In the 1990s, cable news networks replaced network television for many Americans as the primary source for breaking news, just as in the 1960s television supplanted newspapers. In the new millennium, a broadband-enabled, always-on Internet threatens to usurp those cable news networks. The recent tsunami disaster, The New York Times noted, marked the first time significant numbers of Americans turned to blogs for breaking news.
Where does that leave network news? In 2004, the decline in evening news audience continued, as did declines in prime-time magazines. Morning news, in contrast, continued to see its audiences grow. And despite the decision to abdicate coverage of much of the prime-time proceedings at the nominating conventions, on election night November 2004, twice as many people still turned to the old commercial networks as did cable for the results.
Nightly Newscasts
The discussion of network news audience trends usually begins with the signature nightly newscasts.
They are the most famous news programs, and the audience declines here are the most dramatic in TV news. Between their peak in November 1969 and 2003, as we noted last year, ratings for those programs fell by 59%. Was there any sign in 2004 that the trend was abating?1 [1]
The answer appears to be no, though 2005 offers new possibilities.
Television audiences are counted in numerous ways. The most familiar is ratings, which count the number of all television sets in the U.S. tuned to a given program. Share is the percentage of just those sets in use at a given time tuned in to a program. Viewership is ratings converted into the number of people actually estimated to be watching, since two or more people are often watching a given set.
Between November 2003 and November 2004, ratings for nightly news fell 2% and share fell 5%.2 [2]
In absolute numbers, that means that in November 2004, 28.8 million viewers watched the three network evening newscasts, half a million less than in November the year before. That is a 45% decline from the 52.1 million people who watched the nightly newscasts in 1980, the year CNN began.3 [3]
The numbers translate into 2004 ratings of 20.2, down from 20.6 the year before. They represent a 38 share, down from 40 in 2003.4 [4]
It's worth noting that a rating point (1% of American homes with a TV set) implies many more people in 2004 than it did in 1969. With population increases and demographic trends like more single heads of households, there are many more homes than 35 years before. Thus the decline in viewership is not nearly as steep as the decline in ratings.
|
November 1980 to November 2004 |
 |
|
Source: Nielsen Media unpublished data, November - November
|
In 1980, the three commercial network nightly news broadcasts had a combined 37% rating, and a 75% share. And at their historic peak, in 1969, they had a 50% rating and an 85% share. The November 2004 figures mean that ratings have fallen almost 59.6 % since 1969, and 45.4% sinc1e 1980. Share has fallen 55.3% since 1969 and 49.3% since 1980.5 [6]
|
November 1980 to November 2004
|
 |
|
Source: Nielsen Media Research unpublished data, www.nielsenmedia.com
|
|
Ratings taken for month of November.
|
Does this suggest that people no longer want the kind of carefully produced and edited, hard-news-oriented product they find in nightly news?
The answer is more complicated than a simple yes or no. Last year in this report, we went through a detailed analysis of the myriad factors driving the decline. We found that a factor often underrated is that the programs are on at a time - usually between 5:30 and 7:00 - when a decreasing number of Americans are at home.
There is also evidence, in survey data, that audiences are not so much giving up entirely on nightly news as catching it less often. The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press has been asking Americans whether they watch evening news since 1993.
The data show a precipitous drop between 1993 and 2000 in the number who said they regularly watched nightly network newscasts. Since then, however, the data show a gradual increase in regular viewing. (The Pew Center's survey data suggest that network and local viewership track with one another. Both show a decline between 1993 and 2000. Both show increases since, between surveys taken in 2000 and in April 2004.)
How could ratings drop while more people tell pollsters they are regular viewers? Are the polls wrong? Not necessarily. The likely answer is that what people consider "regular" viewing has changed. And that is significant in trying to assess the role network evening news plays in American culture.
People haven't simply abandoned network evening news. Many still find it has value, more than the ratings might suggest. But they watch it less often, for a variety of reasons (see the 2004 Network TV Audience [8]), including altered commuting times and an increasing number of alternative news sources. That is potentially an important insight for the networks, and may signify a recognition of a fact seen in our content studies both this year and last: that network nightly newscasts offer a kind of content - quality of sourcing, seriousness of topic and more - that viewers cannot find anywhere else on television.
|
"Regular viewership," 1993-2004
|
 |
|
Source: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press
|
|
* Survey questions: "How often do you watch the national nightly network news on CBS, ABC or NBC?" and "How often do you watch the local news about your viewing area which usually comes on before the national news in the evening and again later at night?"
|
It is also worth noting that the number of network evening news viewers has not fallen in a straight line, but in cycles. The mid-1990s saw rapid drops - 8.5% between 1994 and 1995, then 3.4% in 1996, and, after a flat year in 1997, another 7.5% in 1998. Audiences actually grew by 3% in 2001, but then fell 8.5% in 2002, and lost another 2.7% in 2003. At the margins, audiences are attracted by major news events (impeachment proceedings in 1997, the 9/11 attacks in 2001, the invasion of Iraq in 2003). While the declines in 2004 continued apace, they also fell on the low end of annual declines.
Importantly, these declines have occurred amid declines in viewership of network television generally - soap operas, primetime, sports and so on. News viewership has tended to suffer less erosion than other dayparts.
Some analysts also believe that the decline in nightly network news viewership may soon begin to level off. They argue that most of the cultural shifts that have left fewer people at home at 6:30 (even earlier on the West Coast) have already taken place. The expansion of cable has slowed and in a few years may be complete.6 [10] In effect, the structural factors involved in the decline have already occurred.
Another possible element in viewership decline is that there is now less news to watch than there used to be in a 30-minute newscast because of increased commercials and promotions. Viewers tune in to watch news, not advertising. But most of the shrinkage in the newscast's news hole has already occurred.
|
November 1993 to November 2004
|
 |
|
Source: Nielsen Media Research unpublished data, www.nielsenmedia.com
|
|
*Ratings taken for month of November.
|
Others wonder whether, with the retirement of Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather, network news might be on the cusp of a further decline. We think a closer look suggests that the retirements, far from accelerating an inevitable demise-may present something more interesting-a risk and an opportunity.
The programs risk losing some loyal audiences who sense a loss of heft with the departure of familiar faces. Audience loss for a specific newscast, however, may result in loyal viewers' sampling competitors rather than defecting from network news altogether.
If such a defection happens, even if the programs continue to make some profit, the network owners may decide that they could generate more revenue with other programming during that time, and that the financial gain would outweigh any public outcry over their abandoning the programs.
There is still a third possibility: The retirements of the two anchors are an opportunity for change in the newscasts in an attempt to attract new audiences. ABC, with Perter Jennings still in the chair, may think it has an opportunity to regain the No. 1 spot. NBC, the current leader, has a major stake in ensuring that the new anchor, Brian Williams, keeps that position. And CBS, after the embarrassment of "Memogate," has no reason not to take risks, innovate, and try to rebuild a battered news division whose dismantling culminated, rather than began, with the fiasco of that story.
To assess which of these scenarios is more likely, it is worthwhile to go deeper into the audience numbers.