I'm Mad as Hell

Icon

and I can't do a thing about it

Losing Local

A good friend, and a smart one at that, and I were having a drink at a pub on a beautiful afternoon discussing the state of the world in general and media in particular. He’s a guy who has kicked around successfully in radio, TV and newspapers. At one point he blurted out the fact that all news is local. On the face of it, the statement sounds wrong. What about the earthquake in Haiti and the riots in Bangkok? These events lead newscasts, make the front pages and take place far from Canada.

The real truth though, is that he is absolutely right and the TV networks and newspaper chains have been missing the boat for years in their attempts to maximize profits by minimizing staff and sharing content across broad swaths of the country.

I have several points to make that point out the truth of his bold statement. The first brings me back to an audience study done by the CBC in the mid-80s. The audience was asked to list from first to last what is most important to them: local, national and international news. The study said Canadians want international most, national second most and local least. I was a news executive at the time and I was forced to go along with the poll results. A funny thing happened however, the more international news we ran, the lower the ratings went. The more local news we aired, the more the viewership grew. So much for polls. So much for international news.

My second point is about local versus national newscasts. Most viewers, heck most TV people, don’t realize that local supper hour newscasts get higher ratings than the national newscasts. The problem for local is that CTV’s Calgary newscast might get 100,000 viewers but that’s compared to the over 1 million CTV National News gets across the country. But add up all of the local newscasts aired by CTV and they total well over 1.5 million on most days. Global’s numbers are harder to compare because they run their national newscast as part of the supper hour package. At CBC local news doesn’t get much audience but that has more to do with the catastrophic dismantling of local news and the poor product that’s being delivered. In the mid-80s, before local news was plundered, The National averaged about 1 million viewers on 14 “O and Os” (owned and operated stations) plus 14 affiliates. Local supper hour newscasts were getting close to 2 million viewers on just the 14 “O and Os.” The myopic look at national numbers while ignoring local numbers has done a great deal of harm to local television and local viewership from coast to coast.

In all the bull manure that was spread by CTV especially, and Global about saving local TV they somehow forgot to tell us, the viewers, that in fact they have been dismantling the engines of local coverage for years. Some execs call it consolidation. CTV used to have full newsrooms across Northern Ontario in cities like Sudbury, Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay and Timmins. Now, after massive cuts they have small bureaus in most of these cities to feed a larger newscast that covers an area bigger than France. If you are sitting in front of your TV in Thunder Bay are you interested in a car crash just outside Sudbury, thousands of kilometers away? I bet not. So guess what, numbers dropped and local interest waned. What followed was fewer local ads. It has become a vicious cycle. Cut local stations staff to save money. Local coverage drops. Viewership dips further. The network makes even less money and wants or needs to cut more. It seems obvious but the network execs can’t figure it out.

The same has happened to newspapers. The Canwest papers thought they had a great idea. Why should the Calgary Herald and The Montreal Gazette both send reporters to the Stanley Cup finals? Hey, they will both report on the same game. So to save a few bucks only one reporter covers the games and reports to all of the Canwest newspapers. Nobody at Canwest head office bothered to understand that if the reporter covering the event was from Toronto, he might focus on different players and might have more interest in the eastern team and that doesn’t play so well in Alberta and B.C. Perhaps at the G8 summit a B.C. reporter might focus on offshore drilling and a Montreal reporter might be more interested in abortion rights. In Canada the fact that fewer and fewer conglomerates own more and more of the media has meant that local coverage is disappearing and interest in traditional media, especially news, is dropping.

The same is true for newspapers in the U.S. The conglomerates are cutting newsrooms and asking the local papers to share content across the country. The results have been obvious. Papers are closing and even The New York Times and Washington Post are having trouble making ends meet. Sure consolidation is not the only problem, but I am convinced, that it was the chicken that laid the first egg.

To prove my point, local TV news in the U.S., where it is still mostly community run and community based has maintained strong audience numbers even when the networks were losing viewers and the economy tanked. The local stations in places like Buffalo, Minneapolis and Dallas have remained strong local observers who serve their communities well and thus they have been able to remain economically viable when all around them are suffering.

Local sells. Local works. It is high time that the people who run the media understand this point. This won’t happen though as long as the shareholders are more important than the audience and the decisions are all made in Toronto boardrooms. Diverse ownership, local ownership or at least local management free from interference could be the biggest boon to traditional media, maybe the only thing that can save TV and newspapers as they exist today. Can it happen? It looks grim. All indications are that we are moving in the opposite direction.

Advertisements

Filed under: Media Commentary, Political Commentary, , , , , , , , , ,

9 Responses

  1. Steve Paikin says:

    Your thesis makes sense. I wonder whether it will come through in my home town of Hamilton. Many have complained over the years about the gutting of CHCH local TV news. So some former employees have started an online, robustly local, alternative.

    I wonder whether the theory also works online. Can this new venture break even? It aims to replace some of the local voice lost by CHCH. We’ll see.

  2. Rick Wyman says:

    18 years ago when I first came to Sudbury, our newsroom had no less than 8 reporters/anchors clamouring to get their story as the lead. That’s in addition to a news director who filled in when necessary. Today, we’re down to one full-time person with three others contributing whenever they can. God forbid another blackout or major event occurs!

    • bs says:

      lets be realistic here. sudbury has 4 anchors, and 4 full time reporters plus the 4 other reporters that do both anchor and report. yes there has been a reduction but your full of shit.

  3. suenew says:

    When she was in charge of the supper hours, the late and wonderful Joan Donaldson used to love pointing out that they collectively outdrew The National most of the time. I’ve often wondered what she would have made of what has happened since.

  4. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Nick Scott, Mondoville. Mondoville said: Medium Close Up — another round of reflection on the problem with Canadian TV news's problem: http://j.mp/dcNoCZ […]

  5. Bill Catalano says:

    I’m not sure whast point is being made here. I opened and ran the CBC newsroom in sudbury for more than a dozen years, with what I considered insufficent staff. The levels are lower today, but the numbers have not dropped as expected.
    Are you trying to say that by cutting back the local news, the stations have deprived themselves of a valuable revenue stream or are you saying that local news is still more influential than says the national or the news with the guys who looks like his makeup is done by an undertaker. I agree many areas are underserved now. You are correct, the Soo, Timmins, and Northbay are just rebroads of Sudbury and the talent pool remains novice at best. There is nothing offered other than fluff. No self generated in depth stories. How could there be, these kids aren’t trained for it/
    I digress, If you are saying local is more in demand that national, I disagree. If you say localis more influential that national, I would have to disagree with that.

    Regards

    Bill Catalano

  6. Bill Catalano says:

    Sorry for thwe sloppy tyuping folks, I have relapse remitting ms and somedays at the keyboard are more difficult that others.
    And Edit///I AGREE THAT LOCAL IS MORE IN DEMAND THAN NTATIONAL…DISAGREE THAT LOCAL IS MORE INFLUENTIAL….Again apologies for the sloppy work

    • hlbtoo says:

      Hi Bill…I am not trying to say local or national news is more influential. I am saying there is a higher viewer potential in local and that network bosses don’t seem to understand this. They are continually cutting local to help national. As the U.S. has proven, that’s back-asswards. Further, local interests cannot be served by regional newscasts so yes, most Canadians who do not live in major cities are now poorly served by what purports to be local news.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: