Local TV journalism is on dan-gerous ground. nnnnnnnn

In a survey of 118 local newsdirectors, more than half re-port that advertisers try to tell

them what to air and not to air —and they say the problem is growing.

To meet profit demands, manynews directors report they are hav-ing to produce a thinner and cheap-er product by adding news pro-grams while cutting their budgets.

News directors say consultantsare only providing the mostgeneric solutions. One in fivealso say their consultants dis-courage them from coveringcertain kinds of news.

Gimmicks that once seemed tobump ratings — every storyseemed “shocking” — don’t workany more. And stations don’tknow what to do in their place.

Everything is up for grabs. Toomuch is for sale.

Is there a way to succeed insuch an environment?

The Project for Excellence inJournalism’s ongoing contentstudy of local television news

suggests there may be. Based ondata collected from 189 stationsover four years, we have isolatedfive characteristics that commer-cially successful stations share.

Adopting these practices won’tguarantee financial success, but sta-tistically they will give a station thehighest likelihood of achieving it.

The elements:� Cover more of the community� Demonstrate more enterprise � Source stories better

� Air more long stories and fewervery short ones

� Hire more staff and give themmore time to develop stories

The problem is that these ideasrun counter to the prevailing wis-dom in local TV. Some are overrunagain and again by short-term bud-get demands. And some rarelyenter the newsroom conversation.

These findings and many othersare part of Year Four of the localtelevision news study by PEJ, a

think tank affiliated with the Co-lumbia University GraduateSchool of Journalism and fundedby the Pew Charitable Trusts.

In the stories that follow, theProject offers troubling findingsabout sponsor interference (NNeewwssffoorr SSaallee), new evidence of the im-pact of quality (QQuuaalliittyy SSeellllss), thepractices that viewers respond to(TThhee MMaaggiicc FFoorrmmuullaa), a glimpse atthe typical newscast (TThhee LLooookk ooffLLooccaall NNeewwss), budget problems(TThhiinnnneerr,, CChheeaappeerr,, LLoonnggeerr), a com-parison of network versus localTV news (TThhee PPaattrriiaarrcchh vvss.. tthheeFFaammiillyy CCiirrccllee), and more. •

Local newsrooms beset by sponsor interference, budget cuts, layoffs, and added programming

This study was produced by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, an affiliate of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. The study uses empirical data to measure the quality of local TV news and compare those results with ratings.

GAMBLING WITHTHE FUTURE

SPECIAL REPORT: LOCAL TV NEWS

GAMBLING WITHTHE FUTURE

Supplement to the November/December 2001 issue of Columbia Journalism Review

2 CJR/PROJECT FOR EXCELLENCE IN JOURNALISM November/December 2001

BY MARION JUST AND ROSALINDLEVINE, WITH KATHLEEN REGAN

How much is your local TV news in-fluenced by the people who buyads?xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In a survey of 118 news directorsaround the country, more than half, 53 per-cent, reported that advertisers pressurethem to kill negative stories or run positiveones.

And many of these news directors saythe problem won’t go away. “Sales is get-ting more and more influence on news-casts,” said a news director from onemedium-sized market. “Sponsorships,coverage suggestions, on-air mentions.”

The pressure to do puff pieces aboutsponsors occurs “constantly,” “all thetime,” “everyday,” “routinely,” and “everytime a sales person opened his/hermouth,” news directors reported in amajor survey of local news stations.

It is “getting harder every year” tomaintain the wall between sales and news,reported another news manager.

These are some of the findings of thesurvey of 118 news directors around thecountry, conducted between June and Au-gust 2001. The sample represents a signifi-cant proportion of the approximately 850stations that broadcast news. The answershave a margin of error of plus or minus 5percentage points. News directors in allbut two cases wanted their comments tobe anonymous for fear of retaliation forcriticizing their companies.

News directors also reported their TVconsultants (outside companies hired bystations to critique newscasts and improveratings) issuing blanket edicts about whatto cover and what not to cover in order toattract the most advertising dollars.

Together, the findings and commentsraise questions about the journalistic inde-pendence of local television news.

The number of stations that indicatesponsor pressure this year confirms aproblem we first saw in our 2000 study.Last year a third of the news directors in alimited sample of 20 stations reported ad-

vertisers trying to influence what gets ontheir broadcasts. Although that samplewas small, when coupled with the com-ments by news directors, the evidencesuggests the problem is getting larger.

Breaking down the sponsor suggestionsmore specifically, 47 percent of news di-rectors this year said sponsors tried to getthem to provide favorable coverage.

And 18 percent of news directors — al-most one in five — say sponsors try to pre-vent them from covering stories, a problemthat is more acute in smaller markets. “In-terference is common,” one news directortold us.

When it comes to advertisers trying tocompel positive stories about themselves,16 percent of stations said that they hadbeen asked to cover sponsor events. An-other 8 percent covered events that werepartnerships between the station and theadvertisers; 12 percent said the sales or ad-vertising staff requested positive coverageof sponsors.

Some news directors take a benign viewof sponsor pressure. As one put it, if thestory has “a valid ‘news’ angle,” they will

cover it whatever the source. “Advertisershave the same right to pitch their storiesto the news department as anyone,” saidanother news director.

At most stations, however, news directorsadmit that advertisers get something morethan just commercial time for their money. Inover two-thirds of stations, for instance,news sponsors are named by the announceror identified with a particular news segment.

At about half the stations surveyed, thesponsor logo appears in the newscast.None of the stations in our sample re-ported that sponsors were allowed in-volvement in story selection, but ahandful of stations gave sponsors inter-views or mention in the body of anewscast in exchange for their support.

A news director in a large marketsaid the biggest change in the news-room this year was “pressure fromsales because of the economy.”

More alarming is the idea of spon-sors discouraging stories or even gettingthem killed.

A half a dozen news directors sin-gled out local car dealerships andauto manufacturers as the focus ofsquashed stories. “We don’t aggres-sively go after car dealers,” one newsdirector admitted. Another reporteda “negative story on an auto dealercanned under pressure from client.”

News directors also mentionedhealth investigations at local restau-rants as vulnerable. At two stations, for

instance, stories were killed when they re-flected poorly on restaurant sponsors. Twoother news directors said grocery storestried to get them to drop investigative sto-ries.

Another news director described howpressure came from within the station (thesales department) and without (the localrestaurant association) but “news prevailed.”

In fact, a number of news directors feltable to withstand interference from “salesreps who don’t understand the business.”Some volunteered that they were sup-ported by their general managers so that“the sole and final decision is with thenews department.”

One news director commented that hereceived “zero pressure from the generalmanager,” and another reported that even inthe face of loss of sponsorship, management“always backed up the news department.”

What emerged was the sense that the re-lentless push by advertisers and sales depart-ments inevitably yields small concessionsfrom beleaguered news directors. Even with-out overt pressure news directors may feelobliged to compromise just to keep their jobs.

NEWS FOR SALEHalf of stations report sponsor pressure on news decisions

CJR/PROJECT FOR EXCELLENCE IN JOURNALISM November/December 2001 3

SMALL MARKETS, BIG PRESSUREThe problem of sponsor interference inour sample was more acute in medium-sized and small markets. In one case, “Salessold sponsorship to [a] local retail group,which required ‘positive’ stories on retail-ers (i.e. thinly veiled commercials).”

Another news director complained that“[the] sales department books our livetrucks for live sales remotes, which air incommercial breaks within certain news-casts.” One live truck out of service, oneless opportunity to cover breaking news.And commercials that look like newsthrown in for good measure.

While only a third of news directors inthe very largest markets reported sponsorpressure to provide positive coverage,fully two-thirds of news directors in thesmallest markets feel those pressures.

A quarter of news directors in smallmarkets, those under 376,000 households,report that they have been pressured tocensor their news. One news director inthe Rockies described the situation as “avery large problem in this market.”

Pressure on newsrooms is aggravated bythe fact that small stations cannot affordtheir own lawyers. As a result they try toavoid stories that might prompt legal action.

One news director described an inci-dent where the station “obtained copy ofa Department of Human Services reporton abused foster child. State law holds it‘confidential.’ We would have been hauledto court if used [report] and refused to re-veal source. Source broke the law by hand-ing it to us.” This small station did not feelit could cover the story.

Other small-market stations also re-ported staying away from stories thatdealt with social service agencies in theirstates or cities. Several news directorsavoided stories where a libel suit wasthreatened or even where “one individualwas named” in a negative way.

CONSULTANTSPressure on news content comes not onlyfrom outside the newsroom, but also fromthose who are invited in — the ubiquitousnews consultants. Most stations use inde-pendent consultants.

About half the stations surveyed useoutside consultants periodically or forspecial topics and 21 percent solely rely onconsultants drawn from their parent com-pany. About two-thirds of the stations inour survey report that consultants visittheir stations two to four times a year.

What kind of advice do these consul-

tants have to offer? A common complaintis that consultant recommendations arenot tailored to the needs of individual sta-tions. More than half of the stations reportthat the advice they receive is “mostly” or“entirely” general, usually focusing on pre-sentation rather than content.

Not surprisingly, the maxim “you getwhat you pay for” holds true for consul-tants. While 59 percent of stations in largeor very large markets get advice made tofit their particular situation, only a third ofsmall-market stations have access to thatkind of consultation.

News directors are not overcome withenthusiasm about consultants, but most tellus that consultant advice is at least some-

what useful. Consultants played a role in awide range of activities, everything fromdeveloping a station’s news “philosophy” torecruiting and coaching on-air personnel.

More than half of stations (52 percent)say their consultants actively push cover-ing certain kinds of news. When they didso, they tended to tout “soft news” —health and consumer issues.

Nineteen percent of stations reportedtheir consultants did something we con-sider even more worrisome, discouragingcovering certain kinds of news.

News directors told us that sports wasthe topic consultants most often discour-aged, but they said that politics and localbusiness coverage had also been singled out.

Consultant advice to give more time tohealth and less to sports seems pitched to makelocal news more attractive to female viewers.

News directors are more positive aboutadvice from general managers than thekind they get from consultants. They rarelysee managers as “interfering.” Several GM’smentioned in our survey were formernews directors. Others commanded re-spect because of their experience and ex-pert knowledge of the news.

A number of news directors said generalmanagers suggested story ideas “like every-one else.” But of course, as one news direc-tor remarked, “They are not everyone else.”

Increasingly, it seems, advertisers aren’teither. •

Marion Just is a professor of political scienceat Wellesley College and a research associateat the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics,and Public Policy at Harvard. Rosalind Levineis an attorney in Boston. Kathleen Regan is astudent and research assistant at Wellesley.

METHODOLOGY

The study this year examined broadcast newsprograms in 14 cities, 43 stations in all. We

also studied the three broadcast network eveningnews programs. Taping occurred during a Febru-ary sweeps week and an April non-sweeps week.A team of professional coders analyzed 6,472 sto-ries from 470 broadcasts, or 235 hours of localnews. The results were then statistically analyzedby researchers Princeton Survey Research Associ-ates and at Wellesley College and interpreted bya team of journalists.

Our definition of quality is the same estab-lished by our design team of local TV news pro-fessionals. We stress the basics: a newscastshould cover a broad range of topics, focus onthe significant aspects of the news, be based onoriginal reporting, provide credible information,use multiple sources, balance stories with multi-ple points of view, and contain locally relevantstories. We continue to use the system devel-

oped by separate teams of university scholarsand professional researchers to grade newscastsby a point system matched to these criteria. As inyears past presentation is a very minor factor. Sothat grading can be accomplished objectively,stories score well based on an accumulation ofthe simple journalistic values mentioned above.

This year’s study also included a national mailsurvey of news directors, conducted between Juneand August 2001. A random sample of 196 news di-rectors was selected from an enumerated list oftelevision stations. One hundred eighteen newsdirectors completed the surveys for a responserate of 60 percent. The sample of 118 respondentsrepresent 107, or more than half, of the 210 localtelevision markets throughout the country thatproduce news. Results are therefore reported un-weighted. The survey has a margin of error of plusor minus 5 percent, which means statistically thatin 95 samples out of 100 the results will not differmore than 5 percent from those reported here.

4 CJR/PROJECT FOR EXCELLENCE IN JOURNALISM November/December 2001

BY CARL GOTTLIEB AND ATIBA PERTILLA

By any measure of financial success,quality journalism sells.xxxxxxxxxxxx

In the four years that the Project forExcellence in Journalism has conduct-

ed its annual study of local television news,55 percent of “A” stations have successfulratings trends, better than any other grade.

This year we found quality is also the bestway to succeed when it comes to marketshare, demographics and audience retention.

Our 2001 study included 43 stations in14 markets. We found the correlation be-tween quality scores and household rat-ings not quite as strong as in years past: forthe first time another grade (“B” stations)actually scored better than “A” stations inour sample. But we also measured qualityagainst other yardsticks broadcasters toldus they consider important. When we did,the case for quality became even stronger.

AUDIENCE RETENTIONQuality, the numbers show, is the best wayfor a news program to retain or add to itsso-called lead-in audience. “The fact thatwe can maintain audience from programto program shows that viewers are not justloyal to our programs — they’re loyal toour station,” says Diane Caggiano, researchdirector at KTVK in Phoenix, a high-qualitystation from last year’s study. “That gives

us the ability to get the number-one sharein the market for selling advertising.”

This year was the first in which we stud-ied lead-in numbers for every broadcast. Wefound that 63 percent of “A” and “B” stationswere adding or retaining audience. Stationsin the middle didn’t fare so well: only 27 per-cent of “C” stations and 20 percent of “D”stations were gaining on their lead-in.

Both of our “F” stations were buildingaudience. But don’t try this trick at home.The “F” stations are at the absolute bottomof our quality scale and most newsroomsare not good enough to be that bad.

MARKET SHAREQuality is also the best way to build mar-ket share — the percentage of householdswatching TV tuned to a given station.

Four years of data reveal that high-qual-ity stations are the most likely to be gain-ing in share over time. Fifty-seven percentof our “A” stations were building share overtime, significantly better than every othergrade. What’s more, “D” and “F” stationswere most likely to be losing share.

Over four years, it turns out, the correla-tion between quality and share is evenstronger than the correlation we have gener-ally used, basic household ratings. As thenumber of people watching television de-clines, the ability to claim the largest shareof the available audience is becoming moreand more important to station management.

DEMOGRAPHICS

Quality also turns out to be the best way toattract the audiences advertisers want most— people aged 18-to-49 and 25-to-54. Halfof all “A” stations this year were improving inthese demographic groups over time, betterthan any other grade. At the other extreme,neither “F” station was improving, and thenext worst category was the ten “D” stations.

While the amount of data is small, it sug-gests that going downmarket may alienate themost demographically desirable audience.

When we began this study, we cau-tiously concluded from our data that thenews did not have to bleed to lead — thataudiences were not demanding trash andflash in local TV news.

If broadcasters were aping the tabloids, itwas their own choice, not the audience’s. Therewas no penalty for doing better local news.

Today, we can say something more. Au-diences prefer quality.

If a company that owns television sta-tions wants to protect and nurture its assets,the data suggest investing in quality is thebest strategy. It may require investing in peo-ple, giving them time, and even resources,but it is more likely than any other approachto pay commercial dividends over time. •

Carl Gottlieb is deputy director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism. Atiba Pertilla is a research associate at PEJ.

QUALITY SELLS It builds share, demographics, and more

CJR/PROJECT FOR EXCELLENCE IN JOURNALISM November/December 2001 5

BY TOM ROSENSTIEL, CARL GOTTLIEB,AND ANDREW FINLAYSON

It’s becoming clearer, over dozens of sta-tions, thousands of stories, and millionsof viewers. nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.

There are some things we can demon-strate audiences want.

They are characteristics commerciallysuccessful stations share — whether thisstudy rates them as good quality stationsor bad.

They are the things news directorsshould ask for in their budget meetings,and that station and group managersshould support.

They were not arrived at by some dis-cussion of lofty journalism principles. Theywere discovered the other way around —by taking all the stations that are thriving inbusiness terms, and then isolating thosefactors that helped them get there.

Some cost money, some don’t. But theyshow that content matters, and thatsqueezing a station’s people, resources andtime is not the answer.

The five factors amount to a formulafor success—a formula that is provablewith numbers based on our study of 189stations over the past four years:

� Cover More of the Community

� Do More Enterprise Reporting

� Source Stories Better

� Do More Long Stories and Fewer Very Short Ones

� Hire More Reporters and Give Them More Time

In a sense, the data suggest a surprisinglysimple analogy: if you tune into a sitcom andit’s not funny, you don’t go back. If you tuneinto a news program and there isn’t enoughinformation, you won’t tune in again.

Let’s take these successful practices oneat a time.

COVER MORE OF THE COMMUNITYFrom the outset, our design team of indus-try professionals agreed that covering theentire community was the most importantthing a local TV news operation could do.

It turns out their professional instinctswere right. The data show stations thatcover a broader range of topics in theirnewscasts have a better chance of suc-ceeding commercially.

It’s a mistake for stations to cleverlylimit themselves to topics that test well infocus groups, are highly promotable, orstrike station managers as good “watercooler” material.

This study measures topic range bycomparing the number of topics in eachnewscast to the number of stories aired.

Stations that score highest for topic rangeare 33 percent more likely than any othergrade to have successful ratings trends.

Take Florida’s WTSP, a high-quality sta-tion beating the ratings odds. The stationhad one of the best scores in this year’sstudy for topic range, scoring 19 percentbetter than the national average.

Its market contains two distinct citiesseparated by water, Tampa and St. Peters-burg. But in the words of former news di-rector Jim Church, “bridges are not barri-ers” but instead “connect together com-munities.”

So, Church says, the station pursues aregional approach. “We do tons of storiesfocused on issues such as the persistentdrought, transportation, and protectionfrom hurricanes.”

Incidentally, covering more topics does-n’t just help ratings. The numbers show italso helps a station succeed by the otherkey commercial measures: market share,audience retention and demographics.

The demographics numbers are inter-esting. They suggests audiences want tolearn about the whole community, nomatter who or how old they are. Tailoringyour topics to appeal to key demographicsis a fool’s errand.

MORE ENTERPRISE REPORTINGStations that demonstrate more enterprisefare better commercially.

Enterprise is measured on a scale —from original investigations, at the top, allthe way down to using video press releas-es. Over four years, successful stations do

THE MAGIC FORMULAFive proven steps to financial success in news

Stations putting the magic formula towork, from top: WTSP coverage of aFebruary brush fire; former captiveStephen Gonzales talks with a KTVTreporter; WRC interviews an Iraqi-American; WFLA anchors on the set.

13 percent more of certain kinds of enter-prise, especially the kind people can rec-ognize — tough interviews, investigationsand special series.

Other kinds of enterprise also help,though statistically not as much — doingmore breaking news, avoiding video pressreleases, sending a reporter and not just acamera. The lesson — effort pays.

For instance, KTVT, this year’s bestlarge-market station, also scored near thetop for enterprise reporting.

While ratings at the other stations inDallas were generally trending down,KTVT was the only one picking up steamat the time of the study.

When it comes to getting story ideas,“We don’t believe in reading the newspa-per,” says news director Linda Levy. Herphilosophy is that producers, reporters,and assignment desk staff all are held ac-countable for coming up with stories, andshe urges her newsroom not to take no foran answer.

That attitude is demonstrated in thedetails, like fleshing out a piece on pre-scription drug abuse with interviews of re-covering addicts.

On the day China allowed the crew of aNavy spy plane to return to the U.S., KTVTtook the initiative to interview a local U.S.soldier who had been held captive byBosnian Serbs two years earlier, givingviewers insight into the experience ofbeing the prisoner of a hostile nation.

After September 11, KTVT assigned itsentire nine-person investigative staff full-time to look for local ties to the terroristsand those who might have aided them.

It is an approach that Levy thinks can besummed up as “super aggressive, super re-sponsible.”

BETTER SOURCING The Project measures sourcing variousways.

We check the number of sources in sto-ries: the more sources, the better.

We gauge credibility by noting whether asource has appropriate expertise for thestory: an independent doctor may score highin a medical piece, a voter in a political piece.

These elements may seem like Journal-ism 101, but the scores have proven lowerthan expected.

And over four years we have found thatsuccessful stations generally score higherfor sourcing.

Some types of sourcing are especiallyimportant. For instance, over four years,successful stations were 17 percent lesslikely to use anonymous sources.

But better sourcing across the boardadds up. Successful stations were 5 per-cent less likely to cite no source at all in astory. They score 5 percent better for usingmultiple sources. They score 3 percentbetter on source expertise.

These numbers relate to ratings, but thebasic correlation between better sourcingand commercial success holds up no mat-ter what the measure — ratings, share, au-dience retention or demographics.

WRC has long enjoyed the ratings leadfor late news in Washington, D.C. While itreceived a “B” for its overall grade this year,the NBC station is one of the better oneswe studied when it comes to sourcing ofall kinds.

“It’s part of the culture in our news room,”says WRC news director Bob Long. “News-room discussions are likely to be philo-sophical . . . . We question our reporters.”

When U.S. fighter planes attacked Iraqin February WRC localized the larger storyby doing a piece about a Washingtonrestaurateur and his fears for relatives stillliving in Iraq.

WRC also interviewed Middle East ex-perts with opposing views on the wisdomof the attack, providing a quick primer onthe conflict as well as illustrating itshuman side.

A story about an overturned truck onInterstate 95 in the D.C. suburbs providedviewers with official information aboutthe next morning’s rush hour, a resident’sconcerns about the truck’s toxic cargo anda state environmental official allaying fearsthat a nearby stream had been polluted.

While viewers probably don’t sit andcount sources or ponder their expertise,WRC comes across to local viewers ascredible and informative. It’s one of the

reasons it has dominated the Washingtonmarket in recent years.

MORE LONG STORIES ANDFEWER VERY SHORT ONESFor years, the common wisdom was thatviewers had short attention spans — andmaybe they were getting shorter. Thethinking was that people would not beable to focus for long on complicated sto-ries about dense issues.

As a consequence, soundbites — andstories — have gradually shrunk. And storieshave been told with fewer and fewer facts.

The numbers say all this is a mistake.After four years we can show that sta-

tions that are enjoying better than averageratings air fewer short stories — thoseunder 30 seconds — and more storieslonger than two minutes.

In fact, successful stations are 17 per-cent more likely than stations losing rat-ings to air stories two minutes or longer.

Commercially successful stations arealso 13 percent less likely to air stories 30seconds or shorter.

Tampa’s WFLA uses its airtime wisely.Twenty-nine percent of the station’s storiesin the 6:00 p.m. time slot are two minutes orlonger compared with 19 percent nationally.The station also airs shorter stories less fre-quently than most, 25 percent of the time,while the national average is 40 percent.

“It is more important being right thanbeing fast,” says former news director DanBradley, who has since been promoted by thestation’s ownership, summing up the philoso-phy that results in longer stories. Currentnews director Forest Carr thinks the pro-gram’s pacing reflects a larger ambition of the

6 CJR/PROJECT FOR EXCELLENCE IN JOURNALISM November/December 2001

CJR/PROJECT FOR EXCELLENCE IN JOURNALISM November/December 2001 7

newsroom to recognize that “local news isabout me the viewer, not me the producer.”

And while the station has been knownto tear through ten stories in a first block,it also has aired pieces as long as four anda half minutes.

Until 1993, WFLA had a different ap-proach. “Some stories were literally eightto nine seconds long,” according to Carr.

The current philosophy, he said, “is ifwe can’t budget enough time to make astory relevant and meaningful we give thattime to another story.”

It seems imparting more informationthrough longer stories is also good forbusiness. Stations that tend to do better inthe ratings, increased market share, thosebuilding lead-in audience and improvingtheir key demographics avoid very shortstories and air longer ones.

HIRE MORE REPORTERSWhen we compared our national survey ofnews directors with our data on commer-cial success, we discovered somethingstriking about staff size and workload: sta-tions that invest their money in people dobetter in the ratings.

In this year, a tough one for advertising,stations adding staff had a significantlybetter chance of holding their own or im-proving their ratings than those where thestaff held steady or declined.

More than half of stations (54 percent)that increased staff had average or evenabove-average ratings trends, compared toonly a third of stations that did not in-crease staff — regardless of market size.

Letting staff do more thorough reportingalso helped ratings. Stations that asked reportersto produce only one story a day fared signifi-cantly better in the ratings than stations that re-quired their reporters to do more than one.

The benefit of investing in people andgiving them production and reportingtime is underscored by another finding —stations that avoided video press releasesand relied on their own reporting had sig-nificantly better ratings trends than others.

Indeed, limiting the number of storiesreporters undertook each day and dis-couraging the use of video news releasesaccounted statistically for 20 percent ofthe improvement in station ratings trends.

That’s a big impact for good journalism inthe face of so many factors influencingratings that stations cannot control.

Added together, these five elementssuggest there is a particular approach tomanaging TV newsrooms that is demon-strably more likely to succeed than anyother. It is not just about packaging, pro-motions, high-tech equipment or slogans.

Television journalism is best practicedby hiring talented people and giving themthe time and resources to cover the entirecommunity, demonstrate genuine enter-prise, and put their stories together care-fully and completely.

Viewers notice. The numbers show it. •

Tom Rosenstiel is director of the Project forExcellence in Journalism. Carl Gottlieb isdeputy director of PEJ. Andrew Finlayson isNews Director at KTVU in Oakland, California.

BY CARL GOTTLIEB AND TODD BELT

T oday in local television news fewstations are gaining audience.xxxxxWinning is now a matter of beat-

ing the odds.This year, in our sample of 43 stations,

77 percent are suffering ratings declines.In our 1998 study, by comparison, that

number was 66 percent, but it has been inthe mid to high 70s ever since.

In the past, we talked about station rat-ings rising or falling. Today, it makes moresense to talk about “succeeding” or “fail-ing.” “Succeeding” stations have ratingstrends better than the average; “failing”stations are doing worse than average.

If ratings are declining, where are view-ers going? Are they abandoning TV newsto watch something else, or are they nolonger watching TV at all?

By comparing a station’s ratings with itsmarket share over time we are able to getan answer. If the share for news were

falling faster than the ratings, that wouldmean people were tuning to another pro-gram. (Ratings measure the number ofhouseholds watching a given station. Mar-ket share expresses ratings as a percentageof all households watching TV at the time.)

The evidence shows that local news isnot losing its audience to other kinds ofTV programs, even cable programming.TV news is losing out to other activities— the Internet, raising kids, commuting,working.

This finding confirms studies by our af-filiate NewsLab, researchers at Indiana Uni-versity, and the private company Insite Re-search. Their results suggest that peopleare turning away from local TV news be-cause they find it repetitive, formulaic andsuperficial, and can get their local newsmore effectively from other sources.

Our data suggest that news directorswho mold their news shows to resembleentertainment are making a mistake. Thatis not where their viewers are going. Turn-

ing news into entertainment will proba-bly drive more viewers away.

But local TV news can’t seem to breakaway from the belief that being like enter-tainment will boost numbers. Mimickingthe prime-time entertainment schedules,celebrities and crime continue to be main-stays of local news, greatly outweighingcoverage of civic institutions and leaders.

The ratings in New York demonstratethe folly of this strategy. There, coverageof celebrities has more than doubled be-tween 1998 and 2001 and is now threetimes larger than the national average.Meanwhile, over the past three years, NewYork newscasts are losing audience fasterthan 78 percent of the late newscasts inother major markets in our survey. •

Carl Gottlieb is deputy director of theProject for Excellence in Journalism.Todd Belt is a doctoral student in politi-cal science at the University of SouthernCalifornia.

WHERE HAVE ALL THE VIEWERS GONE?

Icons: Average story score for a station by variable.

highest score second lowest score

second highest score lowest score

mid-range score

Ratings (3 years)

CHART KEY

Quality Grade

QualityScore

Network Affiliation

AverageStory Score

Focus Enterprise Expertise No. ofSources

View-points

Local Relevance

RatingsTrend

Station AudienceRetention

BILL

INGS

- 5:3

0PM

TopicRange

A KULR 424.69 22.00 +4.2%

A KTVQ 420.15 23.30 +22.1%

Good station. Above average for investigative. Not much breaking news. Could improve sourcing.

Dominant station, and good. Great sourcing, but lots of canned events.

DETR

OIT

- 11

PMCH

ARLO

TTE

- 11P

MDA

LLAS

- 10

PM

LOCAL TV NEWS

C WCNC 316.08 21.51 -58.1%

D WBTV 272.03 20.33 -9.6%

F WSOC 227.21 18.96 +8.7%

Best station in worst market. Ratings improving. Best sourcing in town. Good watchdog.

Big changes. Dropping 6:30 show. New news director. Program needs work.

Worst in study. One-time powerhouse in ratings dive. One sided, poor sourcing. Overdoes “breaking news.”

A KTVT 423.85 23.08 -44.4%

C WFAA 335.61 21.45 +13.9%

C KDFW 320.34 21.23 -16.2%

D KXAS 278.87 20.29 -9.3%

Best large-market station this year. Good ratings. Most investigations in town. Needs more sources, fewer feeds.

Low on crime, high on ideas. But too many everyday incidents. Belo powerhouse falling fast in ratings.

Improving station. High focus on institutions. Should add more viewpoints in stories.

Down from B to D since ’99. Most everyday crime in town. Too many stories with no sources.

C WDIV 321.69 20.46 -8.2%

D WXYZ 296.34 20.28 +4.3%

Dominant at 11pm. Above average for investigations and series. Very local. Could improve number of sources.

New news director. Could improve sourcing. Needs more enterprise. Lots of everyday incidents.

Overall GradeA = 400.75 or higherB = 353.23 – 400.74C = 305.72 – 353.22D = 258.20 – 305.7 1F = 210.69 – 258.19

Audience RetentionPercentage of viewers gained (+) or lost (-) from preceding program.

up

flat/slightly up

slightly down

down

sharply down

WHO’S BEST IN 14 CITIES?

LOCAL TV NEWS

Quality Grade

QualityScore

Network Affiliation

AverageStory Score

Focus Enterprise Expertise No. ofSources

View-points

Local Relevance

RatingsTrend

Station AudienceRetention

TopicRange

HON

OLU

LU -

10PM

LAS

VEGA

S - 5

PMLO

SAN

GELE

S - 1

1PM

NEW

YORK

- 11

PMOK

LAHO

MA

CITY

-10P

M

A KGMB 407.91 24.79 -19.4%

B KHON 378.66 23.20 +50.4%

B KHNL 378.22 22.67 -76.5%

B KITV 371.83 22.86 +1.1%

Top ten in quality. Recent ratings bump. Low on crime, high on series. Good sourcing.

Market leader airs lots of sources, viewpoints, but too many feeds. Could use more expert sources.

Ratings challenged. Needs to add sources, viewpoints, ideas. OK at breaking news and localism.

Strong number two in ratings. Hearst station could add sources, investigations, and viewpoints. Crime heavy.

C KLAS 350.18 21.61 +18.2%

D KTNV 288.14 21.25 -3.5%

F KVBC 251.34 19.82 +21.6%

Best station in a bad market. Missed a “B” by three points. Needs more investigations, localism.

Needs work. Lots of series, human interest. Good mix of viewpoints. No ratings.

Tied for ratings lead. Could be more local, improve sourcing and breaking news. Most investigations in town.

C KNBC 346.77 21.15 -34.2%

D KABC 302.77 21.23 -39.9%

D KCBS 278.58 19.55 -55.4%

C WABC 348.49 21.38 -4.9%

C WNBC 340.44 22.13 -21.5%

C WCBS 340.37 20.05 -52.4%

New G.M. bans live police chases and ratings suffer. Best station in weak market can get better.

Long way to go, but closing on KNBC. Lots of feed stories. Could improve sourcing, do more investigations.

Changes coming with new G.M. Only investigations in town. Needs more viewpoints, less crime.

Gaining on WNBC at 11. Not much crime. Could cover fewer pressers, get more sources.

Quality dropping. Could air more breaking news, fewer press conferences. Could be more local.

“Information network” slogan not working. Try quality to differentiate. More viewpoints, sources needed.

B KFOR 398.72 24.16 +14.7%

B KOCO 355.23 22.02 -24.9%

C KWTV 339.80 21.62 +20.4%

Best station in a decent market. Airs lots of issues, investigations and viewpoints. Big on everyday crime.

Losing viewers to competitors. Covers local institutions. But has apparent aversion to enterprise.

Challenging for No. 1. Lots of politics, breaking news. Needs to improve sourcing.

WAS

HING

TON

- 11P

MSA

LT L

AKE C

ITY

- 10P

MPO

RTLA

ND

- 6:30

PMPH

ILAD

ELPH

IA -

11PM

TAM

PA -

6PM

Quality Grade

QualityScore

Network Affiliation

Average Story Score

Focus Enterprise Expertise No. ofSources

View-points

Local Relevance

RatingsTrend

Station AudienceRetention

TopicRange

C KYW 325.55 19.48 -39.7%

D WCAU 296.41 20.14 -19.5%

D WPVI 275.33 19.10 +6.3%

Improving station but ratings in the cellar. Poor sourcing hurts credibility. Needs to cover the neighborhoods.

Breaking news all the time. Nearly 40% of stories are everyday incidents. Few issues. Beat WPVI in February book.

Market king showing weakness. More than half this station’s stories poorly sourced. Needs more experts, localism.

C KOIN 339.90 18.54 -24.4%

D KATU 300.47 20.89 -19.1%

D KGW 282.04 18.25 -25.9%

Recovering from layoffs? Too many everyday incidents, too few sources, viewpoints. Ratings headed south?

Finally has a news director. Lots of breaking news, sources, viewpoints. Fails to make national news relevant.

Little breaking news, lots of feeds and politics. More than half of stories not local. Leading in ratings dogfight.

B KSL 353.61 22.11 +19.9%

C KTVX 344.21 21.51 -4.4%

C KUTV 328.04 21.64 +5.7%

Market institution could improve on breaking news, expert sourcing. Little everyday crime. Lots of pressers.

Awaiting fate in Fox deal. Big on issues. Could be more local. Use more sources, do more investigations.

Losing ratings traction. Most breaking news in town. Very local. Too much crime, everyday incidents.

A WFLA 418.07 22.76 +21.5%

A WTVT 409.01 23.53 +9.3%

A WTSP 400.78 22.24 +27.5%

B WFTS 371.09 20.17 +5.7%

Dominant. Best in town at 6. Covers local business, institutions. Could use more sources in stories.

Quality Fox. Fast moving. Lots of issue stories — and crime. Weakest sourcing in town. Not many pressers.

Rebuilding. Lots of breaking news, everyday crime. Could improve sourcing. 30% “news you can use.”

New management team. Shallow coverage. 76% of stories non-controversial. But high on tough interviews.

A WJLA 411.65 21.36 -48.7%

B WRC 377.88 21.36 -21.7%

C WUSA 347.40 21.29 -15.5%

Getting better but ratings challenged. Lots of sources, series, breaking news. Could use more viewpoints and experts.

Market leader vulnerable at 11? Stories well sourced. Could be more local. Great “front four.”

New news director and G.M. Leads D.C. in everyday crime and investigative. Stories need more sources.

CJR/PROJECT FOR EXCELLENCE IN JOURNALISM November/December 2001 11

BY LEE ANN BRADY ANDATIBA PERTILLA

When you look at thenumbers, it is diffi-cult to concludethat local televi-

sion news gives citizens theinformation they need tomake informed decisionsabout their communities.

Consider this statistic:one has to add up all the ed-ucators, school board mem-bers, city council members,mayors, state agency offi-cials, state legislators, gover-nors, members of Congressand all other local elected and appointedofficials combined just to match the num-ber of criminals and suspects on screen.

Local TV news can vary widely fromplace to place in quality and sometimes instyle. Our highest-scoring station, KULR inBillings, for instance, earned nearly twiceas many quality points (424) as our worststation, WSOC in Charlotte (227 points).

But the mix of stories is remarkably con-sistent across the country, and the tone isgenerally breathless, chatty, and superficial.

Here are some numbers:

� Forty percent of the stories last 30 seconds or less.

� One in four stories is about crime, law or courts.

� Less than 1 percent of stories could becalled “investigative.”

� Health stories outnumber all other social issues by 32 percent.

� There are as many stories about thebizarre (8 percent) as there are aboutcivic institutions.An important part of the picture is

what’s missing. Poverty, welfare, and home-lessness are all but absent in local news. Outof the nearly 6,000 stories studied, onlynine dealt with these topics, not enough toeven register a single percentage point.

Cultural events are another topic thatbarely rates coverage. A recent reportfrom the National Endowment for the Artsfound that citizens spend more moneyeach year attending performing-artsevents than either the movies or profes-sional sports.

Yet on local TV news, the arts and cul-ture are almost invisible, accounting forjust 24 stories — again, less than one per-cent of the total studied.

Who are the people shown in local TVnews stories? After criminals and suspects(who make up 10 percent of all people onscreen) the next most common group fea-tured is crime victims or their families (9percent).

But this focus on victims, perhaps tomanipulate viewers’ emotions, is unwise.Stations doing well in the ratings are theleast likely to broadcast interviews featur-ing victims or victims’ relatives.

BIG CITY VS. SMALL-TOWN NEWSCrime is the perennial No. 1 topic, in largemarkets and small, but in the largest mar-kets stations are most likely to pad their

crime coverage with tales ofmayhem from distant places.

Stations air stories abouteconomics, social issues andscientific or consumer mat-ters at almost the same rateregardless of market size.

Regardless of the topic,however, small market sta-tions are far more likely totell the story from a localperspective (98 percent ofstories) compared to thelargest markets (69 percent).

Minorities are more likelyto appear in large markets,but this may be changingwith increased immigration

to small cities.What small-market stations do more

than larger markets is cover stories affect-ing major community institutions or em-ployers, perhaps because small metropoli-tan areas are less economically diverse.

POLITICS, POLICY OR SCANDALCoverage of politics, policy and govern-ment fell by nearly half from last year’spresidential primary season, down to just8 percent of all stories. The bigger prob-lem is that the politics that were coveredseem fairly trivial now.

Our sample period included weekswhen Congress was debating a massive taxcut and President Bush was promoting hisplans to rebuild the military. But the scan-dals surrounding President Clinton’s depar-ture from office made for much more

News Director (and anchor) Blaire Martin of top-scoring station KULR in Billings with co-anchor Tim Vendt

THE LOOK OF LOCAL NEWS

12 CJR/PROJECT FOR EXCELLENCE IN JOURNALISM November/December 2001

BY MARION JUST, ROSALINDLEVINE, AND TODD BELT

The terrorist attacks in New York andWashington galvanized their localstations and brought into relief thechallenge of providing all-out break-

ing news coverage.Based on what news directors around

the country say about their budgets, it’squestionable whether most stationswould be able to respond just as quicklyand thoroughly.

Even before September 11, stations werebeing asked to do more and more withless — and that was forcing them to put acheaper and thinner product on the air, ac-cording to a national survey of peoplewho run local television newsrooms.

There’s an intensifying “fear-loathing ofstock-based companies laying off for prof-it-only reasons,” and a “feeling that theirdecisions are very short-sighted,” reportedone news director.

We surveyed news directors at 118 sta-tions around the country between Juneand August 2001, a significant portion ofthe 850 stations that do local news. Wepromised confidentiality to news direc-tors in return for information about theirbudgets, fiscal decisions, and their com-ments on the news business. Here issome of what they had to say:

� Half of all stations had either budgetcuts or layoffs in the last year. The average budget cut was 8 percent.

� Sixty percent of stations had to makeunscheduled budget cuts within thecourse of the last fiscal year.

� Two-thirds of stations added broad-cast hours.

� Fifty-seven percent had to producethe same or more news despite lay-offs, budget freezes or budget cuts. “Budget cuts, frozen positions, less

money and more responsibility,” ex-plained one news director, describingthe atmosphere at his station. Anothernews director estimated a “loss ofnews gathering ability of 10-12 percentdue to cuts.”

Much of the pressure on broadcasters hascome from declining ad revenue as thecountry slipped into slow growth and nearrecession. But only seven percent of thenews directors surveyed reported that theirstations had responded to declining revenueby reducing the number of newscast hours.

Quite the opposite. Producing news isstill cheaper than buying syndicated enter-tainment programming.

Events since September 11 will likelymake things worse. An analysis by CMR, acompany that tracks ad spending, foundthat local affiliates lost $93 million in ad-vertising the first week after the terroristattacks. Major sponsors like airlines andcar dealers are pulling back. A new war onterrorism will further tax news budgets.Meanwhile, virtually all stations are fac-ing investments ranging from $3 millionto $8 million to convert to digital broad-casting.

The belt-tightening already in placecame in various ways. Overall, 68 percent

THINNER, CHEAPER, popular material, outweighing coverageof the tax plan 5 to 1.

In all, only 16 stories out of nearly6,000 discussed the tax-cut debate inWashington or its possible effects on thelocal community.

GOING GLOBALThis year, our study also coincided withtwo international incidents involving themilitary — the sinking of a Japanese fishingboat by a Navy submarine and the collisionof a U.S. EP-3 spy plane with a Chinesefighter jet. As a consequence, defense is-sues jumped to the No. 3 topic on localnewscasts. Although our sample includedfour stations in Honolulu, the home baseof the submarine involved in the sinking,these stories were covered heavilythroughout the country. This may be a signthat when public concern demands it, a na-tional story will capture the attention oflocal TV, overriding the “local-only” mantrathat so many stations promote.

Unfortunately, the data point to unset-tling conclusions. Despite the increasedcoverage of defense issues, there is littleenergy or imagination evident on the air.

Just 12 percent of all defense storieswere based on breaking news. Nearlytwice that, 23 percent of the stories, werenews conferences, and 43 percent werecovered using feed material. About halfthese stories connected the nationalstory to the viewing audience, but localstations were almost equally likely to sim-ply pass along the latest updates withoutexplaining their local effects. The localsmostly duplicated the networks ratherthan supplementing them with more nu-anced, original coverage.

The events of September 11 will pre-sent an even greater challenge. The de-mands of a prolonged war on terrorism,much of it to be fought in covert opera-tions in far-off countries, will strain al-ready decimated newsroom budgets.

The nation looks to local news for in-formation. A poll by the Pew ResearchCenter this summer found that local newsstations were a more popular newssource than the networks, though not aspopular as cable channels. But there isreason to worry whether newsrooms willprove deserving of the public’s confi-dence. •

Lee Ann Brady is senior project directorat Princeton Survey Research Associates.Atiba Pertilla is a research associate atPEJ.

To pad profits, broadcasters cut budgetsand staff while adding programs

CJR/PROJECT FOR EXCELLENCE IN JOURNALISM November/December 2001 13

of stations limited overtime, 48 percentimposed hiring freezes, and 21 percent re-sorted to layoffs. Travel has also been cutseverely and capital purchases have beenput on hold indefinitely.

While these actions satisfy the short-term demand for maintaining or increasingprofit margins, the cuts may backfire.

In 1999, the survey data, when matchedwith ratings, found that adding staff isthe best way for a local news operationto invest resources to build ratings. With smaller staffs, coverage of break-

ing news is bound to suffer. Enterprise orin-depth coverage, the kind our studieshave shown TV viewers appreciate most,becomes less likely. In the words of onenews director, budget cuts mean that“sometimes we don’t commit as muchresource to certain discretionary stories.”Another indicated that budget cutsmeant a “major reduction in use of part-timers. Thus full-time staff is stretched,less time for investigative work, specialprojects.”

Not surprisingly, 54 percent of news di-rectors fear that budget cuts have substan-tially hurt their station’s news-gathering abil-ity. As one news director noted, “The cut-backs have made a lean staff malnourished.”

Another commented: “Freeze on capital& hiring freeze has us shorthanded...”

Even when there are no staff cuts, qual-ity may be affected, said some news direc-tors. The problem, one noted, is “retainingqualified desk managers and talented pro-ducers, attracting skilled persons with thesalary we have budgeted.”

Small stations are suffering the most.Many had few resources to begin with andthe demand for more newscasts puts themin a terrible bind.

One news director in a small-marketdescribed the situation as “Tough!... 2.5hours a day with a 19-person staff.” Morethan 40 percent of stations in small mar-kets rely on their reporters to produce twoor more news packages a day. Half of thereporters in small markets routinely shootor edit their own video, significantly morethan those in larger markets.

News directors sounded frustrated, evenangry, about their stations’ strategies. “Weadded product (newscasts) then threemonths later reduced staffing through a hir-

ing freeze and we’re still producing the ad-ditional newscasts,” reported one newsmanager.

Many news directors echoed the con-cern about the impact of budget cuts onstaff. They responded that the biggestchange in the newsroom this year was “Cut-backs in staff due to budget restraints,”“staff cuts, early retirements,” “layoffs,”“cutbacks,” “reduced staff,” “staff reduction,”“lower staffing,” “staff turnover,” and“shrinking staff.”

And no matter what the market size,more than half the stations reporting saythat budget cuts have affected morale inthe newsroom. One Midwestern news di-rector, calling morale the biggest changein the newsroom this year, declared: “Peo-ple are no longer kidding themselvesabout the ethic of business vs. qualityjournalism. ‘Journalism’ is now ‘commer-cial journalism.’ “

Several news directors described a pre-vailing anxiety brought about by budgetcuts. In response to an open-ended ques-tion, more than one used the term “a senseof uncertainty.”

“Everyone wonders if, and when, layoffsmay happen here,” wrote one news director.“It is like a dark cloud looming over the staff,”wrote another. “Who is next?” wrote a third.

News directors are worried about thestress on the workforce. One, from asmall-market station, ticked off his con-cerns: “Fewer people — more work for re-maining staff. Dip in production quality fordaily stories. Inability to get all stories.”

In some stations the budget crisis hascreated, or intensified, tension betweenthe newsroom and the boardroom.

“The news staff has become frustratedwith corporate and it has begun to show,”explained one manager. Another ex-pressed a “higher level of frustration overhigh expectations with not enough re-sources.” Said another, slightly more opti-mistic, “For the most part the staff haspulled together but it still affects howpeople view our corporation.”

One news director described a nexus ofproblems: “Anxiety about future of busi-ness, resentment toward corporate owner-ship, lack of money for better coverage.”

Many news directors indicated thatyoung people were particularly worriedabout their future prospects in the newsbusiness, an ominous sign that the pro-fession may lose some of the most tal-ented members of its next generation.

The best young staffers have “worriesabout career future[s]” or a “sense of dis-couragement,” said one news director.“Staffers hoping to move up in marketsare frustrated and that spills back intotheir work,” said another.

Not all stations believed that budgetsaffected morale — or at least “not yet.”Some said their operations were alreadytrimmed so close to the bone that therewas nothing left to cut. One news directornoted that because the station made cutsin the non-salary portion of the budget,morale did not suffer.

One news director waxed philosophi-cal. The effect of budget cuts on moralewas “what you’d expect, but we soldieron.” Another explained: “We’re very openwith employees, and by choosing a reduc-tion in annual increases over layoffs, it ac-tually boosted morale.”

Budget pressures are topmost in theminds of news directors. When we askedthem about the obstacles to producing ahigh-quality newscast, “too little money”was a popular response, second only to“too few staff.”

But the linkage between the two prob-lems is clear. “Budget cuts have killed staffmorale — no raises, a hiring freeze, noovertime,” said one news director.

Luckier ones reported investments intheir stations. Some news directorsbragged about new equipment (“we wentdigital!”), new personnel (general man-agers, news directors, owners, on-air tal-ent), and new newscasts.

And a few remained optimistic by con-centrating on the people they work with:“In spite of all the negatives (what we can’tdo and industry impacts) [we’re] maintain-ing a creative, positive, forward-thinkingteam,” said a news director from a smallmarket. “More positive than ever before.”

One thing seems clear. Nearly all newsmanagers are going to have to find creativeways to cope with the people and resourcesthat remain. The question is whether viewerswill begin to decide that what is left on theair is not worth their time when they havemore choices than ever for news. •

Marion Just is a professor of political scienceat Wellesley College and a research associ-ate at the Shorenstein Center on the Press,Politics, and Public Policy at Harvard. Ros-alind Levine is an attorney in Boston. ToddBelt is a doctoral student in political scienceat the University of Southern California.

LONGER

14 CJR/PROJECT FOR EXCELLENCE IN JOURNALISM November/December 2001

BY ANDREW TYNDALL

One might think local and networknews together would provideviewers with a full plate, a well-rounded hour of local, national

and international news plus sports,weather and traffic.

As comprehensive as this hour of newsis designed to be, the latest study by theProject for Excellence in Journalism revealsthat its two components — the local halfhour and the network half hour — arechalk and cheese.

Do not think of the two as doing thesame job with two beats: one local, theother national and international. Insteadthink of two different approaches to tele-vision journalism.

Network news is more abstract: its sto-ries are more likely to feature clashes ofopinions (32 percent of stories versus 16percent in local broadcasts), to cite expertsources (49 percent versus 19 percent) andto discuss societal trends (17 percent ver-sus 2 percent).

Local news is more mundane: its storiescover everyday events like fender-benders(42 percent of stories versus 5 percentamong network newscasts) more thanmonumental ones (2 percent versus 16 per-cent) and they quote the vox pop (14 per-cent versus 7 percent) almost as much asthe expert.

The two beats, local and network, areworlds apart. The networks’ national andinternational focus is brimming with bigevents and ideological clashes. In April2001, during our study period, the net-works were handed just the type of eventtheir news operations are made to cover:the downing of a U.S. Navy EP-3 spy planeon the Chinese island of Hainan and theensuing diplomatic tug-of-war to secure

the crew’s release. Defense and foreign af-fairs — along with that other great nation-al abstraction The Economy — accountedfor fully 39 percent of all network storiesfiled, compared with a mere 16 percent onthe local broadcasts.

The two beats, however, are not themost important distinction. That differ-ence is their formats.

Flowing from the expecta-tion that they would be cov-ering consequential, far-reaching and complicatedstories, the networks set up aformat in which a lone an-chor serves as the symboliccommander of a cadre ofcorrespondents. The tradi-tional anchor’s desk presidesover the headquarters of aworldwide newsgatheringoperation, a sort of journalis-tic Captain Kirk on the bridgeof the Starship News. WhileDan or Peter or Tom mayhave his name attached tothe title of his nightly news-cast, the routine work is as-signed to the correspondentswho together file betweensix and seven edited packageseach day complete withsoundbites, graphics and vi-suals. Half of all the networknews stories are longer than120 seconds, as opposed to 19percent for local newscasts.

If the network newscastlooks patriarchal, the localnews anchor team seems fa-milial: usually four personali-ties — a his-and-hers anchorteam plus sportscaster andweathercaster. Occasionally,

news managers even think in terms of cast-ing a family — the older husband, theyounger wife, and then the children, one ajock, the other the trustworthy weatherperson.

The time devoted to news in a local halfhour minus commercials, weather, sports,traffic, and chit-chat is shorter than 15 min-

utes, compared with almost 19minutes at the networks. De-spite the smaller news hole,the local story count is higher(14) than the network (11).

How can that many storiesbe crammed into that small anews hole? The local anchorcouple shoulders the work-load. They average eightread-only stories (lasting 45seconds or less) between thetwo of them; the solo net-work anchor reads only fourtidbits each night.

Granted the networkshave more resources, time,expertise, and clout, all ofwhich help them put togeth-er better stories that wouldscore higher in this study.Still, the main reason the net-works would do better is thattheir format features morereporter packages. It is easierto include the attributes ofjournalistic quality — such asa mix of points of view, ex-perts and sources — in a cor-respondent package than inan anchor read-only story.

Thus the solo anchor ver-sus the family circle formatdetermines not only image,marketing and promotion,but journalistic quality itself.

THE PATRIARCH VS. THE FAMILFormat dictates much of the difference

between network and local news

'2001 CBS WORLDWIDE INC

CJR/PROJECT FOR EXCELLENCE IN JOURNALISM November/December 2001 15

The networks’ advantage in resources isnot irrelevant. If you eliminate the read-only stories and compare just the reporterpackages (those stories 90 seconds orlonger), the networks still do a better job.As an example, the networks were notablymore likely to include three or moresources in such stories (56 percent net-work versus 45 percent local).

Both the networks and the locals relyheavily on the “day book” of prearrangedevents for these long packages (roughlyfour in ten stories for both). Only onepackage in five covers unexpected break-ing news. Thus the networks are actuallygetting more into their long packages withbasically similar assignment habits.

We have already noted that, overall,local news tends to focus more on events(as opposed to ideas, issues, policies,malfeasance, institutions or trends) thanthe network stories do (54 percent vs. 42percent). The important difference, how-ever, was not in the number of event-dri-ven stories but in how consequentialthey were. Almost all the networks’event-driven stories (88 percent) wereclassified as monumental, unusual, orbreaking news. Compare that to just 22percent for local.

Since the purpose of examining the net-works was to illuminate the journalistic op-tions for local newscasters, this piece is notmeant to be an analysis of the quality ofthe nightly newscasts themselves. ABC,CBS and NBC have problems. Each has pre-cipitously cut its commitment to overseascoverage. All have devoted more time tocommercials. They have begun picking sto-ries based on demographic targeting ratherthan newsworthiness. And yet they stillhave been unable to devise a news agendathat attracts young viewers — or even toget the newscast programmed by the timeviewers are home from work. We leavethese and other issues to another day.

Still, the data show that the networks

are more likely than their local counter-parts to employ journalistic strategies thathave engendered criticism: “gotcha!” jour-nalism and lifestyle fluff.

One of the sample weeks chosen forthis study included a prize example of thegotcha game, representing the last hurrahof the Washington press corps’ fascinationwith Bill Clinton. The investigation of hispardons of the fugitive financier Marc Richand others led the way as fully 11 percentof all network packages had an investiga-tive tone (versus 2 percent for local). Thenumbers do not define the line wherehard-nosed investigative journalism cross-es over to mere “gotcha!” But my ownsense of watching these stories is thatthey provided more fodder for scrutiny ofthat line than the local stations did.

Another example of questionable en-terprise is the category “news series.”These are the nightly non-news-relatedfeatures run under titles such as ABC’s ACloser Look or CBS’s Eye on America orNBC’s In-Depth and Life Line which, de-pending on one’s taste, either round outthe day’s coverage to survey important

underlying societal trends or pander tothe self-serving pre-occupations of keydemographic components of the view-ing audience. Again, without drawingconclusions, 11 percent of the networks’packages ran under such formats where-as only 3 percent of the local broad-casts’ did.

If the high-stakes, hard-driving, corre-spondent-dominated style of the net-works leaves them open to charges ofslickness and remove, the local newscastsoffer a contrast. This study demonstratesthat your local station’s promotion of itsfamiliar four-person anchor team goes be-yond mere marketing. That format shapesthe journalism itself. Compared with thenetworks’ severe patriarchal product, localnews may seem anti-intellectual and su-perficial. But that intimate local family cir-cle delivers the reassuring rhythms ofeveryday life. •

Andrew Tyndall is publisher of the Tyn-dall Report, a research service, and hasbeen monitoring network news coveragesince 1987.

Large media companies are growingmore eager to buy television stations.A chain of stations that shares pro-duction facilities, marketing strate-gies, content, and even sales staff willsave money and be able to offer ad-vertisers more eyeballs. The FCC isexpected to lift the ban on the rulecapping any company reaching morethan 35 percent of the nation’s view-ing audience, a ceiling alreadybreached by CBS/Viacom and Fox.

A review of annual reports showsthat most media companies pub-licly extol the importance of goodjournalism. We decided to averagethe quality scores of those owner-ship groups in which we’ve studiedfour or more stations in hopes oflearning about different companies’commitment to quality.

[For complete documentation,please visit our web site,www.journalism.org.]

QUALITY BY STATION GROUP1998-2001

Station Average Grade StationsGroup

EMMIS 363.30 B 7

RAYCOM 356.47 B 4

GANNETT 351.86 C 12

CBS 338.24 C 12

NBC 337.08 C 7

BELO 335.88 C 8

HEARST 330.23 C 9

ABC 323.96 C 5

SCRIPPS 301.81 D 4

COX 262.86 D 4

Y CIRCLE

16 CJR/PROJECT FOR EXCELLENCE IN JOURNALISM November/December 2001

WHAT COMES NEXT?

WHO DID THE STUDYThis study was conducted by the Project for Excellence inJournalism, a journalists’ group in Washington, D.C., affiliatedwith the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism and fundedby the Pew Charitable Trusts. Tom Rosenstiel, director of thePEJ, was lead writer. Carl Gottlieb, the deputy director, super-vised all aspects of the study. Atiba Pertilla and Chris Galdieriof PEJ were project researchers.

The scholar team that developed the methodology in-cluded Marion Just, Ph.D., Professor of Political Science atWellesley College; Michael Robinson, Ph.D., formerly ofGeorgetown University; Ann Crigler, Ph.D., Director of theJesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University ofSouthern California, and Sherrie Mazingo, Ph.D., of the Uni-versity of Minnesota, and Lee Ann Brady of Princeton SurveyResearch Associates.

Researchers at Princeton Survey Research Associates codedthe newscasts and prepared the initial statistical data underBrady’s supervision. Todd Belt of USC developed the measure-ments and analyzed the Nielsen Media Research data for rat-ings, share, demographics and audience retention. Kathy Reganand Rosalind Levine performed data collection and statisticalanalysis for the survey of news directors. Evan Jenkins, con-

sulting editor of the Columbia Journalism Review, edited thearticles. Nancy Novick, art director of the Columbia Journal-ism Review, designed the layout and graphics.

DESIGN TEAMThe following local news professionals developed the cri-teria of quality for this study and signed off on major de-cisions:

• John Cardenas, News Director, WBNS, Columbus, Ohio.

• John Corporon, Board of Governors, Overseas Press Club.

• Randy Covington, former News Director, WIS, Columbia, S. C.

• Marty Haag, former Executive Vice President, A.H. Belo.

• Alice Main, former Executive Producer, WLS, Chicago.

• Gordon Peterson, Principal Anchor, WUSA, Washington, D.C.

• Jose Rios, Vice President of News, KTTV, Los Angeles.

• Dan Rosenheim, News Director, KPIX, San Francisco.

• Kathy Williams, News Director, WKYC, Cleveland.

• Gary Wordlaw, President and General Manager,

WTVH, Syracuse.

O n September 11th terrorism spurred television newspeople to do what they do best. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Producers suddenly were allowed to create newsprograms rather than gimmick-filled promotional vehi-cles. Reporters were asked to cover something importantand take care to get it right. The anchor mugging and bonmots largely disappeared.

Can it last?Local television news over the last generation had de-

volved into something less than journalism because themedium thought it lacked compelling stories to tell. Ma-nipulating viewers overtook thinking about content. Anobsession with extracting absurd profits overwhelmedwhat was originally a federally required public service inexchange for a license to broadcast.

Now, the federal requirements long gone, the audi-ence has begun to shrink, and the profits are drying up.

An ABC affiliate in St. Louis recently dropped news al-together because it couldn’t make enough money. Otherswill likely follow. There is not enough audience or adver-tising to support so many news outlets.

The short history of television reveals that epic mo-

ments can define new eras for journalism. News institu-tions remake themselves and find new philosophies.Viewers sample new stations, switch channels and createnew loyalties.

Since that unthinkable September morning, Americanshave returned to the news. Viewership is up, and thesepeople are hunting. One major station executive told usprivately that by the first of October, close to 90 percentof the households in his market had sampled his newsprograms.

We have come back to news because there is an im-portant story in the country that compels us to look be-yond ourselves, our health, and our consumer impulses.

If this project has established one thing, it’s that manyof the conventional formulas broadcasters apply don’twork any more.

If local broadcasters respond by trying to exploit thisnew audience, rather than inform it, viewers will be re-pelled as they would by a war profiteer or a price gouger.

Now TV news professionals have an opportunity, anda reason, to show the public that they can practice jour-nalism again. •

This year’s Local TV News study is dedicated to the memory of James Lawrence Snyder. Jim was one of the guiding hands ofthis project and was a member of the design team of industry professionals that continues to advise us. To a fine journalistand a terrific friend, we will miss you.