Most TV stations don't editorialize. For years I thought this was a mistake. Now I see it as a virtue. That local broadcasters mostly avoid opinion may be one of their strongest attributes, one that they can exploit in a media ecosystem where it is increasingly difficult to distinguish fact from fiction. Surveys confirm that local broadcasters are a widely trusted source of news, at least relative to other media. Given that, they should step up the breadth and depth of their reporting. Crimes, fires, accidents and the five-day forecast are not enough.
JESSELL AT LARGE
Stations Need More News, Not More Opinions
For years, I thought that TV stations should be more like newspapers. In addition to reporting the news and investigating wrongdoing, they should express themselves on the issues of the day in on-air editorials and provide a forum for other commentary. In fact, I wrote a column lamenting the demise of broadcast commentary when I was editor of B&C 16 years ago.
I suppose this reveals a prejudice of mine — that newspapers are about serious matters and serious thought and TV stations are about crimes, fires, accidents and the five-day forecast.
But, now, in the wake of the extraordinary presidential campaigning and the erosion of trust in media it exposed, I think editorials and commentary are the last things TV stations ought to become involved in.
That they mostly avoid opinion may be one of their strongest attributes, one that they can exploit in a media ecosystem where it is increasingly difficult to distinguish fact from fiction.
I understand the impulse of newspapers to editorialize. It gives the paper an opportunity to explain the significance of what appears on the news pages and to recommend next steps.
If the story says that the mayor is corrupt, the editorial says he must go.
BRAND CONNECTIONS
When papers were all-powerful, the editorial also gave the publisher and editors influence, a big say in what went on around town.
And it’s a tradition that goes back to the days when most papers were overtly partisan.
But by getting into the murky, partisan world of public policy and campaign politics, editorial and op-ed pages often look to the reader like political screeds taking one side over another. And that casts doubt about the objectivity of the news.
Readers don’t always make the fine distinction between the front page and the editorial page. It all comes under the same brand, from the same owner.
I respect The New York Times. I do believe its reporters and editors aim for fairness and that they usually achieve it. I say that knowing that personal biases creep into every story and in the more fundamental decisions on what to cover and what to ignore.
But I cannot convince some conservatives that every word in the paper is not intentionally skewed in favor of progressive causes and politicians. When I press them, I discover its mostly because of the editorial page and the mostly left-leaning columnists opposite the page.
Likewise, liberals I know don’t fully trust what they read in The Wall Street Journal because of its editorial page and its ownership by an outspoken conservative, Rupert Murdoch.
All the opinions undermine credibility. The cable news networks suffer terribly from this. There is so much opinion thrown around with no boundaries, that it’s impossible for viewers to glean the truth of anything. I tend to avoid them all.
For decades, broadcasters avoided commentary because of the former fairness doctrine, an FCC rule that said if they commented on a controversial issue, they would have to provide competing views.
But the Reagan FCC dumped the rule in 1987, inviting stations to become soap boxes and join the great public debates. Radio accepted the invitation, spawning Rush Limbaugh and the like. TV did not.
TV declined mostly because controversy is not good for business. Strong political opinions inevitably make some people angry and some of those angry people may be advertisers or, just as bad, people the advertisers are trying to attract.
And taking positions that could be construed as partisan doesn’t help in Washington. Unlike newspapers, TV stations are under continual FCC scrutiny. A station group cannot buy a single TV station, let alone another group, without running it past the commission first. And you never know who is going to be running the agency.
These are not the best of reasons to sit on the sidelines during raging political debates. But the fact that they have stayed out of the fray has, somewhat unintentionally, endowed them with credibility that other media should envy.
“When Americans want ‘just the facts,’ they know they can turn to their local stations to get the news straight, without the shouting, finger-pointing and drama,” said NAB President Gordon Smith in a speech before the Media Institute in Washington this week.
He’s right.
As he pointed out, surveys confirm that local broadcasters are a widely trusted source of news, at least relative to other media. The most recent one along these lines, from the Pew Research Center and Knight Foundation, found that “highly attached” or engaged community members rely more heavily on TV stations for local news than they do on newspaper, radio or digital media of any kind. That is, I think it is fair to say, a reflection of trust.
(This is great research, by the way, for broadcasters who want to rebut the notion that local TV news is losing its grip on people who vote and no longer is such a good place for political ads.)
So, having somehow emerged as the most trustworthy medium in a cynical age, broadcasters should continue to steer clear of opinion mongering.
But at the same time, they shouldn’t allow that credibility to go to waste. They should step up the breadth and depth of their reporting, perhaps even venture more on to the national stage. Crimes, fires, accidents and the five-day forecast are not enough.
Major broadcasters with whom I’ve spoken are excited that the next FCC chairman may follow the Republican playbook and relax the ownership limits. That would lead to further consolidation and give the surviving station groups the muscle and scope to fill the journalistic void the demise of newspapers is creating.
Tough reporting may damage a station’s credibility among some because they will simply choose not to believe it regardless of how well researched, sourced and written the story is.
But, unlike spewing more opinion, that it a risk to credibility worth taking.
Harry A. Jessell is editor of TVNewsCheck. He can be contacted at 973-701-1067 or here. You can read earlier columns here.
Comments (23)
alicia farmer says:
November 18, 2016 at 3:14 pm
Reality check: 90% of local TV news is crime, car wrecks, and weather hype.
Andrea Rader says:
November 18, 2016 at 5:00 pm
The other 10% is handouts from special interest groups reported without skepticism.
Wagner Pereira says:
November 19, 2016 at 8:27 am
95% of comments made on TVNewscheck containing figures (especially from those in Charlotte) are made up numbers and have no basis in reality.
Veronica Serrano Padilla says:
November 19, 2016 at 10:21 am
I’ll bet you made that number up…
Wagner Pereira says:
November 21, 2016 at 9:14 pm
You are 203.75% correct…..though considering most posts with numbers from the uninformed are incorrect, it wouldn’t surprise me.
Brian Bussey says:
November 18, 2016 at 3:49 pm
That would lead to further consolidation and give the surviving station groups the muscle and scope to fill the journalistic void the demise of newspapers is creating.
Man you had me going until you wrote that line ! Consolidation has not benefitted American news viewers in any way. One would assume that a TV group with a station in a capital city would be sending out news stories from the capital. I have yet to see one. TV station groups and their network affiliates failed the American people by NOT REPORTING THE FACTS as they became available regarding this election.
Brett Zongker says:
November 18, 2016 at 4:15 pm
There is remarkable investigative journalism being done today by local TV stations across the country. Just look at the list of Murrow winners each and every year. I would argue that if the FCC relaxed some of the outdated ownership rules like the broadcast-newspaper cross-ownership ban, there would be more of that type of reporting. Couple that with lifesaving emergency weather reporting. And Amber Alert kids that local TV stations rescue. All free of charge for those who install a $25 antenna. Seems like a pretty good bargain to me. And that will only increase when the FCC blesses Next Gen TV.
Gene Johnson says:
November 18, 2016 at 4:38 pm
Dennis, while there no doubt is some good work in local TV, it is unfortunately a small minority of what we see day in and day out. There is now a dearth of reporting on what happens in state capitals, and at the local level it’s not that much better. Such coverage costs money, allocating the resources required to have reporters knowledgeable enough to cover state or local government. How many stations, or station groups have done that? I live in the DC area and have largely given up on local news for much of anything substantive other than weather. I can’t recall the last time I saw a story about what is happening in Richmond (VA state capital) for the millions of viewers who live in No. VA. At least we still have some decent sources (newspaper mostly) regarding national and international news that also provide coverage of state capital goings on (MD and VA). But, when you travel to smaller markets throughout the country it gets much worse. Newspapers have very little national or international news, and if a local station does such coverage it’s usually nothing more than a quick headline read. Certainly no substantive coverage. Yes, there may be exceptions, but they are few and generally far between. General surveys which attempt to gauge the knowledge level of Americans on current events or basic civics type information (e.g., who is your Congressman) tend to show that many or most Americans are not particularly well informed.
While I agree that the newspaper/broadcast cross ownership ban is long past its time, if there ever really were a time for it (remember, it was originally adopted more as a prophylactic than to address an existing problem), that is unlikely to solve the problem discussed except perhaps in a few markets, if at all. While it sounds good in theory, the reality is that after combinations occur, including television duopolies, the goal remains on cost cutting and profitability, not public service (like any “rule” there will be exceptions). I’m not saying more regulation is the answer, but I also don’t know what the answer is given the profit motive. We may have a plethora of information sources available, but not many people go looking for them; when they do they often look only to sources which conform to their ideological viewpoint; and many contain false news or information.
Wagner Pereira says:
November 19, 2016 at 8:17 am
No one reads a response this long which also demonstrates the issue of doing in depth reporting on TV as well.
Carl Salas says:
November 18, 2016 at 5:32 pm
I have a different view. I believe we are fortunate to have been entrusted with an FCC license. We have a responsibility to do more than just inform and entertain our viewers. We also must reflect (and sometimes help shape) the values of our communities. We need to tell them about the problems ahead and give them an opportunity to discuss them rather than just accept all the decisions of others. I don’t care if people agree or disagree with my Point of View as long as I can engage them in conversation. I want them talking to me, to family, to neighbors, or to co-workers about issues. We give them a chance to give feedback via voicemail, which we air the day after the editorials. Many time they don’t agree with me and by airing those dissenting opinions, we buy even more credibility and further the discussion. Our editorials give viewers one more reason to watch our station for content they can’t get anywhere else. We have an editorial advisory board made up of 18 prominent business, political, and community leaders who help educate me on sensitive issues in our community. Doing these editorials is a lot of work, but in the end, they give the station a bigger voice in the community and a clearer identity between WDRB and our competition. Viewers indicate to me that they know my editorials are my opinion. Our research gives no indication that editorials taint the objectivity of our news. By the way, I have done two editorials a week, 52 weeks a year for 18 years.
Teri Green says:
November 18, 2016 at 10:08 pm
The more consolidation of stations, the less you have. Competition brings out more robust reporting. Did any papers endorse Trump for President (not in the primaries)? There were correct papers like the Financial Times of the UK and the Wall Street Journal that predicted the final EV count (minus MI, WI and PA). And even those states were given to Hillary at less than 2% with a 5% standard error. The problem is really information bias. People now only go to the websites that suit their opinion. If that website disagrees with their opinion the don’t go there anymore. Thus they only read what they want to hear.
Fred E Walker says:
November 20, 2016 at 12:53 pm
Good observation and article overall but I tend to agree with the other commenters doubting that consolidation has necessarily been a force for good in the TV business or the communities they serve. There are not enough, hard hitting investigative stories at local news operations and the proliferation of “on your side”, “News you can count on”, “working hard for you” glib tag lines originating from the handful of TV News “consultants” means nothing to younger viewers, who are more likely to get their news from the internet or from sources like Vice News Tonight which puts out an excellent product. With cable bleeding subscribers due to cord cutting, broadcasters have (had?) an amazing opportunity to fill a void and it’s feeling more and more like a slow motion train wreck in most instances. Not sure what the answers are, but more dependance on sports, commercial loads pushed to the limits (and over) and simply adding hours of pretty much the same old local news programming won’t cut it. Surely we can do better.
Linda Stewart says:
November 20, 2016 at 1:23 pm
Was there a time — before Reagan and the waves of consolidation — when TV stations regularly produced “hard-hitting investigative” stories? I don’t think so.
alicia farmer says:
November 20, 2016 at 3:44 pm
Yes Harry. Group W stations “I Teams” – mid 1970s – early 1980s.
Linda Stewart says:
November 21, 2016 at 6:17 am
Group W had a fine reputation (I grew up with KDKA Pittsburgh), but I think it was more the exception than the rule.
Wagner Pereira says:
November 21, 2016 at 9:18 pm
Attention span has dropped since then. Even b4 social media, people thought closing arguments in Court Cases should be 30 seconds like in LA Law, Law and Order and Allie McBeal. Low attention span demands twitter responses and unfortunately news stories
Jayson Siler says:
November 20, 2016 at 4:59 pm
In the wake of the demise of local newspapers in many markets, who’s going to keep local politicians in check? Less scrutiny of their activities invites more abuse and corruption. If local TV news station really want to remain “relevant”, it’s time to step up their efforts in covering important stories that revolve around local governance. Just covering fires, crime, traffic, weather and sports may be the easy way out, but it’s also a recipe for becoming obsolete…
yin yu says:
November 21, 2016 at 9:57 am
The real bias in television news can be found in their reporting on home grown half-baked polls. If you want to increase the credibility of tv news, start reporting on candidate’s positions and cut out all reporting on the phony polls.
Wagner Pereira says:
November 21, 2016 at 9:22 pm
Are you joking? All we saw this year was the Candidates talking? Just because HRC had no positions other than Stronger Together, who’s fault is that? Freedom of Press does not mean you get to put physical gun to head and demand they answer your questions.
Gene Johnson says:
November 22, 2016 at 10:18 am
Really Insider, you think Clinton had no positions on issues? Shows how uninformed you are if you do. You may not have agreed with her positions, but she had far more information about her positions on a multitude of issues than did Mr. Trump.
Wagner Pereira says:
December 5, 2016 at 8:13 am
Not according to Bill Clinton, James Carville and everyone else explaining why she lost.
John Avellino says:
November 22, 2016 at 11:23 am
http://tvnewscheck.com/article/93228/the-best-man-for-the-trump-fcc-me
BREAKING NEWS….. JESSELL Letter was heard loud and clear by the Trump Transition Team. AND Yep…well let’s just say ” They are not laughing with you Harry they are laughing AT YOU!!!!
Kevin
Gray Station Group
Thomas Hubler says:
November 28, 2016 at 11:23 am
I’m with formergm..If it bleeds it leads..and bend over and kiss your patootie goodbye there is a lone black cloud in the sky..is not really news..I don’t cower in front of the tv in fear for my life every time the beeping crawl comes on..