Local TV trend

[Brain 81]

Who here doesn't like how local TV affiliates are trending away from local content and moving to standardized broadcasting. It was okay when it first began, but it has become the standard trend for now and I don't see it going away. Also, what happened to champion the underdog anymore? I know things change and technology changed the way of TV, but why can't we have technology without sacrificing local content and underdog TV owners.

 

If technology has gotten better and easier, wouldn't it be more simple for the local guy to acquire and program a TV station?

[Samantha 2878]

 

Who here doesn't like how local TV affiliates are trending away from local content and moving to standardized broadcasting. It was okay when it first began, but it has become the standard trend for now and I don't see it going away. Also, what happened to champion the underdog anymore? I know things change and technology changed the way of TV, but why can't we have technology without sacrificing local content and underdog TV owners.

 

If technology has gotten better and easier, wouldn't it be more simple for the local guy to acquire and program a TV station?

 

It's because the industry is motivated by economies of scale. It is also a maturation process.

 

Frankly, compared to other countries, we're lucky. Have you seen the state of localism lately in, say, Australia?

[Brain 81]

What does that mean?

 

I also want to take back part of what I said.

[sanewsguy 509]

I'm going to go on a rant again. Feel free to read on if you'd like:

 

Who here doesn't like how local TV affiliates are trending away from local content and moving to standardized broadcasting. It was okay when it first began, but it has become the standard trend for now and I don't see it going away. Also, what happened to champion the underdog anymore? I know things change and technology changed the way of TV, but why can't we have technology without sacrificing local content and underdog TV owners.

 

If technology has gotten better and easier, wouldn't it be more simple for the local guy to acquire and program a TV station?

 

It bothers the hell out of me. I watch the LOCAL news for LOCAL news, not national news that I can get from various other sources. Unfortunately, it's much cheaper to rerun national content than to employ enough staff to cover all the local news in a given area. Just like there is a dearth of investigative reporting out there on local tv because they rather pay some guy/gal to sit and listen to police scanners all day (aka assignment editor). Fortunately I have access to two stations that truly care about investigative reporting, REAL investigative reporting, and they are WOAI and KXAN. They both do an outstanding job with investigative reporting and they are the strengths of those newscasts. OTOH, "investigative" reporting according to KSAT 12 is calling the electric company, the water company, and 311 (city hotline) and see who took the longest to answer the phone. The story they did yesterday was about how fit local police officers are. So stupid, that's not investigative reporting, it's just a waste of airtime. Unfortunately, that's what wins in the ratings, although it has little impact on the city, unlike WOAI investigative reporting which is third place although it has had a tremendous impact on San Antonio's laws.

 

KSAT should take a page from KXAN's latest work. THAT is investigative reporting, and they've won several awards for it. Of course, as I've said in the past, Austin has higher-quality newscasts than San Antonio.

 

KSAT also proudly advertises this on their site and on TV:

The promos, with Scott Chapin's voice, go something like, "What do ya got to hide? There's no hiding now with Arrest Reports on ksat.com.".

 

THAT is the reason my confidence in most local news station is waning, a focus away from real journalism and more towards sensationalism.

 

The local guy could acquire a station, but they just can't compete against the bigger groups. It's why the Kellys decided to sell KCRA to Hearst in 1999. That and the large chain groups have far more capital to purchase stations with and invest in them with than local interests do. Some local groups have held on like Raleigh's Capital and Miami's Sunbeam, but they've been real successful with the stations. But for the most part it just doesn't work out.

 

It's because the industry is motivated by economies of scale. It is also a maturation process.

 

Frankly, compared to other countries, we're lucky. Have you seen the state of localism lately in, say, Australia?

 

 

What does that mean?

 

I also want to take back part of what I said.

 

1. economies of scale referring to the cost savings a company realizes the bigger they get, and don't forget the bigger a group is, the more leverage they have with pay tv providers. I honestly didn't understand the "maturation process" part.

 

2. Local news in Australia exists of one newscast daily at 6pm in the five capital cities (containing some local content with national content) with "news updates" throughout the day and one newscast weekdays in the smaller areas (regional television). Every other newscast is national from Sydney.

[Brain 81]

Well, at least don't own so many stations that you lose track.

That's you, Nexstar and Sinclair.

[Viper550 268]

A similar regime is the norm here in Canada; you could count the number of "affiliates" of each major network here on your hands.

 

Don't forget, Clear Channel has pretty much done the same for radio...

[sanewsguy 509]

 

A similar regime is the norm here in Canada; you could count the number of "affiliates" of each major network here on your hands.

 

Don't forget, Clear Channel has pretty much done the same for radio...

 

I think the situation in Canada is different than here in the US where I think it is acceptable. The market is smaller and the Canadian networks do not produce a lot of their own content instead importing it from the US. The few they do produce there is not a market for in the US. Rather than profit off of their own programs they are profiting off of the US ones which they have to pay to show. There's advertising but as we've learned here in the US it's not a successful business model anymore. The Canadian local stations cannot charge retrans consent fees (known in Canada as fee for carriage) so it makes sense for a network to own almost all their affiliates and squeeze whatever they can from local advertising revenues. The Canadian local TV model, and you thank the CRTC for this, flat out sucks. Then again Canada is much smaller so here, the networks cannot legally all 200 or so of their affiliates. They also can't own their Bermuda affiliates even if they wanted to because they are UK territory.

 

Clear Channel as I've said before, is a disgrace to radio but thankfully TV has yet to see something similar. At least most local news continues to be locally originated unlike radio where the jocks are most likely out of town doing cut-ins for 10 plus radio stations. This is why I can't stand to listen to any radio station owned by Clear Channel (despite living in their home market). At least Cox owns some stations here, they still know how to run a radio station properly. None of the jocks on their stations are out of town fortunately.

[GoldenShine9 1509]

Hypothetically - if the FCC removed rules, do you think the networks would buy up stations in every market?

[Samantha 2878]

 

Then again Canada is much smaller so here, the networks cannot legally all 200 or so of their affiliates.

 

This is probably one of the biggest factors that's helped keep media diversity alive; the sheer quantity of network-affiliated stations.

 

Something like this has come up in Argentina. Argentina has the following:

• TV Pública, a national (and, more importantly, state-owned and operated) network with no local content and nearly 300 repeaters.
  
• Telefe and El Trece, the ratings giants, which own stations in interior Argentina and have affiliates that also broadcast some or most of their (highly rated, too) shows.
  
• Canal 9 and América, which are primarily cable-only outside of Buenos Aires though they do have some limited repeater reach.
  
• A variety of local stations with a high(er) amount of locally produced programs. (A recent Argentina media law helped to raise the bar in this respect.)
  

While there is certainly a Buenos Aires-centric attitude, there are local newscasts and some other locally produced programs. It's still a better localism situation than in a lot of countries. It took until the 1980s, 31 years after the start of television in the country, to see the introduction of regionally-based television services in Colombia.

 

 

Hypothetically - if the FCC removed rules, do you think the networks would buy up stations in every market?

 

I think you'd see a lot of pressure to buy affiliates in the largest markets that aren't already in the network fold—for instance, non-O&Os in the top 10 to 20 markets. However, the sort of structures that would be needed within the networks would be so heavy that it would be unwieldy to manage (though certainly an easier task than, say, Sinclair's diverse portfolio). You'd probably also see companies have close ties to the networks (much as, say, Allbritton and ABC hooked up in the 90s) and own large chunks of small market stations.