As staffs get smaller and bureaus close, another change occurring in network news is that there is less of it. In both the morning and evening news time slots, the evidence suggests there are fewer minutes devoted to news in the newscasts.
Data from the researcher Andrew Tyndall show that the amount of time devoted to news -- as opposed to ads, promos and teasers -- on the half-hour network nightly news has shrunk 11 percent in 12 years, from 21 minutes in 1991, after the first Gulf War, to 18.7 minutes in 2002, on the eve of the second Gulf War. Extra time devoted to coverage of the September 11 attacks in 2001 accounts for the only anomaly in the downward trend.
Average Time Devoted to News
on Evening Newscasts
1988 to 2002
| Year | Time (in Minutes) |
| 1988 | 21.0 |
| 1989 | 21.0 |
| 1990 | 21.0 |
| 1991 | 21.0 |
| 1992 | 20.6 |
| 1993 | 20.4 |
| 1994 | 20.1 |
| 1995 | 19.9 |
| 1996 | 19.6 |
| 1997 | 19.1 |
| 1998 | 19.0 |
| 1999 | 18.8 |
| 2000 | 18.8 |
| 2001 | 19.0 |
| 2002 | 18.7 |
| 2003 | 18.8 |
Source: Andrew Tyndall, unpublished data
More limited data also suggest a similarly pronounced shrinkage in the news hole of the morning news, where every hour contains on average two fewer minutes of programming over 10 years -- 44 minutes 10 seconds in 1992 versus 41 minutes 57 seconds in 2001, according to a study from the American Association of Advertising Agencies and the Association of National Advertisers. These figures are softer than the Tyndall data since the advertisers study tracks just one week of programming each year, rather than being a census of every broadcast, and there are fluctuations week to week. Still, it mirrors what has happened in the evening news and suggests that more than a minute of it went to commercials with another minute going to commercials, promos and public service announcements, or PSAs.
Average Division of Time on Morning News
1992 to 2001
| Programming | Commercials | Promos/Credits | PSAs | |
| 1992 | 44:10 | 13:49 | 1:49 | 0:12 |
| 1993 | 43:34 | 13:48 | 2:26 | 0:11 |
| 1994 | 43:25 | 13:27 | 2:47 | 0:21 |
| 1995 | 43:40 | 13:29 | 2:22 | 0:29 |
| 1996 | 44:27 | 12:56 | 2:06 | 0:31 |
| 1997 | 44:01 | 13:20 | 2:13 | 0:26 |
| 1998 | 43:20 | 13:29 | 2:42 | 0:29 |
| 1999 | 42:28 | 14:49 | 2:18 | 0:25 |
| 2000 | 42:15 | 14:34 | 2:47 | 0:24 |
| 2001 | 41:57 | 14:57 | 2:42 | 0:24 |
Source: American Association of Advertising Agencies (AAAA) and the Association of National Advertisers, Inc., "Television Commercial Monitoring Report," 2001, p. 18.
The pros and cons of these changes are interesting to ponder. Giving up more of the news hole for promotions and ads clearly has an impact on the program, shrinking it and perhaps making it more irritating to the audience since it has more commercials and promos.
Yet that extra minute of ads per hour can mean extra money for the news divisions and the salaries of the stars who populate them. The decision to sell off more of the newscast, in other words, is probably one that involves weighing short-term gain versus long-term cost and estimating the marginal impact on audiences. Will they notice? Will they care?
The changes add up fairly simply. Fewer people, based in fewer places, are filling more hours of news, although the size of the news hole in each of those programs is actually somewhat smaller.
The net effect is seen in the content. The networks have a harder time sustaining coverage of complex events. There are fewer specialists and beats. For instance, while the news agenda of network news changed sharply after September 11, 2001, that shift was not sustained in the first six months of 2002, when the nightly news returned partly to the same news topic agenda it had before the terrorist attacks. (see content). Even in the weeks following September 11, network executives said, the networks felt that they had excelled, but they had become exhausted. As one then-retired executive with close ties to one of the networks put it at the time, "they no longer had the bench" to do this kind of coverage for more than a few weeks.
A comparison of the size of the news hole with the average number of correspondents per newsroom shows that the number of on-air reporters per minute of news has basically remained constant. But as the charts show, the number of reporters is smaller than it was in 1988, but there is less time available for those correspondents' stories.
On the one hand, with fewer viewers watching the traditional evening newscasts, one can argue that it makes sense for news divisions to shift resources away from nightly news and the areas of expertise needed for those programs, such as foreign bureaus.
On the other hand, one can also argue there is a question of chicken and egg. A smaller news hole, and thus a smaller and perhaps more limited program, may be one of the reasons viewership has declined.