Why TV networks may be afraid of investigative stories

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

https://www.latimes.com/entertainme...992gpYhyExLpcPnQrcM1God1WizkvrOalej06a_R-Q_zc

A Los Angeles Times Article. Part of the original point was about money and possible lawsuits over releasing certain stories.

This has been the autumn of discontent for investigative TV journalists.

Ronan Farrow’s bestselling book “Catch and Kill” detailed his frustration with former bosses at NBC News over his failed attempt to break the story on the sexual assault and harassment allegations against movie mogul Harvey Weinstein. A month later, leaked video showed ABC’s “20/20” co-anchor Amy Robach grousing over how the network would not run a 2015 interview with a victim of billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein that implicated Prince Andrew and former President Bill Clinton.

In both cases the networks said the stories never reached the editorial standard they believed was necessary to put it on the air. Robach even publicly backed up ABC’s assertion, saying her private remarks on an open mike were made in “a moment of frustration.”

But the dissatisfaction Farrow and Robach expressed reflects a deepening concern by some veteran journalists and producers that network TV news divisions are avoiding controversial enterprise stories that could pose financial risks from litigation and create aggravation for their corporate owners. Declining ratings, public distrust of the media and the surfeit of news from the Trump White House have added to those pressures.

“I would say that you don’t go to broadcast television to see investigative reporting these days,” said Lowell Bergman, a veteran investigative news producer and emeritus professor at the University of California, Berkeley, Graduate School of Journalism. “There’s much less of it because it’s a bigger hassle than other kinds of reporting. And network television has always been concerned not just with ratings but with profits.”

Chris Hansen, whose undercover and hidden-camera investigations were a staple of NBC News for more than a decade until he left the network in 2013, said enterprise reporting has become less attractive as newsmagazines such as NBC’s “Dateline” and ABC’s “20/20" are seeing higher profits with true-crime stories that can play — and be replayed — like scripted dramas.

Also you gotta consider certain youtube pundits have been stepping in to do investigative stories

Case and Point the Bleach clinical tests that didn't get attention outside of Youtube but apparently these allegations are at play.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxeJT2broII

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgzh7oYqvmY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3F8DerZBXy8

Another Point here is the recent Measles Outbreaks you have Youtube Pundits coming out and naming certain political groups for scaring people away from vaccines. In the case of the Measles cases it has lead to various states getting into debates over vaccine laws.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXR6AQC27II

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7Y5VlYFWu0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlngQzyUYf4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x7AFiszte0


Also there is the Apple business practices issue that story has only been seen on Youtube and that was an investigative story where the CBC ran with the story after another Youtube Pundit had allegations over Apple's repair policies which lead to "Right to Repair debates" to take place in some states. Note as the saying goes choose your sources wisely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUaJ8pDlxi8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XneTBhRPYk

 

[TheBigA]

A Los Angeles Times Article. Part of the original point was about money and possible lawsuits over releasing certain stories.

There will be lawsuits or threats of lawsuits no matter what they report. That's the cost of doing business. The issue is how to fund enterprise reporting. Farrow discovered there's more interest to do it in print journalism. That's where all the enterprise work is being done. He got as much space as he needed to tell his story. Not sure how they're funding it. You get your story published in a respected print publication, and the TV networks will come calling to book you as a guest. Even when your story is critical of the network, as was the case for Farrow, who was interviewed by Rachel Maddow at MSNBC. The difference between print and YouTube is the credibility. Anyone with a computer can post a YouTube video. That doesn't mean it's correct. The world is filled with conspiracy theories. But among all the noise, there's still good work being done, and when it's correct, the networks will give you a forum.

 

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

There will be lawsuits or threats of lawsuits no matter what they report. That's the cost of doing business. The issue is how to fund enterprise reporting. Farrow discovered there's more interest to do it in print journalism. That's where all the enterprise work is being done. He got as much space as he needed to tell his story. Not sure how they're funding it. You get your story published in a respected print publication, and the TV networks will come calling to book you as a guest. Even when your story is critical of the network, as was the case for Farrow, who was interviewed by Rachel Maddow at MSNBC. The difference between print and YouTube is the credibility. Anyone with a computer can post a YouTube video. That doesn't mean it's correct. The world is filled with conspiracy theories. But among all the noise, there's still good work being done, and when it's correct, the networks will give you a forum.

True and consider Podcasts outlets too the journalism quality may vary on who is releasing the investigative segments though.

 

[TheBigA]

True and consider Podcasts outlets too the journalism quality may vary on who is releasing the investigative segments though.

Podcasts and YouTube have one thing in common. They can be done by anyone. No need for knowledge or facts.

The thing that gives someone like Ronan Farrow credibility is he is proven right time after time. Same with people such as Ashley Parker or Dan Balz at the Washington Post or Peter Baker at the NY Times is they're proven to be right. Meanwhile its rare that a podcaster or a YouTuber breaks a big story that is proven to be right.

The TV networks are under attack by the government, and the government has the power to intimidate any broadcaster by threatening license renewal at them. That's not the case with print journalism. No licenses and no regulation. This is more than lawsuits or profits. So under current circumstances, major print operations are a better base of operations, and the TV networks can simply draw on them for sourcing when they report.

 

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

Podcasts and YouTube have one thing in common. They can be done by anyone. No need for knowledge or facts.

The thing that gives someone like Ronan Farrow credibility is he is proven right time after time. Same with people such as Ashley Parker or Dan Balz at the Washington Post or Peter Baker at the NY Times is they're proven to be right. Meanwhile its rare that a podcaster or a YouTuber breaks a big story that is proven to be right.

The TV networks are under attack by the government, and the government has the power to intimidate any broadcaster by threatening license renewal at them. That's not the case with print journalism. No licenses and no regulation. This is more than lawsuits or profits. So under current circumstances, major print operations are a better base of operations, and the TV networks can simply draw on them for sourcing when they report.

True and Also consider Public Broadcasting outlets like NPR, PBS and their affiliates they will do a story with Propublica journalist when there are investigative stories to be released then those segments would be released to various shows on NPR and PBS though.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProPublica

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Responsive_Politics


https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article70324002.html

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/investigations/article222802720.html

Also consider McClatchy News the owners of the Sacramento Bee they teamed up with International Consortium of Investigative Journalists along with other international news outlets to do the Panama Papers Scandal. Yes there is investigative stories being done but where are the audience going to get those stories is a another thing though.


https://www.icij.org/investigations/panama-papers/

 

[TheBigA]

True and Also consider Public Broadcasting outlets like NPR, PBS and their affiliates they will do a story with Propublica journalist when there are investigative stories to be released then those segments would be released to various shows on NPR and PBS though.

Keep in mind that PBS isn't a centralized content creator like the commercial networks. They are a consortium of producing stations. So WETA produces the NewsHour, and WGBH or WNET produces Frontline or other documentaries. The money is coming from sources that seek to fund this kind of investigative journalism. Shepard Smith just donated a half million dollars for this purpose.

https://www.newsday.com/entertainme...ates-committee-protect-journalists-1.38990653

 

[TheBigA]

In response to the LA Times story linked in the OP, here's a story that says local TV stations are not afraid of investigative stories:

https://tvnewscheck.com/article/241887/stations-not-afraid-of-investigative-news/

So while some TV nets and cable channels may be deferring to print, local stations and small groups see a way to fill a void left by declines in local newspapers.

In addition, iHeart's Bob Pittman says there's room for radio to fill the void:

https://radioink.com/2019/12/04/pittman-tvs-downfall-is-radios-opportunity/

Certainly NPR isn't cutting back on investigative reporting either.