Local TV News Project 1999

We have now studied 97 stations in 31 cities. When you include those cities we have studied twice and those in which we studied two different time slots, we have data from 127 news shows.

Much of the analysis still should be considered theory. How firmly can we identify a formula for quality that sells? It's evolving. Is there a tabloid road to success? There was last year but not necessarily this year. Are mediocre stations less likely to succeed commercially? Perhaps not. Again, many factors influence ratings other than content.

After two years, though, the data support one conclusion above all: quality does sell. Taking all 127 stations studied into account, the best stations are the most likely to succeed, ahead of those in the middle or the bottom.
At the very least, we believe we can declare, not just theorize, that there is no commercial penalty for good journalism on TV. If stations produce poor, sensationalized, scandalized, violent and exploitative newscasts, that is their choice. The market does not demand it. Blaming lousy local news on viewers is a cop-out for incompetence.

The weakness in local television is not story selection but execution. Stations fail at the basics: sourcing, enterprise, getting both sides, seeing the big picture. There are signs that stations are doing a better job of covering more topics and making them locally relevant. Yet there are disturbing signals, too, that stations are spreading themselves thin, airing more feeds, and doing less original work. With ratings in decline, enterprise, which speaks to effort and intellect, is one of the few things the data suggest will bring them back. If the trend continues, local television news may slowly be committing suicide.