8 ms·

Journalists perceive stories published in local news outlets to be less worthy

117 points by hhs 6y ago

christkv 6y ago
Local news tend to be more fact driven and less opinion drivel in my experience. In a lot of big stories the local news can often be way better than any national coverage.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- threatofrain 6y ago
  > In a lot of big stories the local news can often be way better than any national coverage. 2-3 media firms basically own local media, so we're really just talking about a few mega-corps, such as Sinclair. > A 2019 study in the American Political Science Review found that "stations bought by Sinclair reduce coverage of local politics, increase national coverage and move the ideological tone of coverage in a conservative direction relative to other stations operating in the same market." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_Broadcast_Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_Broadcast_Group
  - DoingIsLearning 6y ago
    > 2-3 media firms basically own local media ... In the US.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - chrismeller 6y ago
      The article was also about the US news media, so it’s relevant. I think if you looked at other countries it’s actually very similar anyway. I mean even in the UK you’re far more likely to be exposed to the BBC’s coverage; through their site, their radio stations, their TV channels; than anyone else’s.
- inetknght 6y ago
  When I think of "local news", I think of this [0] video. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZggCipbiHwE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZggCipbiHwE
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    I don't know why someone would downvote this. There has indeed been massive consolidation of local media, and that is a good example.
  - dehrmann 6y ago
    Maybe it'd be slightly disingenuous, but I wish they were time stretched to match up syllable-for-syllable.
- dehrmann 6y ago
  > opinion drivel This is really the mark of 24-hour cable news. The one-hour nightly news is probably better.
- chrismeller 6y ago
  I think if you compare something like NBC News with your local NBC affiliate you’ll see it’s similar. Don’t equate national news media with just CNN and Fox News... I find local news mind numbing. It’s the kind of “human interest” stuff that drives me insane, but is exactly what my mother loves... clearly I’m not their target audience. For example, I had an argument with my mother a few years ago. Someone (probably drunk) drove into a tree on an empty rural road at 2am. While it’s obviously tragic that they died, I don’t find that to be “news”. News is something that has an impact on a group of people that is larger than a single family. My mother disagreed, she cared much more for the local news than the “depressing” stuff covered by news outlets like the NYT.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
supernova87a 6y ago
Well, it's kind of understandable isn't it? Everyone in pretty much every field has a notion that making it to a national stage/level of your work means something more meritorious than just being #1 in your little town, don't they? You don't just get to cover the Secretary of State's trade visit to Southeast Asia after graduating high school and working for the local paper, do you? That is not to say that there's not absolutely good journalism done at the local level. And important journalism at that. But to say that the average local journalism happening (at 5,000 local news outlets, say) will generally equal the level of national quality, is probably just not true. So the bias is not without foundation. You get to the big leagues by doing a good job in your local level. But it does not have to follow that there is not good work being done at the local level. Some people take that equally valid and societally important path, and it's important to point it out.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  Perhaps on the flip side, real journalism is more valuable locally while sensationalism is more valuable nationally. People might care about facts at home, but they seem to prefer entertainment—e.g., some tantalizing story about some group they hate—on national news. Seems like it could go either way.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    Do they prefer it, or does it simply work better because they can't check whether it's true? You could do sensationalist news locally as well, but everybody drives by the house you wrote "exploded" every day and they can see that it wasn't more than a burning trash can. That's different on the national level: almost all of the audience isn't where the story is, so they can't verify personally. That allows for much more sensationalism without being regarded fake. And more sensationalism = more viewers = more money, so there's an incentive to go there.
    - throwaway894345 6y ago
      That seems plausible, but there have been lots of news stories where every major outlet published an absurd sensationalist story which was objectively refuted by the story's own sources. Even here on HN years later people subscribe to (and will die on the hill for) the trivially debunked sensationalist interpretation. Two examples that come to mind are the [Covington Catholic fiasco][0] and the [Google "Diversity Screed" memo][1]. Besides, it's my perception that the news has become more sensational, and I certainly don't think it's accurate to say that the jobs of fact checkers have become more difficult (except in the sense that their superiors hamper them in some manner on account of the profitability of sensationalism, which is essentially my point). I personally think there's some merit in the notion that we live in a post-truth world. Both the media and the POTUS feel comfortable lying quite overtly as though they understand that the value of credibility is at an all-time low. Academics in critical theory fields deride objectivity as fundamentally racist and talk about "other ways of knowing". Maybe I'm wrong, but it feels like there's a sea-change in our values, especially as they relate to truth and integrity. [0]: https://reason.com/2019/01/20/covington-catholic-nathan-phillips-video/ https://reason.com/2019/01/20/covington-catholic-nathan-phil... [1]: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/the-most-common-error-in-coverage-of-the-google-memo/536181/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/the-mos...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
e636ryryey3y 6y ago
Seems like a non-issue, it's not like journalists are doing anything besides pandering anymore. Let the ship sink.
arthurjj 6y ago
If you find this frustrating I recommend finding a local news source that you trust and supporting it. Your money goes a lot further and will be more appreciated with local events. Be aware it's not always a paper per se. In San Diego the best local news is Voice of San Diego.[1] Which is afaik just a website and podcast. [1] https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/ https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/
cafard 6y ago
Sometimes that means their own paper. The Washington Post has at times seemed to want to be the Journal of Foreign Affairs, and to have scanted local coverage.
BeetleB 6y ago
In my experience, if you want to learn about things in your neck of the woods, local news outlets are much more reliable than national news. I wrote a few days ago about an event I had personal knowledge about: > The local newspapers were the best. They didn't report false facts - they verified them. They had the most detail (continual coverage over months rather than random sensational headlines). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24366381 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24366381
- mschuster91 6y ago
  > They didn't report false facts - they verified them. Unless they're directly copying from press releases or, worse, police reports. Too many local (and for that matter, even national) papers don't have the money left to do actual boots-on-the-ground journalism.
  - TaylorAlexander 6y ago
    You are right that local news orgs are being bought up around the country, and funding for local journalism is drying up.
  - WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
    [edit: moved my root post here, because you are dead on] (re)Publishing statements from police/Gov/bigcorp - verbatim & w/o vetting for accuracy or context - is a scourge in local news rooms. Bigger news orgs are absolutely guilty of this but I can pick up any local paper, anywhere/any day, and find an example. It's pretty discouraging.
  - eanzenberg 6y ago
    These days I’d much more trust police reports or press reports than a narrative driven national outlet.
  - BeetleB 6y ago
    In the case I was referring to, the local news outlets were usually the only ones who dug deeper and questioned the police/FBI/prosecution statements. National outlets rarely did it - it was big enough to be national news, but amongst national news it was a smaller item. Of course, this was a big case in the region. For small cases, I find that both the local and national news outlets simply suck.
pessimizer 6y ago
That's because the goal of most journalists is to become close to the powerful.
- chiefalchemist 6y ago
  I'd rephrase a bit: the goal of most people __who call themselves journalist__ is to become...
- readred 6y ago
  Cover local kitten stories or wine and dine with celebrities?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
Charlie Reese was our county commissioner (lifetimes ago) and afterward he wrote a local column for years (eventually syndicated by King). That man went after everyone with equal ferocity; no favorites. He often tore apart pols I supported & when he did, I paid attention. I've never instinctively trusted another journalist, like I did him.
DoreenMichele 6y ago
Local news seems to be inherently hard to do well. Small towns tend to have fewer resources and "everyone knows everyone," so you don't want to be controversial because if you are, you are stepping on the toes of people you actually know and/or people who can directly impact your life in some way. People with a lot of talent tend to work for bigger publications because they pay better, so local organizations are often left with people who aren't all that good (edit: implicitly: This fact probably undermines credibility/reputation for local papers). This is a problem for small towns for any serious profession, not just journalism. Small towns have trouble attracting good talent for any kind of job requiring "professional" skills because those same people can got to a larger city, apply to the same kind of job and get a better paycheck while living someplace most people typically feel is more desirable than a small town. I sometimes wonder how to address such problems because I think this overall trend causes other problems that I think are very serious, but I don't know where to begin.
Zenst 6y ago
Yet if those same Journalists saw that same story they dismissed, suddenly trending upon social media - they would be all over it. So in many ways, social media attention has become a sudo voting system for news items. Though equally, the news feeds into social media - so the potential for feed-back loops is not zero. However, those who do social media are perhaps not the clearest insight into the public as a whole and how much weight upon that the various news outlets use will vary.
agustif 6y ago
I for one, perceive stories published in mainstream media outlets to be less trustworthy
mindfulhack 6y ago
This article is not corroborated by my real-world media experience at all. Local stories are simple. That makes them more reliable. If it's newsworthy, then national, followed by international journalists will pick up on it and it becomes something big. I don't want to give unnecessary details but I've been the subject of news stories multiple times, which always started in my humble local media. One time it led to a massive career opportunity that benefited me for ten years. The other time, I got significant international media attention which hugely boosted a charitable donation drive. Each time, journalists at the national level picked up my local story and landed me attention at that level. So, yeah...something's wrong with this study or at least how it's been communicated by NeimenLab. Also, local journalism is important. Let's not undermine that bastion of independence, free speech, and resistance to political censorship, fake news, or media corruption, shall we?
pc86 6y ago
For journalism, they absolutely are. Do you know where national news outlets typically recruit their journalists? From local news outlets. The nationals pick up the folks doing the best work. By definition this means the people left over aren't quite at the same level. I distinctly remember we had a local guy who was active in the Twitter meet-up group in my area around the same time I was (many years ago). He was just starting out as a journalist for a local paper. He was great - his articles were well written, easy to understand, and he was prolific in his writing. He was picked up by the NYT within a year or two while the people who were less of all the above stayed behind.
- jawns 6y ago
  I'm a former news editor who went from a national, NYC-based publication to a metro newspaper in a small state. It wasn't because my skills were lacking -- I was being recruited by other national publications in NYC -- but because my wife and I wanted to be closer to family, so our children would have an opportunity to see their grandparents regularly. I found out that this sort of decision is common, and as a result, local papers tend to have a mix of: - Talented up-and-comers, some of whom will end up at bigger-name publications. And that's great for people who want those illustrious jobs and also want the lifestyle that goes along with them. - Wash-outs, who either tried and failed at bigger-name news outlets or knew their limits well enough to not even try. - Downshifters, who previously worked at a bigger-name publication but decided that they didn't like the location or the lifestyle. - People with deep roots, who could easily do well at bigger-name publications, but who love their local communities and have no desire to go anywhere else.

117 points by hhs 6y ago

Local news tend to be more fact driven and less opinion drivel in my experience. In a lot of big stories the local news can often be way better than any national coverage.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
threatofrain 6y ago
> In a lot of big stories the local news can often be way better than any national coverage. 2-3 media firms basically own local media, so we're really just talking about a few mega-corps, such as Sinclair. > A 2019 study in the American Political Science Review found that "stations bought by Sinclair reduce coverage of local politics, increase national coverage and move the ideological tone of coverage in a conservative direction relative to other stations operating in the same market." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_Broadcast_Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_Broadcast_Group
- DoingIsLearning 6y ago
  > 2-3 media firms basically own local media ... In the US.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - chrismeller 6y ago
    The article was also about the US news media, so it’s relevant. I think if you looked at other countries it’s actually very similar anyway. I mean even in the UK you’re far more likely to be exposed to the BBC’s coverage; through their site, their radio stations, their TV channels; than anyone else’s.
inetknght 6y ago
When I think of "local news", I think of this [0] video. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZggCipbiHwE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZggCipbiHwE
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  I don't know why someone would downvote this. There has indeed been massive consolidation of local media, and that is a good example.
- dehrmann 6y ago
  Maybe it'd be slightly disingenuous, but I wish they were time stretched to match up syllable-for-syllable.
dehrmann 6y ago
> opinion drivel This is really the mark of 24-hour cable news. The one-hour nightly news is probably better.
chrismeller 6y ago
I think if you compare something like NBC News with your local NBC affiliate you’ll see it’s similar. Don’t equate national news media with just CNN and Fox News... I find local news mind numbing. It’s the kind of “human interest” stuff that drives me insane, but is exactly what my mother loves... clearly I’m not their target audience. For example, I had an argument with my mother a few years ago. Someone (probably drunk) drove into a tree on an empty rural road at 2am. While it’s obviously tragic that they died, I don’t find that to be “news”. News is something that has an impact on a group of people that is larger than a single family. My mother disagreed, she cared much more for the local news than the “depressing” stuff covered by news outlets like the NYT.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

supernova87a 6y ago

Well, it's kind of understandable isn't it? Everyone in pretty much every field has a notion that making it to a national stage/level of your work means something more meritorious than just being #1 in your little town, don't they? You don't just get to cover the Secretary of State's trade visit to Southeast Asia after graduating high school and working for the local paper, do you? That is not to say that there's not absolutely good journalism done at the local level. And important journalism at that. But to say that the average local journalism happening (at 5,000 local news outlets, say) will generally equal the level of national quality, is probably just not true. So the bias is not without foundation. You get to the big leagues by doing a good job in your local level. But it does not have to follow that there is not good work being done at the local level. Some people take that equally valid and societally important path, and it's important to point it out.

throwaway894345 6y ago
Perhaps on the flip side, real journalism is more valuable locally while sensationalism is more valuable nationally. People might care about facts at home, but they seem to prefer entertainment—e.g., some tantalizing story about some group they hate—on national news. Seems like it could go either way.
- luckylion 6y ago
  Do they prefer it, or does it simply work better because they can't check whether it's true? You could do sensationalist news locally as well, but everybody drives by the house you wrote "exploded" every day and they can see that it wasn't more than a burning trash can. That's different on the national level: almost all of the audience isn't where the story is, so they can't verify personally. That allows for much more sensationalism without being regarded fake. And more sensationalism = more viewers = more money, so there's an incentive to go there.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    That seems plausible, but there have been lots of news stories where every major outlet published an absurd sensationalist story which was objectively refuted by the story's own sources. Even here on HN years later people subscribe to (and will die on the hill for) the trivially debunked sensationalist interpretation. Two examples that come to mind are the [Covington Catholic fiasco][0] and the [Google "Diversity Screed" memo][1]. Besides, it's my perception that the news has become more sensational, and I certainly don't think it's accurate to say that the jobs of fact checkers have become more difficult (except in the sense that their superiors hamper them in some manner on account of the profitability of sensationalism, which is essentially my point). I personally think there's some merit in the notion that we live in a post-truth world. Both the media and the POTUS feel comfortable lying quite overtly as though they understand that the value of credibility is at an all-time low. Academics in critical theory fields deride objectivity as fundamentally racist and talk about "other ways of knowing". Maybe I'm wrong, but it feels like there's a sea-change in our values, especially as they relate to truth and integrity. [0]: https://reason.com/2019/01/20/covington-catholic-nathan-phillips-video/ https://reason.com/2019/01/20/covington-catholic-nathan-phil... [1]: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/the-most-common-error-in-coverage-of-the-google-memo/536181/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/the-mos...

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

e636ryryey3y 6y ago

Seems like a non-issue, it's not like journalists are doing anything besides pandering anymore. Let the ship sink.

arthurjj 6y ago

If you find this frustrating I recommend finding a local news source that you trust and supporting it. Your money goes a lot further and will be more appreciated with local events. Be aware it's not always a paper per se. In San Diego the best local news is Voice of San Diego.[1] Which is afaik just a website and podcast. [1] https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/ https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/

cafard 6y ago

Sometimes that means their own paper. The Washington Post has at times seemed to want to be the Journal of Foreign Affairs, and to have scanted local coverage.

BeetleB 6y ago

In my experience, if you want to learn about things in your neck of the woods, local news outlets are much more reliable than national news. I wrote a few days ago about an event I had personal knowledge about: > The local newspapers were the best. They didn't report false facts - they verified them. They had the most detail (continual coverage over months rather than random sensational headlines). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24366381 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24366381

mschuster91 6y ago
> They didn't report false facts - they verified them. Unless they're directly copying from press releases or, worse, police reports. Too many local (and for that matter, even national) papers don't have the money left to do actual boots-on-the-ground journalism.
- TaylorAlexander 6y ago
  You are right that local news orgs are being bought up around the country, and funding for local journalism is drying up.
- WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
  [edit: moved my root post here, because you are dead on] (re)Publishing statements from police/Gov/bigcorp - verbatim & w/o vetting for accuracy or context - is a scourge in local news rooms. Bigger news orgs are absolutely guilty of this but I can pick up any local paper, anywhere/any day, and find an example. It's pretty discouraging.
- eanzenberg 6y ago
  These days I’d much more trust police reports or press reports than a narrative driven national outlet.
- BeetleB 6y ago
  In the case I was referring to, the local news outlets were usually the only ones who dug deeper and questioned the police/FBI/prosecution statements. National outlets rarely did it - it was big enough to be national news, but amongst national news it was a smaller item. Of course, this was a big case in the region. For small cases, I find that both the local and national news outlets simply suck.

pessimizer 6y ago

That's because the goal of most journalists is to become close to the powerful.

chiefalchemist 6y ago
I'd rephrase a bit: the goal of most people __who call themselves journalist__ is to become...
readred 6y ago
Cover local kitten stories or wine and dine with celebrities?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

WarOnPrivacy 6y ago

Charlie Reese was our county commissioner (lifetimes ago) and afterward he wrote a local column for years (eventually syndicated by King). That man went after everyone with equal ferocity; no favorites. He often tore apart pols I supported & when he did, I paid attention. I've never instinctively trusted another journalist, like I did him.

DoreenMichele 6y ago

Local news seems to be inherently hard to do well. Small towns tend to have fewer resources and "everyone knows everyone," so you don't want to be controversial because if you are, you are stepping on the toes of people you actually know and/or people who can directly impact your life in some way. People with a lot of talent tend to work for bigger publications because they pay better, so local organizations are often left with people who aren't all that good (edit: implicitly: This fact probably undermines credibility/reputation for local papers). This is a problem for small towns for any serious profession, not just journalism. Small towns have trouble attracting good talent for any kind of job requiring "professional" skills because those same people can got to a larger city, apply to the same kind of job and get a better paycheck while living someplace most people typically feel is more desirable than a small town. I sometimes wonder how to address such problems because I think this overall trend causes other problems that I think are very serious, but I don't know where to begin.

Zenst 6y ago

Yet if those same Journalists saw that same story they dismissed, suddenly trending upon social media - they would be all over it. So in many ways, social media attention has become a sudo voting system for news items. Though equally, the news feeds into social media - so the potential for feed-back loops is not zero. However, those who do social media are perhaps not the clearest insight into the public as a whole and how much weight upon that the various news outlets use will vary.

agustif 6y ago

I for one, perceive stories published in mainstream media outlets to be less trustworthy

mindfulhack 6y ago

This article is not corroborated by my real-world media experience at all. Local stories are simple. That makes them more reliable. If it's newsworthy, then national, followed by international journalists will pick up on it and it becomes something big. I don't want to give unnecessary details but I've been the subject of news stories multiple times, which always started in my humble local media. One time it led to a massive career opportunity that benefited me for ten years. The other time, I got significant international media attention which hugely boosted a charitable donation drive. Each time, journalists at the national level picked up my local story and landed me attention at that level. So, yeah...something's wrong with this study or at least how it's been communicated by NeimenLab. Also, local journalism is important. Let's not undermine that bastion of independence, free speech, and resistance to political censorship, fake news, or media corruption, shall we?

pc86 6y ago

For journalism, they absolutely are. Do you know where national news outlets typically recruit their journalists? From local news outlets. The nationals pick up the folks doing the best work. By definition this means the people left over aren't quite at the same level. I distinctly remember we had a local guy who was active in the Twitter meet-up group in my area around the same time I was (many years ago). He was just starting out as a journalist for a local paper. He was great - his articles were well written, easy to understand, and he was prolific in his writing. He was picked up by the NYT within a year or two while the people who were less of all the above stayed behind.

jawns 6y ago
I'm a former news editor who went from a national, NYC-based publication to a metro newspaper in a small state. It wasn't because my skills were lacking -- I was being recruited by other national publications in NYC -- but because my wife and I wanted to be closer to family, so our children would have an opportunity to see their grandparents regularly. I found out that this sort of decision is common, and as a result, local papers tend to have a mix of: - Talented up-and-comers, some of whom will end up at bigger-name publications. And that's great for people who want those illustrious jobs and also want the lifestyle that goes along with them. - Wash-outs, who either tried and failed at bigger-name news outlets or knew their limits well enough to not even try. - Downshifters, who previously worked at a bigger-name publication but decided that they didn't like the location or the lifestyle. - People with deep roots, who could easily do well at bigger-name publications, but who love their local communities and have no desire to go anywhere else.