What is the primary way you access local news and information?

[TheBigA]

The point is without newspapers gathering news, there's no news gathering and therefore no real news.

Or Associated Press. Or Reuters. Or various other news agencies.

WTOP has about a dozen reporters covering DC. Besides AP, they also get national reporting from CBS Radio. It's not as dire as you say.

 

[FredLeonard]

The point is without newspapers gathering news, there's no news gathering and therefore no real news.

Or Associated Press. Or Reuters. Or various other news agencies.

WTOP has about a dozen reporters covering DC. Besides AP, they also get national reporting from CBS Radio. It's not as dire as you say.

Reuters has some stringers but is not set up to provide US reporting on the scale the AP is through its member newspapers and the right to use "all news of spontaneous origin" from member papers.

A dozen reporters? Compared to how many at the Post? That's paltry even compared to the suburban rags. Those dozen people get sound bites to go with press releases, and attend meetings and news conferences and do live shots. They don't gather news. Even most local news is just following up on newspaper stories that come in on the wire.

Same thing at the network level. The networks just chase the Times and the wire. Then they do interviews and stand-ups. C'mon, dude, you can't be as naive as you sound.

 

[TheBigA]

A dozen reporters? Compared to how many at the Post?

The Post is a national paper. If you do the fair thing and compare their Metro staff with WTOP, it's about the same. And if you talk with Bob Woodward, who was a reporter for Metro when he broke Watergate, he'll admit the Metro staff typically re-wrote press releases. That's how he was able to sneak under the radar with Watergate.

C'mon, dude, you can't be as naive as you sound.

I'm not as negative about it as you. There's very little enterprise reporting done at newspapers or the wires. Everyone has been hurt by budget cuts, regardless of who or where they are. The Post lost more money in one quarter than Clear Channel lost all last year. That's pretty frightening.

 

[FredLeonard]

The Post is a national paper. If you do the fair thing and compare their Metro staff with WTOP, it's about the same. And if you talk with Bob Woodward, who was a reporter for Metro when he broke Watergate, he'll admit the Metro staff typically re-wrote press releases. That's how he was able to sneak under the radar with Watergate.


I'm not as negative about it as you. There's very little enterprise reporting done at newspapers or the wires. Everyone has been hurt by budget cuts, regardless of who or where they are. The Post lost more money in one quarter than Clear Channel lost all last year. That's pretty frightening.

Yes, it is frightening. The Post newsroom staff is at 550 (down from 900). The majority are assigned to Metro. Yes, newspapers rewrite press releases but unlike broadcasters, they do actual reporting; they go after news that hasn't been given to them and find out things someone doesn't want them to find out. Yes, it happens a lot less now. Yes, that is frightening.

But the basic point is almost all news gathering is done by newspapers. Broadcasters follow up and package news for broadcasting. Nothing wrong with that. But if newspapers are not gathering news, no one else is in a position to step in take their place - certainly not radio or TV. That's the scary part. All news will come from hand-outs.

TV has already mostly given up on local news (other than police and fire) and goes instead with canned, packaged news you can use pieces. Radio most places goes with local wire stories, as well as police and fire but mostly it's all hand-outs. No real reporting.

 

[Groove1670]

There are examples of local station the provide great news coverage.

WHEP AM (Oldies/Full Service) in Foley Alabama covers every local news story. We had a incident at a local manufacturing plant today. Everyone knew to go there for the latest interviews and updates.


WWUS FM Key West/Big Pine Key Local news mornings and afternoons (Classic hits) has won several news awards (local and national) The Mayor and city, county officials announce on their facebook page when they are guests.

Once again, we single out CC and Cumu as the groups that don't cover local news. Yet we forget thousands of stations cover the local news everyday. Seek and you shall find

 

[SirRoxalot]

Sorry, but it ain't thousands of stations covering local news every day. That's the point. I'm not sure it's even thousands reporting local news every day anymore, and the majority of the ones that do are lifting the content from other local sources - radio, TV, and newspapers - whether they want to admit it or not.

Yes, there a few exceptions where stations still have local new staffs that actually hit the streets. The number has dwindled dramatically, and the number of reporters at those stations has dwindled dramatically.

FredLeonard is absolutely right. CC and Cumulus have led the way in giving up the immediacy and power of local radio news. They'd like to give up emergency notification duties, too, but the government won't let them. Ask Hurricane Sandy or Katrina survivors or those affected by any major event about the reliability of cell phones and other communications in an emergency. Radio still works, and is accessible to almost everybody.

 

[Groove1670]

Sorry, but it ain't thousands of stations covering local news every day. That's the point. I'm not sure it's even thousands reporting local news every day anymore

: Raincloud of doom and gloom over message board.

Once again you are bringing up CC and the corp groups.

Ask Hurricane Sandy or Katrina survivors or those affected by any major event about the reliability of cell phones

I was in Katrina and Ivan. I had my battery operated radio. Many of the stations in the market did an excellent Job covering both. Remember, you only need one or two local stations in your market to cover local events.

 

[TheBigA]

Sorry, but it ain't thousands of stations covering local news every day.

It never was. Even when news was mandated, most stations did the absolute bare minimum. There were hundreds of automated stations running formats from reel to reel and cart, whose only "news" coverage was rip & read copy, taken from the wire, read by a college kid or intern. Even in the 70s, you had a small percentage of stations that had a few news people, enough to send one out to cover a major story like a fire or murder. But the majority of it came from the wires or newspaper. "Enterprise reporting" was done by phone and the ability to record those interviews and play them on the air. The reality was that most of radio was not unlike "WKRP in Cincinnati," with Les Nesman and his coveted Silver Sow award. Radio news at music stations was seen as a requirement, an obligation, not a profit center or something stations did because listeners wanted it. Rick Sklar's book on WABC described it perfectly: He worked all day to build ratings, and then the news came on and all his work was ruined.

They'd like to give up emergency notification duties, too, but the government won't let them.

Not exactly true. The government is the reason why radio stations aren't the main source for weather, traffic, or emergency information any more. It began when the government created NOAA. That made access to weather information free and available to all, not just radio. The government started building systems of emergency notification, transfering responsibilities from radio to local emergency officials in the 60s. Then the creation of the Department of Homeland Security finished the deal, transfering all responsibility to emergency officials, and making radio simply a conduit for getting the word out. Fifty years of regulations and a steady transfer of responsibilities. Same with state governments, with their network of DOT cameras watching the highways, they built a more modern system of traffic reporting than had been done before. Once again, the information was free and available to all, not just radio.

It's pretty obvious that the government has a pretty low level of interest or respect for radio today. If a major emergency happened, the government would have other means to get information to the public besides radio. We saw that in Boston. If it was up to the government, they'd prefer to own radio stations, rather than depend on others for them, but the law prevents them from doing that.

 

[FredLeonard]

Musicicon: What you describe is admirable and is the kind of thing that can give radio as a medium it's finest moments. But it's not a substitute for what newspapers do. Broadcasting council meetings where final votes are taken is well and good. It's not the same as covering a beat, going to committee meetings and hearings, talking to people in offices, wading through documents.... An on-air appearance may serve an office holders' interest, convenience and necessity but it's not the same as investigating the award of a city contract to somebody's brother in law.

Yes, newspapers don't do that as much as they used. Small town papers, in places like those you mention, often don't do it all. Things are just too cozy. Newspaper publishers (and radio station managers) attend lunches and play golf with local office holders and business leaders and give them very, friendly puff-piece coverage.

When there's a storm or a plant "incident" usually cops and firefighters are happy to use the media to publicize their efforts and stations are happy to become indispensable again. But afterwards, it's newspaper reporters who document that "Brownie" was screwing up.

Radio doesn't cover all the stories. And everybody doesn't listen. There are things radio does but news gathering isn't something it does often or well. And going to meetings and news conferences or getting press releases is only the tip of the iceberg in news gathering.

I've worked at small market stations. I had a boss who used to brag about beating the paper by three days. What actually happened was he had a news release on right away for some group he was friendly with. The newspaper had other stories and put it in three days later. That's not reporting and that's not beating anyone. That kind of hype does not give radio credibility. Radio should stick to it's knitting and also acknowledge that it - like everyone else - depends on newspapers for real, comprehensive, trench reporting and digging.

As newspapers wither and die, some non-profit groups are trying to take over some newspaper functions and move them online but this is not something radio - then or now - was or will be equipped to do.

 

[TheBigA]

As newspapers wither and die, some non-profit groups are trying to take over some newspaper functions and move them online but this is not something radio - then or now - was or will be equipped to do.

I don't disagree with this...the problem I see with some of those non-profit groups is they are motivated by various agendas, and you either agree with them or you find another group with an agenda to agree with. Not the way news is supposed to be done, but that is the problem with news gathering: It's expensive. At one time, advertising was enough to pay for it, and it was easier to keep the wolves from the henhouse. Not any more.

There was an interesting book called "The Death and Life of American Journalism," that argues for government funding for serious reporting. The problem with this suggestion is it opens the same box that public broadcasting has found itself in. So who pays for serious reporting when users expect to get their news for free?

 

[SirRoxalot]

Users don't get their news for free. Looked at your cable/satellite/fibre/DSL/cellular bill lately? It sure ain't free. We're paying for it, and in the case of the cable and satellite companies, we're paying for a huge amount of content that we never watch. I'd gladly pay half as much for half the channels IF I get to pick the channels.

As it is, the connection providers can claim that the existing TV channels provide news and public affairs content. Cable providers do have to provide public access channels and facilities, which cost them a relative pittance. If the ad-supported model ultimately fails - and I don't think it will - then it may be time for the FCC to do what it did with broadcasting, and require some kind of news carriage. We need a robust press if we are going to continue as a free republic.

 

[TheBigA]

Users don't get their news for free. Looked at your cable/satellite/fibre/DSL/cellular bill lately? It sure ain't free.

In most cases, we're paying for the conduit, not the content. None of the money I pay for internet goes to content creators. Verizon doesn't gather or report news. Neither do most cable companies. A few offer local news channels, usually in partnership with a local TV station.

Companies like Google and Apple are loaded with cash, and they don't spend anything on content creation. The goal of these companies is to get people like us to create content for free.

then it may be time for the FCC to do what it did with broadcasting, and require some kind of news carriage. We need a robust press if we are going to continue as a free republic.

I don't expect that to happen. Every time the subject comes up, the politicians try to control the message, and it gets bogged down in ideologies.

 

[SirRoxalot]

You're not entirely correct. The cable and satellite companies negotiate for carriage of local TV channels. Content providers spend big money on having an Internet connection robust enough to provide content on demand in a timely and error-free fashion. Verizon actually does gather and report news in some FiOS markets on a channel called FiOS1 Time Warner has rolled out a local News channel in many markets - including Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, and Albany.

Google and Apple don't need public rights-of-way, antenna locations, or chunks of the electromagnetic spectrum, and aren't under the FCC's domain. The telecoms, cable, and satellite operators are.

 

[TheBigA]

Google and Apple don't need public rights-of-way, antenna locations, or chunks of the electromagnetic spectrum, and aren't under the FCC's domain. The telecoms, cable, and satellite operators are.

We're talking about who will pay for news gathering when everyone else goes belly up. The FCC isn't going to require telecoms to hire local news staffs. The FCC is selling spectrum space to those companies to do whatever they want.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Well, the point is moot because the news gathering organizations simply aren't going to go belly-up. Have you noticed who the market leaders are in most markets - in radio, TV, and for local Internet access. Monetizing it may change, but it ain't going away.

 

[Philip_Airtime]

Very interesting thread. I just want to add this. I returned from Cleveland today after attending a weekend banquet where public radio news awards were presented. I just want to offer a perspective to those who posted here, claiming radio news reporters do nothing but rely on news conferences, press releases and newspaper stories. I won't dispute that. But newspapers do their fair share of such reporting, too. When the Governor comes to town to announce tax-free zones around public universities, it's news -- whether you're a radio or TV station or newspaper. But this weekend, I heard many examples of public radio news stories that didn't come from press releases or news conferences. They didn't come from newspapers. They were enterprise pieces by journalists doing good reporting. And these were stations were in large, medium and small markets, from Chicago to Nashville to Eugene, Oregon. Here in New York, several stations have collaborated for three years now on the Innovation Trail, which is filled with enterprise reporting on economic development issues. So, I would argue there are hundreds of radio stations in this country doing original reporting along with covering the day's breaking news.

 

[TheBigA]

I would argue there are hundreds of radio stations in this country doing original reporting along with covering the day's breaking news.

I agree, but I think what you're also saying is that it's mainly being done at public stations, not commercial. Right?

 

[FredLeonard]

Very interesting thread. I just want to add this. I returned from Cleveland today after attending a weekend banquet where public radio news awards were presented. I just want to offer a perspective to those who posted here, claiming radio news reporters do nothing but rely on news conferences, press releases and newspaper stories. I won't dispute that. But newspapers do their fair share of such reporting, too. When the Governor comes to town to announce tax-free zones around public universities, it's news -- whether you're a radio or TV station or newspaper. But this weekend, I heard many examples of public radio news stories that didn't come from press releases or news conferences. They didn't come from newspapers. They were enterprise pieces by journalists doing good reporting. And these were stations were in large, medium and small markets, from Chicago to Nashville to Eugene, Oregon. Here in New York, several stations have collaborated for three years now on the Innovation Trail, which is filled with enterprise reporting on economic development issues. So, I would argue there are hundreds of radio stations in this country doing original reporting along with covering the day's breaking news.

Not exactly "hundreds." And as you point out, it's not stations doing this reporting. It's a collaborative group drawn from station personnel and focused on a specific issue. Innovation Trail. Harvest Public Media. Kaiser Health News. Fronteras. Center for Public Integrity. The problem I see out-sourcing "enterprise reporting" to these single issue collaborative groups is somebody is funding them. Somebody has picked the topic. Does that somebody have an agenda? What strings were attached?

We are are getting into a fuzzy, grey area of journalism ethics here. At one time, news organizations had very clear rules against accepting money for directed reporting and even accepting reporting from outsiders. Radio and TV stations have never had a "wall" between the news side and the business side like newspapers traditionally have had. Decisions impacting news coverage, like accepting outside money, are often made by people in management. Somebody shows up and says they have money they want to give to cover "innovation" or whatever, some fund-raiser in the front office is likely to think "sure, why not?"

A public radio station in my area regularly cuts away from NPR's drive time news magazines for expanded reports on "medical issues" - with a grant from a pharmaceutical industry trade association. Sounds like conflict of interest and resulting content that is more infomercial than reporting.

Big splash and big foot "enterprise reporting" are no substitute for beat reporting.

Personally, I find it pathetic how broadcaster seek some kind of validation by (1) giving awards to each other and (2) even more accepting awards from outside interests with an ax to grind or something to sell.

 

[TheBigA]

Radio and TV stations have never had a "wall" between the news side and the business side like newspapers traditionally have had.

I guess you never saw Citizen Kane.

 

[Philip_Airtime]

With all due respect, Fred, you have never worked in public radio, so please refrain from commenting on a fjeld you know nothing about. There is a clear firewall between the editorial and funding arm in public radio journalism. I have fought many a battle during my 30 year career to keep that wall from being breached. It's even stronger at the network level. And getting awards is pathetic? I think the fact that our industry recognizes the good work of broadcast journalists is laudable. Since you apparently seem to value the work of newspapers over radio, I ask you then if you think the Pulitzers are pathetic?