News People Watch

One weird thing about journalism is that most people who work in the news business are happy to concede that the press is somewhat more trivial than they'd like it to be. This is often chalked up to commercial pressures -- we're not doing a terrible job because we're idiots or bad people, the journalist says, it's because the audience is so horrible. And yet despite the theory that the "freak show" builds ratings and sells papers, the reality is that television, newspaper, and magazine journalism are all in long-term structural decline steadily losing audience. It's almost as if people don't, in fact, want to watch the news covered in a stupid manner but actually would be somewhat interested in learning important information about the world.

Along those lines, Joe Matthews started paying close attention to local news in the Los Angeles media market and found that the Spanish-language channels were substantially more substantive than the English-language ones. And guess which language they speak on L.A.'s top-rated local newscast? Spanish, of course, perhaps because "in Spanish, viewers got fewer soft features and more deeply reported, longer pieces."

Comments

I can't wait to hear Steve Sailer's take on this one!

Posted by James Gary | May 12, 2008 2:33 PM

Did they not also mention that the programs took clear positions advocating for the interests of their viewerships? I think that is an important factor in the better numbers posted by the Spanish language shows.

M

Posted by Michael Arnold | May 12, 2008 2:34 PM

Actually, for practice, I regularly watch the evening news on the Spanish stations. It is pretty good - in contrast to the other programming, which is different forms of trash.

If you talk to real journalists, they almost always blame their bosses for the dumbing down of the news.

Posted by blah | May 12, 2008 2:39 PM

apparently white people are stupid. maybe that's why they are so hardworking too.

Posted by harding working american | May 12, 2008 2:43 PM

Um. Think a much more likely explanation for the popularity of the Spanish speaking news stations is that native Spanish speakers prefer their news in Spanish.

And doesn't PBS's ratings pretty much put the kibosh on the idea that their is some vast untapped audience just waiting for quality news.

TV & print news are in deline because of the web; it's just that simple. And while I'd love to see more substantive coverage, it's not going to be some huge ratings winner.

Posted by Gordon | May 12, 2008 2:45 PM

The variance of the averages does not equal the average of the variances. This is one of your more basic statistical concepts, and it offers a corollary that the news industry seems totally incapable of grasping.

I have a journalist friend who insists that while he agrees with me on the substantive point that news should be about things that matter, the reality is ratings are better when they do trivial things. And you know what? I think he's right! ... if we restrict our view to short term positional competition. When you break your normal routine of coverage to hit up a freak show of some kind that others aren't covering, people tune in.

But something is missing from this analysis: over the long haul, the freak show strikes people as increasingly unfreaky. So the audience size regresses. To build it back up using this tried-and-true formula for overnight success, the freak show has to get freakier. To a point, this is fine, but you can only go back to the well so often before it erodes people's interest in the news media as such. Everybody under the sun, including the most daft hand wringers in the industry, will tell you that people get sick of looking at media garbage after a while. So even though a news outlet might continually beat its competition this way, it will continually win in an ever-dwindling market.

Obviously, there is something to be said for positional success in terms of authority and advertiser certainty. But if the cost of your victory is shrinking the market to the point that your positional win is actually smaller than your positional loss might have been, it seems hard to treat that as a positive. If I reach 300K and my competitor reaches 250K, why would I get fewer advertising dollars than if my competitor reached 400K and I reached 350K?

Posted by jhupp | May 12, 2008 2:47 PM

That seems like some pretty poor reasoning to me. (Not to mention all the counterexamples it overlooks.)

Posted by wolfey | May 12, 2008 2:51 PM

And doesn't PBS's ratings pretty much put the kibosh on the idea that their is some vast untapped audience just waiting for quality news.

I agree. I hate the local news as much as anybody, but I have to think that the pros who design them know what they're doing.

Posted by Jim W | May 12, 2008 2:51 PM

And yet despite the theory that the "freak show" builds ratings and sells papers, the reality is that television, newspaper, and magazine journalism are all in long-term structural decline steadily losing audience. It's almost as if people don't, in fact, want to watch the news covered in a stupid manner but actually would be somewhat interested in learning important information about the world.

I don't see how the second part of that last sentence follows. It may be that people "don't, in fact, want to watch the news covered in a stupid manner" but that they really don't want to watch news covered in a dry, substantive manner. I mean, the fact that ratings are falling for "freak show" style news doesn't indicate that ratings would increase for substantive news - it could very well be that ratings would fall even faster for substantive news.

Also, in re Spanish news, Joe Matthew's article is really unconvincing. It is completely anecdotal regarding the quality of the coverage. And the focus on the ratings is asinine - Univision is highly rated, but Azteca is low rated. And there are far more English news programs than Spanish, so the audience is far more fragmented for the English news (not to mention there are other news besides local news - why is he just focusing on that type)?

Posted by Al | May 12, 2008 2:55 PM

You also have to assume that there are slightly different hiring pools, meaning that anyone who gets hired for Live Eyewitless Your Newschannel 20 at 6 is already an expert in the local-news clichés of the Live Report From Where Something Happened Two Days Ago or the Bullshit Exposé. You won't get hired if you can't write to genre.

(RadioLab's special on Welles's 'The War of the Worlds' hoax made the point that today's local news bulletins -- 'Can This Food Kill Your Child? Tune In Later' are indebted to the kind of psychological manipulations that Welles exploited. If people are scared, even if they know that it's just genre manipulation, they'll keep watching.)

doesn't PBS's ratings pretty much put the kibosh on the idea that their is some vast untapped audience just waiting for quality news.

That presumes a false dichotomy between sensationalist news and po-faced news. And remember, we're talking about local coverage here, whereas The News Hour is a national broadcast, and local PBS affiliates tend to offer in-studio magazine shows rather than news reporting.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 12, 2008 2:58 PM

but I have to think that the pros who design them know what they're doing

I'm going to hazard a guess that you've never worked in the media business - particularly the local news end of it.

Posted by brautigan | May 12, 2008 3:01 PM

I can't comment on the local Spanish-language newscasts in Los Angeles, but I can't say I'm surprised by their high quality. I have long been impressed by how Sábado Gigante has elevated the old American staple of the variety show to new heights. Why wouldn't our Spanish-speaking friends do the same with local news? Soon, we will have to turn to the Spanish-language blogosphere for a higher level of political commentary than we read here on the Atlantic.

Posted by Fred | May 12, 2008 3:02 PM

I see a few overwhelming problems with this argument.

1.) There's no evidence actually linking the decline of the newspaper medium with the nature of their publications per se. The buggywhip industry is no longer with us, but it's not because of some structural defect in the whips - it's because that mode of transportation died out. Similarly, it's eminently possible that newspapers are dying out because of other sources of news becoming available (e.g., free online sources), not because people are craving more meaty stories.

2.) The wonkiest papers and magazines tend to have circulation far below that of their more mass-market brethren.

3.) There's no evidence to suggest that the top-rated news program in LA is top-rated because of their deeper articles. I can think of a lot of reasons this might be the case, the most obvious being that Spanish speakers might prefer their news in Spanish, and they have fewer alternatives than English speakers for their Spanish-language news programs.

4.) People have different preferences regarding local news - local news viewers are probably much more interested in the details of their community, especially since they are more likely to impact them on a daily basis and often require far less specific knowledge than, say, a national healthcare issue.

In other words, you're seeing what you want to see here, not making a particularly well-reasoned argument.

Posted by GeoffBro | May 12, 2008 3:03 PM

I fleetingly glance at local news when at the gym. Usually one of the dozen sets in front of the cardio area is tuned to one of the 3 major networks. This is in a top twenty metro area. Oh my God, if that was my only viewing choice I'd scratch my eyes out. I've literally seen cats in trees, garage fires, gas station robberies, minor car wrecks. Of course every broadcast is capped off with some sort of inane piece meant to cause a chuckle. Water skiing squirrels, a dog nursing piglets, an infant beauty pageant. "There was a devastating earthquake in China today. More on that later in the broadcast. First here's Chuckles the Clown, live from the Outville Ice Cream Festival!" And WTF is it with the universal local news format? 1st news, then weather, then sports, then one more visit with the weatherman, then the sign-off puff piece with the water skiing squirrel. Just one damn time I'd like to look over and have them open with the sports. Or the squirrel. Change it up a bit. Geez. And please, no one on the goddamned planet cares if a fricking garage burned to the ground. No. One.

Posted by steve duncan | May 12, 2008 3:09 PM

but I have to think that the pros who design them know what they're doing

I'm going to hazard a guess that you've never worked in the media business - particularly the local news end of it.

Its a competitive process. Those stations that make a more popular product get rewarded. They may not know exactly which factors gave them an edge, but over time its seems that positive factors should spread, just like successful mutations in evolution.

Posted by Jim W | May 12, 2008 3:12 PM

TV & print news are in decline because of the web; it's just that simple.

True. But traditional media still frame a lot of what gets on the web. Especially local stories. The most popular local web sites visited in most cities throughout the country are the local paper and TV news sites. That's where the base of content comes from and where many posts on the local blogs point to. Reporters and editors still count, and will have to continue to count somehow. Its hard to point the finger at these people and say 'bad!' Because in order to cover the news at all they have to do it in a way that sells soap and car insurance. That means over-focusing on blood, kitten-in-a-tree stories, sports and so forth (disclaimer: I usually read the sports page first when I buy the local paper). That's what pays the bills. Its frustrating for those of us who would like more substantive local coverage but cannot attend city council meetings, interview mayoral candidates, etc...

Posted by Roboticghost | May 12, 2008 3:15 PM

Just one damn time I'd like to look over and have them open with the sports.

You must live in Philadelphia. In cities where the teams actually compete for championships, they do occasionally lead with sports.

Posted by Al | May 12, 2008 3:35 PM

Used to be the KCBS Channel 2 "Action News" promo producer and turned the slop into an early "Mad Magazine" show parody. "tonight at 6 on channel 2 action news...Has he gotten the word from the Man upstairs...or is he ready to rock & roll?" (David Koresh - Waco), "Giant spider attack in Valley- details at 11". Everything was outre, jingoist hyperbole. after a while- even the straight news producers stopped being outraged and let it roll. it's like they were resigned to producing meretricious, insignificant "if it bleeds - it leads" drivel.

Posted by Trevor | May 12, 2008 3:37 PM

The fact is that if you want to know if you really what's going on in Los Angeles on a day-to-day basis, you have to read La Opinion or watch Univision.

My Spanish is so-so, I'm not Latino, but I've been reading la Opinion more and more because the LA Times, never particularly strong at covering local news in LA, is now almost completely pointless. If I want decent national or international analysis, I read the NYT or maybe the BBC online. Cultural analysis, the NYT. Day-to-day news in LA: la Opinion. (Yes, they even cover what's happening on the Westside.) Don't get me started on the local broadcast news.

Posted by Shine | May 12, 2008 3:47 PM

I was going to post about this article under the title "JoeMatthews is so cool! He watches the same TV news as his maid!" with, of course, the disclaimer that I don't know whether he has a maid or not. To cocooned hacks like MattY, JoeMatthews is like a traveler who's returned from a distant land with tales of wonder.

In the future, perhaps MattY might consider spending more time thinking about posts than simply typing them in. For instance, he might wonder why non Spanish-speakers would care about some of the topics JM mentions. Or, he might consider looking into the agenda of the group that JM works for, and what else they've done in this general area. I know about that, but MattY is obviously too clueless or too intellectually dishonest to mention it. MattY might also want to consider what the ratings and the stations' support for illegal activity say about assimilation, but once again that's more than he's able to think about.

Posted by TLB | May 12, 2008 3:50 PM

"...substantially more substantive ..."??

Well that's the problem right there in a nutshell.

Posted by west coast | May 12, 2008 3:52 PM

Does anyone else find it ironic that the very next post is critical of pundits who make unfounded inferences about causation? There are obviously a lot of ways in which Spanish and English news coverage differ besides "quality." For example, each is given in a different language. It seems likely that which language you understand better is a better determinant of what newscast you would tune into than the quality of the coverage. It's a little known fact that there is a large Spanish speaking population in Los Angeles, which may account for the Spanish channel's (yes, singular, only the Univision affiliate has higher ratings than the English channels) high ratings there.

Posted by ibid | May 12, 2008 4:09 PM

Regarding the national broadcast, here's yet another thing MattY doesn't know. Someone start a list, just pick up a new hard drive first.

Posted by TLB | May 12, 2008 4:23 PM

There's two different excuses for bad quality news broadcasts, which we need to keep separate because only one of them is falsified here.

The first is that viewership is down, so there isn't enough money to throw into quality reporting. LA markets are consistent with that--a Spanish-speaking channel has the most viewers so it has the best news. The causal direction is likely the opposite of the one Matt suggests above.

But there's a second excuse that should be seen as totally bogus--that sensationalist fluff news is necessary to obtain ratings. Clearly, that's just not true here--quality news can still get high ratings.

So only the supply side excuse makes sense--obtaining quality news stories is expensive. The demand side excuse that people just want shit news is bogus.

And there's a difference in what those two excuses are capable of excusing. The first excuses a poorly done shallow story on City Hall events. The second excuses a heartwarming story on dogs. The first is excusable and can be blamed on market forces. The second is inexcusable and must be blamed on the irrationality of the producer.

Posted by Consumatopia | May 12, 2008 4:34 PM

More fun with MattY! The think tank that the WaPo article's author works for has someone from a certain publication on their board:

newamerica.net/about/board

Posted by TLB | May 12, 2008 4:47 PM

Perhaps some of the Spanish-language newscasts' quality in L.A. can be linked to the newscasters' intimate knowledge of the mayor's office.

Posted by L.A. guy | May 12, 2008 4:50 PM

"Perhaps some of the Spanish-language newscasts' quality in L.A. can be linked to the newscasters' intimate knowledge of the mayor's office."

That's pretty funny. For those who don't get the reference: Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa (does he still go by this last name) had an affair with Telemundo newswoman Mirthala Salinas.

Posted by Fred | May 12, 2008 5:02 PM

I've only spent a weekend in LA, and that was 15 years ago. However, I'd guess part of the reason the Spanish-language newscasts are more informative is because the Spanish-language news consumers are more likely to be affected by the news. The traditional nightly news consumer is older, with all that implies. A lot of news essentially no longer applies, it's somebody else's problem. So you get the water-skiing squirrel instead.

News stations will occasionally (i.e. one station in the nation every ten or so years) try to do a 'serious' newscast. It gets great reviews, but the ratings go down.

Posted by American Citizen | May 12, 2008 5:12 PM

Ideology, methodology, personal grudges aside, is there any MY commentor who lives in Los Angeles and who has watched both Spanish Language and English Language local news broadcasts who believes that the English language local news broadcasts are more informative than the Spanish Language news?

Posted by Shine | May 12, 2008 5:15 PM

And WTF is it with the universal local news format? 1st news, then weather, then sports, then one more visit with the weatherman, then the sign-off puff piece with the water skiing squirrel.

It's what I call 'Prick-Tease Weather'. Instead of being able to switch on at a particular point during the broadcast for the weather, you basically have to watch the entire thing -- 'local bullshit, weather, regional bullshit, weather, national bullshit, weather, 30 seconds of international news' -- or be an expert at channel surfing.

I know about that, but MattY is obviously too clueless or too intellectually dishonest to mention it.

And with Whack O'Mole, we have 'Prick-Tease Blogwhoring', in which a fat old shut-in desperately tries to earn enough ad revenue from incessantly linking to his site -- those white supremacists who hang out in his comments section don't pay the Cheeto bill. When's the Insurgencia coming, Kelly? Shouldn't you be telling us that the reason all Teh Brown Menace watch Univision is that the news broadcast will suddenly switch to a call to arms, any time soon? That's what you think, after all.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 12, 2008 5:28 PM

Had a chance to read the San Juan Star (the English language daily of Puerto Rico) during a visit last year. It had zero celebrity news/gossip pages-NONE!

Posted by Will Divide | May 12, 2008 5:38 PM

Shine: what you asked is pretty much immaterial, since that's not the purpose of the article. The article was designed to show a) that JM is "down", b) that (other) citizens should assimilate to immigrants and c) to sell MassiveImmigration. And, for those who didn't get it, what Fred wrote about SabadoGigante was either a joke, or he's a Cap'n Crunch shill.

Posted by TLB | May 12, 2008 5:50 PM

Also, because MattY is clueless about this: d) SAP is owned by the MexicanGovernment, and used to send in its orders; e) soccer saps our vital bodily fluids; f) Don Francisco is being groomed as El Presidente of Atzlan.

Posted by LBT | May 12, 2008 6:02 PM

As a Mexican-American originally from Los Angeles who is familiar with both English and Spanish news, I can vouch that yes, Spanish news is waaaay more substantive and informative than English news. I've always believed so.

"TV & print news are in decline because of the web; it's just that simple." I think that probably explains why Spanish news in LA is so much more substantive. For people like my parents, who have lived here for almost 30 years but are much more comfortable with Spanish, and being working-class lack computer/internet literacy, it is very important that the news actually be informative. The second generation, like myself, feels much more comfortable with English and mostly watch English language TV and are more likely to get news from the internet. Considering that I'd venture that most of Spanish network's audience are middle-aged Spanish speakers of working class status with little to no internet literacy, it makes sense that that the Spanish news media in Los Angeles is so much more essential to them and more substantive than their English counterparts.

Posted by Chicana Skies | May 12, 2008 7:30 PM

"Don Francisco is being groomed as El Presidente of Atzlan."

Considering that Don Francisco is about as Mexican as Matt Yglesias, I doubt it. Don Francisco was born Mario Luis Kreutzberger Blumenfeld. His parents were German Jews who fled to Chile to escape Nazi persecution. Like Don Williams's favorite Jewish billionaire Haim Saban, Don Francisco has succeeded in TV by never overestimating his audience's intelligence or taste.

Posted by Fred | May 12, 2008 9:08 PM

Only thing I know about Spanish-language TV is:

1) Maria Laria was the best talk-show host - and a babe (and very talented - she does just about everything - play piano, design clothes, act, produce talk shows, etc. - smart as a whip.)

2) The babes on the Spanish equivalent of The Today Show are...babes, especially Giselle Blondet.

3) They got a lot of babes on their soap operas, just like us.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 13, 2008 4:56 AM

"Like Don Williams's favorite Jewish billionaire Haim Saban, Don Francisco has succeeded in TV by never overestimating his audience's intelligence or taste."

Fred,

Sounds like Don Francisco has a lot in common with the Anglos who produce the local English language tv news in Los Angeles and many other markets.

Unfortunately, even in Chicago the local news broadcasts have declined in their quality. The glory days when Bill Kurtis and Walter Jacobson dominated local news are long gone. Thank goodness Chicago still has a core of veteran tv reporters who are committed to being informative about matters of substance, but their ranks are aging and depleting.

You also have to give credit to Don Francisco's Latino immigrant audience in the US. They actually expect the news to be about serious and substantive things. They expect to be informed by the news, not entertained by it. When they want to see something silly and stupid and exploitive of sex and violence, they will watch Spanish language soap operas, daytime talk shows, movies, and yes, even good old Don Francisco on Sabado Gigante. They don't watch the news for that.

Too bad most of the English-speaking audience for CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, and especially Fox News doesn't feel the same way. The news provided by these channels on a daily basis would be so much better.

Posted by eltoro | May 13, 2008 10:41 AM

i have extremely limited spanish and, when i can get the reception, i like to watch the spanish news because i had noticed quite a while back that they in fact do report more in depth -- and show actual video war footage from iraq and palestine, with -- gasp -- dead and dying people.

i find that if i turn on the closed captioning i can understand more than trying to understand the raceofwords.

Posted by karen marie | May 13, 2008 6:04 PM