This post was inspired by the comments on my post about the passing of Walter Cronkite.
After seeing the decline in the audiences of the broadcast network evening news shows in the attached chart, people had lots of theories.
Was it the retirement of the "old guard" anchors (Cronkite, Huntly/Brinkley, etc.)? Corporatization of the news? Entertainment focus? Cost cutting? Political bias?
I think all those things may have been small factors, but I think the audience share shift from broadcast networks to cable networks since the early 80's is the major factor.
The Dark Blue portion of the chart below is the broadcast network affiliate share of the prime-time audience since 1984-85. It looks enough like the broadcast evening news decline to convince me that the shift is the major cause.
For more background on the audience share chart above you can see the original post here.
Well one thing is that with the 24 Hour news station, some might think “why tune into the Evening news when I can watch CNN all day”.
Another reason is the quality of the network/news anchors. No disrespect to Williams, Couric and other, but they don’t come close to the past.
Also media has changed. Now it’s all about ratings, and less about the stories we care about. People just don’t trust the news anchor as much. Are they spinning the news?
These are just a few of the reasons I think. As a journalism student, I looked up to Cronkite, and his passing really hurt. There will never be another.
Maybe it’s just internet? Before internet news were aviable only on TV (and in newspapers). So anyone wanted to see news, to buy the fresh newspaper. Now you don’t have to wait 3-4-5-6 hours to get the news, just go online and surf for it.
Speaking for myself, political bias and outright propaganda distribution is what turned me away from the broadcast news.
With cable stations, the internet and other options I no longer have to try to distill the news out of the nightly propaganda broadcasts.
I strongly suspect that I am not alone.
The internet is also likely a factor, but not until relatively recently, certainly not in the 80′s or early 90′s.
it’s definitely all about cable new stations. i don’t need to tune in at a specific time to one of three channels to find out what’s going on in the world. whenever i feel like it, i can just flip on one of four or six or however many channels that are repeating the same national stories ad nauseum. the only ‘real news’ that will continue to survive are the local broadcasts. i can’t find out what’s going on in my small town or region from fox news or cnn. i need the local affiliate for that, and i tune in for that.
Why can’t CNN International or Al Jazeera English be carried in the United States? Why are the cable companies afraid of carrying international news networks?
CNN International and Al Jazeera are both available in the US,
but I have no numbers on how many systems/subscribers can get them.Edit: Seems like availability of Al Jazeera is new and quite limited.
Edit 2: CNN International is available in the US on Time Warner Cable, Verizon FioS and AT&T Uverse. That indicates to me that its availability is due to the same business concerns that slow any networks breaking into existing channel lineups. Limited availability by the gatekeepers and money.
There’s also the change in family patterns. As a 40-something, I remember our *family* dinner and the (national) evening news were hand-in-hand. We’d eat dinner, listen to the news, and then usually there was a brief discussion (sometimes not so brief). I think that “family” dinners happen a lot less now, work hours are longer, and even when families have dinner together they’re not an hour long like ours used to be. The shorter time together also means less “discussion” opportunities about what the news means … little by little – people are disconnected. It would be interesting to look at unique viewers – I wonder if even adding in the cable news if the numbers still wouldn’t be in decline. Lastly, there’s “The Daily News/Stewart” which shows people want news – but not necessarily packaged into a 6th grade level of presentation.
I still get most of my news consumption from the local paper.(print not online, crazy I know especially since I’m 21)
comments like vipers scare me. There’s this perception that mainstream news media(broadcast news, new york times, newsweek) is somehow biased in a malicious way.(its not) As a result people have stopped trusting these sources and are instead turning to sources like the internet, msnbc, fox news, where all they get is the overexposed punditry reinforcing their established opinions instead of getting actual news. We’re living in a world where the only “news” people get is the news that reinforces their ideology. It’s polarizing and its dangerous. Don’t like Obama, the conservative blogs will never speak highly of him and may not even report on his accomplishments. You’re only getting the “news” that supports an opinion. Its sad and scary.
News is boring.
Unfortunately, romo seems to speak for an ever larger portion of society. Bill, lay a graph over the decline of evening news, with the change in newspaper subscriptions (national) if there is such a number. I wonder how the two graphs would look?
Also I think the decline really took off when local stations went to the “eyewitness news” format of leading with lots of crime stories as well as shifting the evening network news much earlier. It seems to me I remember the network news was on as late as 7:00 PM on the west coast prior to the give back of that early hour, am I correct?
As a person who follows the news (newspapers, magazines, TV…network and cable. and Internet), it seems that people don’t care about the national or world news any more and that includes the people who run the networks. How many “news” organizations on the national and local level are pooling their news-gathering resources? Downsizing is part of the problem. “Time” and “Newsweek” used to be must reads. Now they keep changing their formats and are mere shadows of their former selves. Network whining when the president doesn’t have news conferences (Bush) or does have them (Obama), who can keep up. They used to say that you could turn on news shows and get the same news. Local stations share reporters and anchors. It is literally true now. And if you actually watch the cable news networks they don’t run news either. There is a lot of supposition; innuendo; and outright lying about facts going on there. Breaking news stories are the only objective news they carry. After that they just fill the space with commentary.
I’m reminded of Gore Vidal:
“Half of the American people never read a newspaper. Half never voted for president. One hopes it is the same half. “
When news division got sucked up into the network entertainment divisions and the almighty greed factor took over. it was downhill from there.
I believe the decrease came with the political left wing bias.
I know I watch HLN throughout the day at random points (because they dont spend 2 hours on each story like CNN, MSNBC, and FOX) but I also watch ABC News at 6:30pm. I like both, and I dont see a reason why to stop watching both. Gibson is a great news anchor for ABC.
As Kay Bradley recalls I also remember watching the Evening News while eating Supper with my Parents. Thanks to today’s Gloom-and-Doom Headlines and Politics, I no longer watch it while eating my meal. Is it any wonder other people have turned it off as well?
Fox News gives both sides of every argument. Dave needs to watch Fox before he makes blanket statements. Network news have lost viewers for many reasons including their political bias which highly infuences their “news”. In addition, you can get instance news from the internet and cable news. Monday NBC news has an investigative report about the closing of the prop company in Hollywood. That’s news???
Dear Nancy
Tourism is Number 1 business in Southern California. The entertainment business is Number 2. If a long time prop house is failing because of lack of business, that’s NEWS in Southern California.
My main source of news is the BBC website. Why?
First. The network stations rarely show any international news. When “ABC World News” considers covering something in California world news while ignoring something in India or Cote D’Ivoire it drives me crazy. On the BBC i can get news about every corner of the globe.
Second. The cable news channels all show the exact same stories all day everyday. I don’t want to hear about some congressman’s affair all day. I want to hear analysis of the Palestian/Isreali issue or the Iranian elections.
Until networks and cable news channels start giving more in depth world news and less stories about affairs and missing spring break twenty somethings I’ll keep reading the BBC of Agence France Presse.