I hope the 2006 “Future of News” survey provokes as much thought and conversation in newsrooms around the country as it has in my little circle of journalism junkies. The new research is rich with important insights, and not just for television types, but for anybody who hopes to understand the way consumers use news.
That ought to include anyone who leads a newsroom of any medium.
Healthy journalistic skepticism requires me to say at the outset that it’s hardly surprising the survey finds local television news vital and vibrant. I can’t remember research from any association ever announcing that the industry it represents is irrelevant. “Trade group study: ‘We’re obsolete.'” Now that would be a real “Man Bites Dog” headline.
Having said that, I think the recent survey from the Radio-Television News Directors Foundation has the ring of reality to it: It’s complex, contradictory at times and well worth examining beyond the headlines.
So here’s my attempt at “drilling down,” as researchers themselves always seem to say in reference to what lies beneath the surface of a survey.
Do viewers want urgent, breaking news or more serious stuff? The answer is an emphatic yes. They want both. It’s not an either-or deal.
From the survey it seems cynical news directors and those evil consultants haven’t been making it up after all: To quote RTNDF’s question in the research findings in the section titled “What news do people want?”:
The italics and bold type are straight from the survey — and for good reason: No other news category scored as highly as “urgent, breaking news,” which earned a 4.5 on a 5-point scale. News that is “live, going on right now” came in second with a 4.
… What we sometimes call “live for live’s sake” no longer impresses viewers the way it once did — or the way we might have thought it did …Pay close attention to the wording of that second-place entry, by the way. It does not say “live reports hours after an event has ended” or “reporters standing live in dark parking lots outside locked buildings.” This is consistent with much other research I have seen over the past couple of years indicating that what we sometimes call “live for live’s sake” no longer impresses viewers the way it once did — or the way we might have thought it did, judging from the resources so many stations devote to gratuitous live shots.
There may once have been a real gee-whiz factor to TV’s ability to “go live” from outside the station itself, but that was back in the day when long-distance phone calls were a big deal, too. (Remember how we all used to whisper when one came in? “Shhh! He’s on long distance!”) The audience is over it. Journalists probably should get that way, too.
On the other hand, news that really is “going on right now” remains a strong suit of television and deserves to be done well. In fact, the RTNDF survey says:
The survey also says “there were complaints about the mislabeling of news that is neither urgent nor breaking.” Those complaints came in response to an open-ended question, “What one thing would you change about local TV news to make it better?” Here are some of the things viewers said:
- Don’t sensationalize the news.
- Stop trying to scare people.
- Be more honest.
- Don’t report live where nothing is happening.
- Don’t break into programs with breaking news, just run a crawl.
The actual number of people saying each of these things was small, but that’s common with unprompted, top-of-mind research responses. Taken together, these suggest credibility should concern television journalists.
None of this should come as a shock to anyone who has been paying attention to television news lately. Nor should the finding that, when it comes to specific content areas, weather wins, scoring a 4.2 out of a possible 5.
However, the biggest surprise in the survey — for me, anyway — follows that finding:
Indeed, “information on what’s happening around the country” scored a statistical tie with weather at 4.2 on the 5-point scale. And “information on what’s happening around the world” earned a 4.1.
That’s big! Counterintuitive, too. News directors responding to the survey were way off on this one, assigning a 3.2 to “information on what’s happening around the country” and a 3 to “information on what’s happening around the world.”
So, what do viewers say about “information on what’s happening” in their own communities — the heart of local news?
They don’t say — because the survey didn’t ask.
It did ask viewers to rate the importance of “features about people in your community.” Not surprisingly, viewers rated “features” from around town at 3.5, well behind “information about what’s happening” around the nation and around the world.
In a separate section, the survey asked how interested viewers are in “regular news about the community.” That earned a 3.9, coming in behind urgent, breaking news and live coverage of what’s going on right now — third place, but not bad for news carrying the understated label “regular.”
I asked Ball State professor Bob Papper, who conducted the RTNDF research, about the discrepancy: Why refer to important-sounding “information about what’s happening” regarding national and international news, but use the fluffy-sounding phrase “features about people” when it comes to local news?
“It’s true that there’s no precisely comparable question,” Papper said. “And we could have done that. On the other hand, the fact that local TV news is the primary source of news for most people really answers the question about what people are interested in. … If people were most interested in national or international news, then local TV wouldn’t have been their primary source of news.”
So if you are tempted to conclude that national and international news is of greater interest to viewers than local news, remember the researcher himself says that’s not true.
Maybe most important, remember that executive summaries and news releases about research don’t always tell the whole story. “Drill down,” as the pollsters say. Dig deeper, as any good journalist should. Read the actual questions as well as the answers. And look closely not just for what’s there — but for what isn’t.
