I've been thinking about local TV news for a while now - (see Nieman) why it's not part of the conversation around "saving the news" (which I still think is a terrible framing) - and I agree that the gravy train for TV is ending - sort of. The problem with the preference questions about online vs. terrestrial news is that they are not fine-grained enough to tell us what people are doing via digital news that they do get online. At least in places I've lived and inter-netted, television news tends to be what I see getting posted on Reddit, local Facebook groups, and shared by folks. It seems that there is a 30% of people that are still reliably getting local news from news websites, and I'm guessing these are TV. Years ago, I wrote a big paper about how metro newspapers would chase local tv headlines for their online clicks (and then put together a totally different "print" final edition) -
Fundamentally, I agree with your note that the bonanza for local tv is probably ending. But remember that ultimately campaigns are chasing undecided voters of a certain age likely to vote, so those are likely the TV watchers. Also, these ads come across the programming day and week - so the ads that we see on Padres games are still ads that feed the news-gathering operations (which is a problem, because people don't stay around for the news).
Finally, local news gathering via TV is getting cheaper and cheaper. The equipment is smaller and more mobile. Even news vans are getting e-powered. There will be still a supply of college students who hope to be on local TV, if only for a big break beyond influencing or to augment a future of influencing (I think a lot about the career turn of Taylor Bruck, one of the few out lesbian Tv news anchors who is now doing a whole bonus influencer thing). And in big news towns that have big television stations (Anchorman wasn't that much of a joke here in San Diego, let me tell you) - there actually are strong local followings/cultish devotees of local anchors.
Finally, not to be obnoxious, but I'm sharing a few links to this stuff below. (long time reader, maybe first-time commentor?)
Lastly, I was struck that at IRE Sinclair was a major sponsor and no one said boo (I maintain that it's hard to attack Sinclair for doing political journalism coverage that is simply more substantial and longer than local competing television news outlets- slanted? sure, but also, there's more of it - so I dunno, level up other news stations)
For others, I can't recommend Nik's scholarship in this area too strongly-- one of the most thoughtful folks in the country, and making multiple appearances on the syllabus in my own teaching.
Sounds right. I’ve been predicting—for decades, actually—that the digital disruption would just gradually work its way up the bandwidth spectrum. First text (print), then audio (radio/podcasting) and eventually TV and video.
Hope broadcasters are paying attention for this round of the innovator’s dilemma.
Agreed, Paul, and if a Sinclair has a bigger city market then a smaller city one 200 miles away, that smaller market will get treated, or is being treated, the way Gannett or CNHI treats one of their more outlying newspapers.
One of the rotten elements of the proposed California settlement with Google is that it eliminates broadcast from receiving any support at all, even public media. That fattens the subsidy for print and digital hacks like me, but is it fair? No. There’s a lot of held-over dogma in the media policy space about the health of local TV that needs serious reevaluation when you actually talk to the journalists at some of those stations about the ongoing attrition at a central local news source.
Financial challenges are certainly being felt in Boston, a top ten market in the country. The city doesn't have a Sinclair-owned station, but Cox Media Group has been quietly squeezing its stations and laying off staff. It's owned by the private equity firm Apollo Global Management, which tried to sell Boston 25 (formerly Fox 25) last year but the deal fell through. Here's my story on that station: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/07/14/business/boston-25-staff-departures/
Beyond this one station, there has been surge of veteran anchors, reporters, and producers leaving the business entirely. There are real concerns that Boston won't be able to support five commercial stations in the future.
Love that graphic. Might you happen to know who made it? (I was able to find similar ones on Shutterstock but without an artist name -- if there is one!) I've been impressed in our area by how much effort some of the local TV stations put into their websites, and how often I see the work cited in my community, although the stores do tend to be as you described.
Paul, Thanks for this, and for reading. I created the image using Bing Image Creator, which is an amazing free tool, especially for a publication that has no revenue (and thus seeks to avoid expense) like Second Rough Draft.
There is still hope for local TV. If broadcasters can implement audience-centric strategies they still have time to retain their current audiences while building multi-platform strategies to reach younger audiences. One reason radio is holding on is they're pretty good at engaging their audiences. There's a model here to learn from, along with the new nonprofits springing up and growing to fill info gaps.
Dick, per the Sinclair PR link, which is what it is? Sure your national TV news program grew by 3 million, because of all the Sinclair affiliates where it's already replaced local news.
That said, a lot of these smaller stations, whether owned by Sinclair or somebody else, who added local morning and noon TV news programs? That writing on the wall had been written at least a full decade ago.
I've been thinking about local TV news for a while now - (see Nieman) why it's not part of the conversation around "saving the news" (which I still think is a terrible framing) - and I agree that the gravy train for TV is ending - sort of. The problem with the preference questions about online vs. terrestrial news is that they are not fine-grained enough to tell us what people are doing via digital news that they do get online. At least in places I've lived and inter-netted, television news tends to be what I see getting posted on Reddit, local Facebook groups, and shared by folks. It seems that there is a 30% of people that are still reliably getting local news from news websites, and I'm guessing these are TV. Years ago, I wrote a big paper about how metro newspapers would chase local tv headlines for their online clicks (and then put together a totally different "print" final edition) -
Fundamentally, I agree with your note that the bonanza for local tv is probably ending. But remember that ultimately campaigns are chasing undecided voters of a certain age likely to vote, so those are likely the TV watchers. Also, these ads come across the programming day and week - so the ads that we see on Padres games are still ads that feed the news-gathering operations (which is a problem, because people don't stay around for the news).
Finally, local news gathering via TV is getting cheaper and cheaper. The equipment is smaller and more mobile. Even news vans are getting e-powered. There will be still a supply of college students who hope to be on local TV, if only for a big break beyond influencing or to augment a future of influencing (I think a lot about the career turn of Taylor Bruck, one of the few out lesbian Tv news anchors who is now doing a whole bonus influencer thing). And in big news towns that have big television stations (Anchorman wasn't that much of a joke here in San Diego, let me tell you) - there actually are strong local followings/cultish devotees of local anchors.
Finally, not to be obnoxious, but I'm sharing a few links to this stuff below. (long time reader, maybe first-time commentor?)
https://www.niemanlab.org/2023/12/the-future-of-journalism-crowd-stops-ignoring-local-tv-news/
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-10-24/political-tv-ads-disinformation-california-elections-voters
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1464884916689151?casa_token=o_TzFAzSAi0AAAAA%3A5ScetTyn0-cjX1JwzhoKglb3hryAuSXywKgUNlkQ5Mqq9moyJ9XBbFXE0vVAsVI7KKJZROhD12o
Re #s for news provision: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/01/12/more-than-eight-in-ten-americans-get-news-from-digital-devices/
Lastly, I was struck that at IRE Sinclair was a major sponsor and no one said boo (I maintain that it's hard to attack Sinclair for doing political journalism coverage that is simply more substantial and longer than local competing television news outlets- slanted? sure, but also, there's more of it - so I dunno, level up other news stations)
Thanks so much for this, Nik, and for reading.
For others, I can't recommend Nik's scholarship in this area too strongly-- one of the most thoughtful folks in the country, and making multiple appearances on the syllabus in my own teaching.
Aw thanks!!!
Sounds right. I’ve been predicting—for decades, actually—that the digital disruption would just gradually work its way up the bandwidth spectrum. First text (print), then audio (radio/podcasting) and eventually TV and video.
Hope broadcasters are paying attention for this round of the innovator’s dilemma.
Agreed, Paul, and if a Sinclair has a bigger city market then a smaller city one 200 miles away, that smaller market will get treated, or is being treated, the way Gannett or CNHI treats one of their more outlying newspapers.
One of the rotten elements of the proposed California settlement with Google is that it eliminates broadcast from receiving any support at all, even public media. That fattens the subsidy for print and digital hacks like me, but is it fair? No. There’s a lot of held-over dogma in the media policy space about the health of local TV that needs serious reevaluation when you actually talk to the journalists at some of those stations about the ongoing attrition at a central local news source.
Financial challenges are certainly being felt in Boston, a top ten market in the country. The city doesn't have a Sinclair-owned station, but Cox Media Group has been quietly squeezing its stations and laying off staff. It's owned by the private equity firm Apollo Global Management, which tried to sell Boston 25 (formerly Fox 25) last year but the deal fell through. Here's my story on that station: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/07/14/business/boston-25-staff-departures/
Beyond this one station, there has been surge of veteran anchors, reporters, and producers leaving the business entirely. There are real concerns that Boston won't be able to support five commercial stations in the future.
Very nice work! Dali and Magritte would enjoy it IMHO
Love that graphic. Might you happen to know who made it? (I was able to find similar ones on Shutterstock but without an artist name -- if there is one!) I've been impressed in our area by how much effort some of the local TV stations put into their websites, and how often I see the work cited in my community, although the stores do tend to be as you described.
Paul, Thanks for this, and for reading. I created the image using Bing Image Creator, which is an amazing free tool, especially for a publication that has no revenue (and thus seeks to avoid expense) like Second Rough Draft.
Thanks. Dali was in the prompt; Magritte seems to have been a bonus.
There is still hope for local TV. If broadcasters can implement audience-centric strategies they still have time to retain their current audiences while building multi-platform strategies to reach younger audiences. One reason radio is holding on is they're pretty good at engaging their audiences. There's a model here to learn from, along with the new nonprofits springing up and growing to fill info gaps.
Dick, per the Sinclair PR link, which is what it is? Sure your national TV news program grew by 3 million, because of all the Sinclair affiliates where it's already replaced local news.
That said, a lot of these smaller stations, whether owned by Sinclair or somebody else, who added local morning and noon TV news programs? That writing on the wall had been written at least a full decade ago.