What needs to be fixed in television news most?

[landtuna]

And virtually every time that's done, it's a dud. Failure upon failure. Trying to force-feed them an approach that die for a reason decades ago isn't going to do much to bring people in (and they're watching just as much TV as ever). The newsweeklies, newspapers...all struggling to hold on.

The clock moves one direction, and it ain't backwards.

Fine, then throw up your hands and substitute the news blocks with TMZ or Judge Judy.

The question was "What needs to be fixed in television news most?". Not "how can TV stations increase their bottom line?".

If you're going to do news, then do news. Otherwise just show cartoons and advertise sugar-laden cereal to kids.

 

[Bengalsfan]

And virtually every time that's done, it's a dud. Failure upon failure. Trying to force-feed them an approach that die for a reason decades ago isn't going to do much to bring people in (and they're watching just as much TV as ever). The newsweeklies, newspapers...all struggling to hold on.

The clock moves one direction, and it ain't backwards.

Fine, then throw up your hands and substitute the news blocks with TMZ or Judge Judy.

As it stands now, I'd rather watch reruns of Judge Judy. Much more entertaining and informative than local TV news. Local news now is programmed to the lowest common denominator. People who truly want to be informed have found other ways at doing it. Which is why ratings are tanking. The audience that local news is shooting for now is fickle and will abandon it even further when they find something else new and shiny that grabs their attention.

 

[imhomerjay]

Believe it or not, your definition, or ideal, of news isn't the only one out there. Imperfect as the present is, so was the past when one chooses to remove the rose-colored glasses.

And being a bottom-line person--as in without the bottom line being met, there isn't any programming to be had--I don't separate the two. You don't fix a business by doing what people don't want to watch, and spending a boat load of money doing so. You fix it by looking at both sides of the ledger and seeing how to best manage the two. Pretending it's 1965....doesn't work in most other businesses (with few exceptions) and it sure isn't going to fix anything in the television world.

Their job is to put on something people will watch. And by and large, even the second- and third-place outlets in many markets find local news is generating enough ROI to do more of it than ever before. It may not be to the liking of the old folks who pine for the days of Walter, David and Chet, but that hardly means something is in need of being "fixed" now any more or less so than it needed fixing then.

 

[KeithE4]

This is no scientific opinion but personal observation.

I know of no one under the age of 30 who watches TV news. Nor do they listen to radio news. Nor do they read a newspaper.

They didn't in the '70s and '80s either, when I was in that age bracket. Television (other than sports for the most part) is a non-entity to most people between the ages of about 14 (when they stop being kids and begin having a life) and 30-35 (when they start families and have to stay home more). How many young people in their 20s stay home to watch TV unless they're too broke to go anywhere? Few, I'll bet, and that hasn't changed in decades.

TV/radio pandering to the bottom line have effectively killed off the next generation of news viewers/listeners.

Pandering to the bottom line is Job One for all for-profit businesses. There are no exceptions to that rule. Making money is the only reason they exist. If they don't make a profit, eventually they will go under.

Obviously, newscasts with about 10% news and 90% BS draw viewers, although most are over 30 (and if they are younger than 55, that's all the advertisers care about) If they draw viewers, they get advertisers (read: Paying Customers). That's the only reason commercial television stations exist.

Sorry, but that's life. I'm not crazy about it either, but that's the way it goes. Broadcast media doesn't cater to me since I'm now officially out of the Sacred Sales DemosTM. They don't give a rat's a** what I think, or if I'm watching at all. It's about what the 25-54 crowd watches, although for TV I think it's closer to 30 or 35 to 54 for the reasons I stated above.

 

[BRNout]

Their job is to put on something people will watch. And by and large, even the second- and third-place outlets in many markets find local news is generating enough ROI to do more of it than ever before. It may not be to the liking of the old folks who pine for the days of Walter, David and Chet, but that hardly means something is in need of being "fixed" now any more or less so than it needed fixing then.

Hard as it may be to believe, I have to agree with you - albeit reluctantly. That reluctance is because I miss the concept of hiring and training great journalists to serve as reporters and anchors of newscasts. That mold was broken a couple of decades ago and we're now to the point where even network newscasts are hard-pressed to find a great 'word of God' anchor.

Then again, things must evolve whether we like it or not. There was no internet in 1975; no other way to obtain up to date news of a visual nature. There were newspapers, basic network TV and radio - and, oh yeah, weekly newsmags with colorful photos. Sounds like I'm talking about some ancient era, but it's not. Yet the marketplace offerings weren't that different from the 50s at that point.

Now we have so many other options that it's not even funny. The evening network newscast is quickly becoming an anachronism; much of that thanks to 24/7 news channels and the internet. Local TV news is still more relevant, but needs to watch its back.

Not to mention that the style of news gathering and delivery has changed - and it had to. We may pine away nostalgically for the days of Uncle Walter, Howard K. Smith and John Chancellor (all classic newsmen); HOWEVER, you need to take a second look. Go to YouTube and watch a vintage newscast from the 1960s or 1970s. Fascinating stuff, really. And, here's the kicker: those in-depth reports that we all love (in theory) are too long and boring to maintain our attention. Blame MTV, the internet, or society at large, but we have all become accustomed to the concept of the sound byte and lack the patience to hang around long enough in reasonable numbers to make an in-depth newscast viable.

Yes, there are exceptions - particularly when you're interested in a given subject. But, every night and every story would never cut it now. That's an evolution that quietly happened during the period between 1980 and about 1995. However, even more will have to happen to make news relevant to the generation that is now 15-30. Personally, I think that network news won't make it in its present form - and using milquetoast personalities and TMZ-style stories probably isn't the formula for success. After all, there are plenty of other places to get that content. Not saying I have the answer, but I am pointing out that it needs to change and throwing it out to the forum for discussion.

 

[gr8oldies]

I just remember the last years of the CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite and wonder what was up with that plain yellow background.

 

[imhomerjay]

All great points. "Network" news may well fade away at some point (though I think by now we should be cautious about writing the obits with a specific date--they may outlive all of us).

TV in and of itself isn't a non-entity for 20-somethings, by any stretch of the imagination. News on the other hand? Sure. But that's not been limited to TV news; it may be that the next generation isn't coming back to old-school sources--TV news, newspapers, et al--not because of the specific content/packaging, or lackthereof, but because much of what they need is available elsewhere.

I can't cite my own experience--I was and remain a news junkie. I may have been the only underclassman in my high school who actually tried to sneak free newspapers from the library that were provided for seniors...who were supposed to be using them to track stocks for a stock market competition project. At least I was sneaking them until the senior government & economics teacher pretty much gave me the green light to take one each day because the audience for which they were intended didn't bother taking them. And in college? Though I have to assume I'm not the only person who bought a paper from the box near the dorms (otherwise they wouldn't have had them there), I certainly didn't see many papers on campus. Of course, I was also the only one watching Nightline at night as well back in its early glory days.

But what I can understand is those who "came back" to some kind of news as they entered adulthood. Suddeny, when you're faced with a daily commute to a real job, or need to be thinking about what to put on the young kids for school, or news about medical conditions that used to be something only "other peopel" (you know, old people or parents of ankle biters) had to worry about, or the financial markets start having a real influence on what happens to your retirement savings...well, then all those staples of the news (clearly some more local, some national) suddenly became important to more people.

And at this point, they still are to many people. The ratings are there to prove it. Logic dictates that in a world of endless (figuratively speaking) choices to watch on a TV at any given time, you won't see the audience concentration you did when choices could be counted on one's fingers. It's an apples to oranges comparison at best. It still serves enough of a purpose to enough people to make it profitable for most players in the space. The weaker ones shake out--also nothing terribly new there--but the ones who deliver what their audiences want can take home a nice chunk of change (all things being relative in a recession).

 

[landtuna]

Then I will assume from the various replies that TV news isn't capable of being fixed and stations would be better off substituting some form of pure entertainment instead of costly news blocks. And it would save all those self-serving blather spots about how "important" their news coverage is to their local markets and we'd be spared the toothy, blow-dried big-hair blondes who butcher their teleprompters on a nightly basis.

I'd go for that.

 

[imhomerjay]

More like, it won't be adjusted backwards to your liking. No reason to put in other programming if your ROI is better with local news than something else. No one is forcing you to watch it (and if they are, you have a more serious issue). Enough people obviously find some value in it to make it profitable for the majority of staions.

 

[gr8oldies]

There are very few markets with enough hard news to fill more than a few minutes. And yes, people like the "pet of the week" etc. As far as going back to doing the news in 1970 or getting rid of news entirely...ain't gonna happen.

 

[landtuna]

My "liking" would be what I've already stated - if you are going to report the news then please report the news. Not some imitation human interest fluff. Not repeat the weather segment two or three times within 30 minutes. Not waste time between stories trying to be humorous with your co-anchor. Not air stories which have no local interest.

Right now my local news programs break every single one of the above. The national news shows are almost as useless. The stations, trying for the almighty dollar, air more and more "news" shows which are not more informative but do seem to generate more revenue for the station or at least serve as more advertising for the talking heads that clutter the highways around my city.

 

[imhomerjay]

If enough people's liking matches yours, great. You'll get what you want. But it doesn't look like that's the case. A bummer perhaps, but that's life. Sometimes something you like--be it a show, a particular approach to news, or some product/store/company--just doesn't work (or stops working).

The basic rules of economics aren't going to change, so that leaves you with options. Watch, don't watch, and/or put in the elbow grease to convince someone (with real, meaningful evidence) that there's a solid business model to be had in your desired approach. If you do, and it succeeds, more power to you.

Or, you can keep pining for the mythical golden days of yore while the rest of the world moves on and accepts that it's 2010 now.

 

[searadiofreak]

Local News Formula

There is a "local news formula" that varies very little between consultants. The "formula" has been heavily researched and almost every medium and major market newsroom, with a few notable exceptions, follows it. This is why local news tends to look the same not only from channel to channel, but from market to market. Same sets, same type of news content, and an over abundance of weather. It's all being done the same, because (as the consultants will tell you), this is what the audience wants.

So a typical half hour will lead with hopefully "breaking news", and on a good day, "more breaking news", and like clockwork, after 2 or 3 stories it's right to weather tease #1, where they give you about 30 seconds, but all it really is telling you is to come back for "my full forecast" later in the half hour. Perhaps another quick story, then a bunch of teases as to what is coming up after the break. This is called the 80-20 tease, where they actually are giving you about 80% of the story in the tease, and expect you to stick around for the remaining 20% of the story later. Back from the break, maybe some quick health or money news, or again if lucky, more breaking news, then weather tease #2, this one quicker because the weather anchor is now on deck. Next break ends and it is right to the weather. Even if there is no weather of note, it is treated with great importance. Back for maybe some headline sports, and then more teases for the next newscast, and perhaps a "kicker", an old term for an entertaining story that has the whole anchor team chuckling as the camera pans out from the desk. That is local news today.

What is frustrating is it is the same almost everywhere. The only thing that is different are the faces and the logos. Even 15 years ago there was more creativity, story-telling, different formats, different approaches. That is mostly gone today. Because the "formula" is what rules. Too bad.

 

[Mario500]

Hard as it may be to believe, I have to agree with you - albeit reluctantly. That reluctance is because I miss the concept of hiring and training great journalists to serve as reporters and anchors of newscasts. That mold was broken a couple of decades ago and we're now to the point where even network newscasts are hard-pressed to find a great 'word of God' anchor.

Then again, things must evolve whether we like it or not. There was no internet in 1975; no other way to obtain up to date news of a visual nature. There were newspapers, basic network TV and radio - and, oh yeah, weekly newsmags with colorful photos. Sounds like I'm talking about some ancient era, but it's not. Yet the marketplace offerings weren't that different from the 50s at that point.

Now we have so many other options that it's not even funny. The evening network newscast is quickly becoming an anachronism; much of that thanks to 24/7 news channels and the internet. Local TV news is still more relevant, but needs to watch its back.

Not to mention that the style of news gathering and delivery has changed - and it had to. We may pine away nostalgically for the days of Uncle Walter, Howard K. Smith and John Chancellor (all classic newsmen); HOWEVER, you need to take a second look. Go to YouTube and watch a vintage newscast from the 1960s or 1970s. Fascinating stuff, really. And, here's the kicker: those in-depth reports that we all love (in theory) are too long and boring to maintain our attention. Blame MTV, the internet, or society at large, but we have all become accustomed to the concept of the sound byte and lack the patience to hang around long enough in reasonable numbers to make an in-depth newscast viable.

Yes, there are exceptions - particularly when you're interested in a given subject. But, every night and every story would never cut it now. That's an evolution that quietly happened during the period between 1980 and about 1995. However, even more will have to happen to make news relevant to the generation that is now 15-30. Personally, I think that network news won't make it in its present form - and using milquetoast personalities and TMZ-style stories probably isn't the formula for success. After all, there are plenty of other places to get that content. Not saying I have the answer, but I am pointing out that it needs to change and throwing it out to the forum for discussion.

Your use of "however" is an example of why I dislike this word when it's used to contrast two different statements and capitalizing it indicates strong feelings. The frequent use of the word has made it sound and appear very unnatural, especially when it's used before a pause or comma. There are other words and phrases for contrasting statements: "but", "though", "all though", and "even though".

 

[Sammi Brie]

Re: Local News Formula

There is a "local news formula" that varies very little between consultants. The "formula" has been heavily researched and almost every medium and major market newsroom, with a few notable exceptions, follows it. This is why local news tends to look the same not only from channel to channel, but from market to market. Same sets, same type of news content, and an over abundance of weather. It's all being done the same, because (as the consultants will tell you), this is what the audience wants.

So a typical half hour will lead with hopefully "breaking news", and on a good day, "more breaking news", and like clockwork, after 2 or 3 stories it's right to weather tease #1, where they give you about 30 seconds, but all it really is telling you is to come back for "my full forecast" later in the half hour. Perhaps another quick story, then a bunch of teases as to what is coming up after the break. This is called the 80-20 tease, where they actually are giving you about 80% of the story in the tease, and expect you to stick around for the remaining 20% of the story later. Back from the break, maybe some quick health or money news, or again if lucky, more breaking news, then weather tease #2, this one quicker because the weather anchor is now on deck. Next break ends and it is right to the weather. Even if there is no weather of note, it is treated with great importance. Back for maybe some headline sports, and then more teases for the next newscast, and perhaps a "kicker", an old term for an entertaining story that has the whole anchor team chuckling as the camera pans out from the desk. That is local news today.

What is frustrating is it is the same almost everywhere. The only thing that is different are the faces and the logos. Even 15 years ago there was more creativity, story-telling, different formats, different approaches. That is mostly gone today. Because the "formula" is what rules. Too bad.

THAT is the problem. You hit the nail on the head and drove it right through the wood. Generic, weather-hyping, fluffy newscasts.

Do we need "Desert Doppler 15 HD Forecast Center" and "SuperDoppler Weather Watch" weather departments? What matters is how much meteorologists know their area. We've had and in a few rare cases have the 20-year-plus meteorologists (Royal Norman and Dave Munsey here; some of the more famous modern names like KWTV's Gary England and even today the nearly 50-year career of Dick Goddard; and the great TV meteorologists of the past like Harry Volkman and Brian Teigland and Harold Taft). The ones that have passed on would probably be rolling in their graves if they knew about how we hype weather.

 

[gr8oldies]

Remember though, in the Good Old Days the weatherman..or token weather girl...was the station jokester.

 

[Sammi Brie]

Remember though, in the Good Old Days the weatherman..or token weather girl...was the station jokester.

It's good that that is not what we have today. But we've gone to the complete other extreme. I can understand it in Tornado Alley, but not in Phoenix, Arizona!

Earlier: "There are very few markets with enough hard news to fill more than a few minutes. And yes, people like the "pet of the week" etc. As far as going back to doing the news in 1970 or getting rid of news entirely...ain't gonna happen."

WJHL Tri-Cities, VA had Sunday night newscasts that ran 15 minutes in the 1980s. I think the news anchor did the weather and then they had a sports anchor. Even today WLAJ's newscasts are a whopping ten minutes long (at 11pm). That'd work today in those small, small markets! KXGN needs only do five minutes a night of news, you know!

 

[Bengalsfan]

Even today WLAJ's newscasts are a whopping ten minutes long (at 11pm). That'd work today in those small, small markets! KXGN needs only do five minutes a night of news, you know!

That would work about everywhere. Some stations that have three hours of news is rediculious. They constantly repeat the same five or six stories. Everything you need to know, you can see in the first block of a newscast.

 

[imhomerjay]

Hmmm, perhaps that's because many folks only watch one block, not the full thing? :

Most people don't need to be in a store from opening to closing, either, but you want it open when it fits your schedule. A multi-hour morning or afternoon block fits the wide variance in commuting-based patterns. Just basic business, not terribly complex, save for those who choose to disregard economics.

 

[kenglish]

As I see it, the "Numbers-driven, Advertiser-supported" newscast can't survive.

Although many of your viewers would like to get more detail about a particular story, the fear is that other viewers, who have no interest in that particular subject, will tune out. So, we get the same old "ten-second soundbite", and go to the next subject...hopefully, before the dis-interested viewer can reach for the remote.

I wish there was a way to create "sidebar" information to go with a story. Give us a way to grab background information, and more in-depth reports, without it intruding on the story for the "don't care about this" crowd.

Perhaps a way to "shop" for more information on a story, by pressing a button on your remote during the story. That would start a DVR-like device that would download, bit-by-bit, background information that relates to the story. This data could be sent out during the less bandwidth-intensive parts of the newscast (the "Talking Head" shots, where there is little motion), and your DVR-like recorder would assemble them in to a package, for later viewing. Since it's not strictly "broadcast", it could be anything from a jpeg, to a text file, to a PowerPoint, to full video and audio. It would trickle in to the recorder's hard drive, and be available for viewing later. That way, advertisers wouldn't be able to complain that we "took viewers away" from their spot, since the viewing is not done in real time.