THE FUTURE OF LOCAL NEWS

February 2001
		WBBM-Chicago recently ended its experiment with no-frills, content-driven local news. Is news without fluff stories or flashy graphics a thing of the past? Three experts respond to your questions.

Forum introduction What can viewers do to improve local news quality? Why are there so many remote broadcasts on TV news? Should newspapers monitor local TV quality? Should Marin's broadcast have been given more time? What role should PBS stations play? When will broadcasters return to "broadcasting" rather than "narrow-casting"?     Online Special Changing Local News Online Special Media Watch Feb. 7, 2001: Carol Marin and two analysts on the future of local news. October 31, 2000: Anchor Carol Marin signs off. May 24, 2000 A Chicago newscast chooses facts over fluff. Browse the NewsHour's coverage of the media     Audience Research and Development CBS News The Project for Excellence in Journalism

Paul Schnebelen of Oxnard, California asks: I can't begin to count the number of times I've seen a car chase treated as a major news story just because a news helicopter can show pictures of the chase live, or the number of times I've seen a "live remote" from a place where the newsworthy action ended hours before. What is the reason for TV news broadcasts' fascination with remote broadcast technology? Carl Gottlieb responds: In the early days of live technology it was exciting for viewers to be "eyewitnesses" to history. That novelty is, well ... history. In the case of late-breaking news it's faster to go to the scene of a story, feed back your video and wrap a live stand-up around a taped package. Sometimes events are unfolding as a broadcast is on air and live is necessary. In the absence of the above there are two main reasons stations go live. Consultants tell them viewers like the immediacy -- our focus groups disagree and feel the way you do, especially about live shots where the story has long ended. Justification of expense is the other reason. The people in charge of money at TV stations want to see all of the technology they paid for in use.   Marty Haag responds: Is there a fascination with remote broadcast technology? Of course. One of the definitions of news, of course, concerns immediacy. Those stories that are most immediate and closer to you are more interesting. Just because we can go live doesn’t mean we should. I once read a remark from a Los Angeles broadcaster saying, in effect, that viewers understand in breaking news situations that stations often get information wrong but as more facts are available the story is cleaned up. What happened to get it first, but first get it right?   Carol Marin responds: The helicopter crash or the warehouse fire that was extinguished 12 hours earlier are easy to cover, offer some sense of action but often not much more. Stories about government, politics, education, the price-fixing of milk or gasoline ... all of these require crews to do more than one interview at more than one location and thus require the spending of both time and money. That's why simple action stories, contained at one location, are cheaper and easier, if not more satisfying.