or stories and that would erode an authoritative "read". It wasn't easy to hear but I looked at it and it was true. Too much... "I'm Ron Burgundy?" when I *thought* I was trying to be conversational.

Yet most of the consultants are mere crutches for struggling newsrooms. A news director only lasts on average 22 months on the job. It's like being an NBA coach but with even more immaturity to deal with. Step number one is to bring in the consultant to blow up your previous approach, tell your GM "we need a year to see if this works". Inevitably, it will usually NOT work and, after two years, you're canned.

Repeat the cycle.

I love the mentoring aspect of what I do, trying to get these younger reporters and producers to ditch the clichés, lose the "passive voice", never write "transported" -- well, they can write it but I'll never say it when I anchor.

Most #1 stations, at least in the markets outside of the Top 20, usually have a few common threads. They have the trust of the viewers, they avoid stupid gimmicks, they have the Facebook page that is the most "real" and truly sincere in reaching out, usually with one main anchor that has either been there 10+ years or is heavily involved in charity/community. This means they can charge $700 for a 30 second spot in a medium size market.

However, there are plenty of distant #2 or #3 stations that can still make money because of the political attack ads. Their overhead is lower (fewer anchors, fewer newscasts, perhaps). They may charge $200 for that same spot but, if they have one of these gigantic companies running most of their HR and accounting from another place, that's less money in salaries. They also make a profit.

Some of the keys to SURVIVING in TV news. I write as a guy who has never been fired in 20 years of this and has survived every budget cut along the way. Learn ONE new tech skill each year that helps you be more efficient. Be your own PR person on social media. Outperform all of the colleagues at your salary level. Take ownership in the product. Most importantly, NEVER be the highest-paid person in your newsroom. Try and be the second-highest but offer more than whomever Mr. or Ms. Money Bags is.

You'll be spared when the cuts come.