Your comments on the status of Television News...

[tothedj]

How many out there are tired of all the "fluff" television news has become?, it's sad to see this taking place, and
may explain why many are tuning out local and national newscast, with the internet a factor, could the day come soon when news as we know it will "fade to black" on our screens?, many stations have cut stuff, and in one market, they broke their deal with a CBS affiliate and eliminated news, i still watch news daily, but depend more
on what's posted online, but at some point journalism needs to return to "fair and balanced" reporting, get rid of
the "tabloid" stories(it has no place on a news program!) and most importantly, quit "sensationalizing" everything,
especially the weather!, while it's important to give information, don't make it sound hysterical!

 

[DToTheJ]

I believe that as long as the nightly newscasts continue to be inundated with prescription drug advertisements and no major sponsors, it's a dead medium walking.

 

[FreddyE1977]

TV news is suffering from the same debilitating problems as the print media. A combination of new technologies that quickly
eclipse them and shut off their access to younger audiences (first the internet, increasingly mobile and Twitter-like
services) and a lack of credibility brought on by their own political biases, which are nearly impossible to hide at this point.

This is all made worse by the fact that they seem to be oblivious to the fact. They still seem to think they are living in an age where their main anchor can unilaterally declare an end to a war. They always seem stunned when a Matt Drudge or some blogger gets the jump on them on some big story.

 

[BRNout]

TV news isn't living up to its potential. It still has a number of advantages over online news sources, yet it fritters them away in a number of ways. The main thing I can say (and this is with BROADCAST news sources in mind) is that the news has become far too dumbed-down. The writing is on a third-grade level, the level of depth tends to barely exceed 1 mm and too often the newsreaders/reporters seem chosen far more for looks than for intelligence. And the fluff! How much meaningless crap can you cram into a local newscast? Is this what they think women or younger demos want to see? Well, it's crap and it's not working for the nightly network newscasts either.

Even when they do get into 'real' news stories, trying to report a complex story while only having 45 seconds to do so leaves the viewer unsatisfied and reaching for his or her laptop to find out what's really going on. Sadly, I catch errors in news stories that are far more frequent than ever before - likely because the blow-dried 23 year old reporting on the story has absolutely no understanding of what he's reporting on. Too many C and D students get into this business, clearly.

And, let's not get into the issue of real or perceived bias on the part of reporters and/or entire news organizations which leads to mistrust and dropping viewership. I'll say one thing about this: when I was a kid, you would see journalists make an effort to get a comment from partisans on each side of a given debate or issue. It was the case on local AND national newscasts. One could argue whether one side or the other was given a bit more time or a more favorable byte, but at least they offered it. Now, more often than not on local newscasts, I see one side interviewed with the other having NO representation. And, without exception, it's the left side of the argument that gets the airtime. For example, an "immigration rally" in Chicago solicits interviews with 3 or 4 organizers who pontificate on how we need 'reform' and amnesty and how Arizona is like Nazi Germany. Then that's it. "Joe Blow reporting from Grant Park - now back to you Ron!" No balance. That goes beyond bias and extends well into laziness. And it's obvious to all but the audience members with the lowest IQs. Happens all the time - and in every single market.

Network newscasts offer a bit more balance, but still generally have a lean. You'll note that I've left out the likes of MSNBC, CNN and FOX. That's because they have their formats which offer more in-depth coverage, but some of the same concepts still apply. Rather than third-grade level news, they perhaps offer up stories that are at a fourth or fifth-grade level. Yet, all could do better with inconsistent reporting and far too much 'fluff' and feel-good crap stories that aren't news.

 

[DToTheJ]

TV news is suffering from the same debilitating problems as the print media... This is all made worse by the fact that they seem to be oblivious to the fact... They always seem stunned when a Matt Drudge or some blogger gets the jump on them on some big story.

You mean, like how TMZ.com first broke the story of Michael Jackson's hospitalization and eventual death - among other stories?

 

[formeraa]

And, let's not get into the issue of real or perceived bias on the part of reporters and/or entire news organizations which leads to mistrust and dropping viewership. I'll say one thing about this: when I was a kid, you would see journalists make an effort to get a comment from partisans on each side of a given debate or issue. It was the case on local AND national newscasts. One could argue whether one side or the other was given a bit more time or a more favorable byte, but at least they offered it. Now, more often than not on local newscasts, I see one side interviewed with the other having NO representation. And, without exception, it's the left side of the argument that gets the airtime. For example, an "immigration rally" in Chicago solicits interviews with 3 or 4 organizers who pontificate on how we need 'reform' and amnesty and how Arizona is like Nazi Germany. Then that's it. "Joe Blow reporting from Grant Park - now back to you Ron!" No balance. That goes beyond bias and extends well into laziness. And it's obvious to all but the audience members with the lowest IQs. Happens all the time - and in every single market.

Or vice versa! We've had a number of anti-immigration rallies in Arizona where people are interviewed without hearing from the other side. But we digress here! How about the news presenting a detailed ANALYSIS of the immigration issues? They can have pro and anti people comment on it, but present an ANALYSIS of the issue. Instead, we have anchors (who were wx and sports anchors in previous lives) going to the Arizona-Mexico border and doing live standups. I would rather have an older grey-haired dude (with 40 years of Arizona news reporting) analyzing the issue, but instead we get the 24-year old MMJ whose only experience is a year in Missoula (no disrespect to Missoula).

 

[Markxxx]

I think part of it is that all the local news is the same. I look in Chicago with FIVE major outlest, CBS, NBC, ABC, WFLD (FOX) and WGN and they all cover the same stories. Just a different order.

As an educated viewer and I don't mean this as a slam to people who aren't, I can see through a lot of this garbage. Like on ABC news we had one of the reporters saying "And after so many weeks of the oils spill we asked workers about it and all they'd say is "no comment."

OK this looks bad, but every single company I've ever worked at has a policy which says "all communications between media and the company go through XXXX representative. Any inquires from the media should be "No comment," and with a direct toward XXXX."

So ABC is making it sound like BP is covering it up by having a "no comment" policy when it really is just standard policy in corporate America.

News simply can't deliver the kind of investigative journalism that made the TV news of a decade ago and the press of yesteryear sell large amounts of papers. In the old days if you investigated on company, they would boycott your paper. But that was fine, 'cause one company boycotting couldn't make a difference. Now one company is owned by another so if you present company XXX in a bad light you may face a huge loss of advertisers. And I'm not knocking this, after all it's a free country and if I was the CEO of a company I'd probably do the same. But that is a reason too.

 

[imhomerjay]

Cart, meet horse.

I don't disagree with the points about the amount of "fluff" in the least, but turning back the clock ain't gonna cut it. There may not be ANYTHING that cuts it, really. The problem isn't the news per se, it's us. If the money was there in doing stone-faced serious reporting, they'd do it. That isn't really too complicated. Problem is, there isn't enough audience there to foot the bills, and driving away the group you still do have left isn't exactly going to help the bottom line,

 

[LKellerIII]

In the last decade or more, local TV news in the San Francisco Bay Area is - if anything - less concerned with sensationalism or "fluff" than they were 20 years ago. Yes, there is still some fluff, especially those celebrity stories, but unless they are major, like Michael Jackson's death, they are generally buried deep in the broadcast.

For the most part, the news here is delivered straight. My main criticism is that they don't cover important world and national stories in depth, but that's always been true of TV news - it's hardly anything new.

I watch local news less than I used to...maybe only 3 or 4 times a week. I hope I don't sound like some kind of snooty intellectual (I'm not), but I get most of my news now on the radio from NPR (they cover in depth), and from a number of websites, including the SF Gate (SFChronicle), the BBC, and the Economist, and the NY Times.

 

[DToTheJ]

How about the news presenting a detailed ANALYSIS of the immigration issues? They can have pro and anti people comment on it, but present an ANALYSIS of the issue...

Basically, the "analysis" shows on cable news in primetime have been giving the broadcast networks' nightly news model a run for the money. News comes in all different formats, but many tune into whichever desired cable news channel they wish for analysis.

 

[imhomerjay]

I actually think of "news" as something of a diet, with the various sources--networks, local, newspapers, online, etc.--all being part of the mix. As such, I find each can fulfill a distinct purpose, and even if the individual pieces sometimes don't entirely meet my exact desires, I understand they can't cater exclusively to me, and taking the big picture, I get a fairly balanced diet.

Is my local morning newscast kind of fluffy at times? Sure, but when I'm first exercising, then getting ready to head out the door, having it on in the background gives me my needs at that time: the headlines, and updates on whether my commute is about to become a nightmare or not. I'm not looking for something to focus my attention on fully, and the same holds true at night, when getting ready for bed, I want something similar. In between, I ingest many other news items from a range of sources, some headlines, some more in depth; some serious, some light.

I'm realistic enough not to expect "TV News" to be what it was 20, 30 or 40 years ago, and frankly, lifestyles have changed to the point where that wouldn't be entirely welcome by everyone.

 

[TheRob]

Newsrooms have so much more time to fill than 15 years ago. But they have the same amount of reporters, or less in some cases. Reporters are turning two stories a day, live, for four newscasts and producers are doing two hour-long shows a day in some cases. You will never see true in-depth reporting (stories that take days or weeks to compile) on the local level as long as newsrooms are scrambling to fill that news hole from 4-6:30 each afternoon.

 

[BRNout]

I don't disagree with the comments I've read thus far.

However, I'd like to point out - when comparing reporters now versus those 20, 30, 40 years ago - that today's reporters seem to have poorer investigative skills, lackluster grammar, and generally do not seem to be of the same caliber as their predecessors of decades past. There are a lot more empty talking heads out there now. Especially true in local newscasts, but also true in network newsrooms. Sure, there is the occasional exception. But the overall trend has been in that direction. Maybe those folks are cheaper.

Has our culture changed since the days of Cronkite and Huntley/Brinkley? Absolutely! And there is more time for light and fluffy news when run at appropriate times. But none of that changes my observation about what I see going on in far too many newsrooms. Reporters are not as sharp so I see more glaring factual errors and sloppy work. And, in stating that, that I must reiterate my comment about not analyzing both sides of a story. More often, they interview whoever has a beef and leave it at that as if there is no other side to the story. In other words, you're often not given enough information from a TV newscast to make up your own mind about a given event.

What's scary about that (to me) is that a pretty large slice of the voting public tends to get most of their news - albeit in bits and pieces - from local newscasts. In other words, dumbed-down news for an increasingly dumbed-down public.

 

[Jul]

I only watch the news when a female is solo anchoring or 2 females anchoring.

 

[formeraa]

How about the news presenting a detailed ANALYSIS of the immigration issues? They can have pro and anti people comment on it, but present an ANALYSIS of the issue...

Basically, the "analysis" shows on cable news in primetime have been giving the broadcast networks' nightly news model a run for the money. News comes in all different formats, but many tune into whichever desired cable news channel they wish for analysis.

But I would argue that -- in 2010 -- cable nets are primarily doing "opinion", not "analysis". In today's world, "analysis" seems to mean having multiple people yell, scream, and deride one another. I'm talking old school analysis which attempts to take a truly balanced look at issues. I turn to Fox for right-leaning opinion and MSNBC for left-leaning opinion. During the 2008 election, CNN at time presented some analysis, rather than pure opinion. Chuck Todd at NBC tries to take a more objective look at issues, when he has time to explore them. I certainly miss Tim Russert, who took a decidedly "everyman" approach to politics. I would love to hear what Tim would be saying today.

 

[1st of 5]

Tv news and their networks will be replaced by something else in the near future, just as TV replaced Radio and Radio replaced Newspapers. NPR? You've got to be joking. They are the most liberally slanted, one sided and biased propaganda huxsters on the air. I'm still waiting for that catch all tear jerking story about that HIV positive teenage unwed pregnant transgendered drug addicted child molesting vegetarian law school scholarship illegal immigrant student who turns tricks in her spare time to supplement her meager welfare food stamp handout all due to those callous and cold hearted politicians who actually expect people to work and support themselves!

 

[Skynet74]

Local News is still good when it comes to breaking news stories in your area. Drudge and TMZ won't be covering the latest Murder, Bank robbery or house fire in your town. Your local station will still be the first place you find out about this stuff. So.. YES Television News is still useful when it comes to local stories that matter. However these days they also focus on to much fluff. Things like celebrity News where they will never be the fastest to report a story. Way to much competition from the internet...... and the Internet will always win. Some days are just plain slow news days and you can easily tell how slow it is when a Sports story or a human interest story is the first report on the Newscast. This is why I often only watch the first 5 minutes of a Newscast just to see if anything of actual importance is going on.

 

[LKellerIII]

Tv news and their networks will be replaced by something else in the near future, just as TV replaced Radio and Radio replaced Newspapers. NPR? You've got to be joking. They are the most liberally slanted, one sided and biased propaganda huxsters on the air. I'm still waiting for that catch all tear jerking story about that HIV positive teenage unwed pregnant transgendered drug addicted child molesting vegetarian law school scholarship illegal immigrant student who turns tricks in her spare time to supplement her meager welfare food stamp handout all due to those callous and cold hearted politicians who actually expect people to work and support themselves!

Oh - they did that story yesterday on my commute home. Being a bleeding heart, my tears were flowing so copiously that my vision was blurred which caused me to drive through a red light, and I almost hit a transgendered homeless woman and her eight children.
;D

 

[searadiofreak]

Local TV news is far from dead, in fact, it probably is the most relevant media form that still exists. This will no doubt keep TV alive for many decades to come, but the wildcard is offering this programming on the web as well. Stations that stream will have an advantage. Stations that will repeat the important stories on demand will even have a greater advantage. It is already happening, as more and more over-the-air broadcasts can now be seen live on the web. The next generation will be able to take those stories and offer them on demand. Frankly, for many this is already here. For those who don't, better catch up fast or you're dead.

 

[landtuna]

I'll opine that a similar disinterest in TV news is in the offing from our younger generations as has already happened in radio. I don't know a single youngster who reads a newspaper (unless for a school assignment) or listens to radio news or watches TV news (unless a parent has it on).