Personal health was on my mind, but larger health policy issues are a close second.
And I ought to have said job losses always are important to know about—in ag and farm areas, just as they matter in areas such as news and related media. Seeing jobs of any kind sent out of Iowa saddens me.
Thanks for your column today, Dave. You have such an interesting perspective that most of us know little about. I am predictably appalled by the survey. I am no longer raising a family, but when I was I was looking for the same thing I am now. I want to know what is happening or has happened, in the community that affects my neighbors, my community, and what the people we have elected to make decisions for us, are doing. This may include health and financial, but it is so much more. If we don’t pay attention,we will not be a part of city, state or national decision making.
Virginia, there’s a lot more interesting information in the survey that I didn’t have room for in the column. Click on the link to it, if interested. For example, a whopping 71% of respondents think local media outlets are doing quite well financially! It’s amazing to me that the message hasn’t gotten through of the financial struggles media are facing.
Great insight, Dave. It is sad that we tend to abide by the drive-thru philosophy—-we want everything perfect and fast! Sadly, most do not ‘worry’ or even consider what is happening to those around them, in their neighborhoods, cities, state, country, world…..only worried about what impacts ‘me’. We all need to have a more global vision starting small and working its way out. Empathy is a much needed attribute we could all use a little more of.
Completely agree, Cindy. I was somewhat surprised visiting young adult relatives in California during the Trump trial that they were not following it at all. They didn’t see how it relates to their lives. They WERE interested in the verdict when it came down, but not any of the details leading up to it. Jobs, kids, dinner prep left them little time to closely follow it.
Were there any questions about weather? That always came back as the top concern in all the research I saw over the years, even if there was nothing important going on weather wise.
I really enjoyed attending those meetings and appreciated the opportunity to do so. I felt a part of the news team even though I was an engineer. Maybe that gave me more of a Joe six pack perspective.
The survey results were surprising, Dave. And, disappointing. They do, however, perhaps teach a political point. Why else would a rapist, seditious, cheating, fraud, lying convicted felon who could "grab 'em by..." (and I could go on) get a single vote.
Thinking the same thing. Each day we are barraged with story after story about the convicted felon. Why? News value of relevance. Learning how to save money at the store seems to be much more personally beneficial.
But then I think of the election and democracy and authoritarianism and fascism and decide I better pay attention.
It’s a real problem with people being unplugged from the news. The survey found only 52% of respondents said they consume local news at least once per day. That means 48% don’t!
I especially favor TV news programs that fact check, like DsMs WEAREIOWA (5)
I very much dislike programs where watching the "personalities" banter fills time that could be actual news (KCCI, WHO).
Outlets with only one anchor are better because they don't dilute their increasingly limited non-commercial time with banter. I don't want to pretend I'm part of their happy family, I just want news.
I always counseled our anchors to keep the chit-chat brief. Quick toss to the meteorologist, who gives a quick response and then moves on to the subject at hand. The constant back and forth drives me nuts, too. I don’t want them to be robots. They should show a bit of personality, but keep it quick! Respect the viewer’s time.
At 62 years of age I no longer regularly watch nightly (television) news (national or local), and I grew up in a KCCI (excuse me...KRNT) channel 8, every 6:00 and 10:00 newscast-devoted family. The exception being Friday nights and the PBS lineup of news shows beginning at 5:30. I especially enjoy the NewsHour and its Brooks and Capehart segment (a never miss), and the Jeff Goldberg hosted Washington Week.
My daily, first thing in the morning, reading of the NYTimes online often provides me breaking health and financial news...along with the fun, sometimes challenging, Wordle, Connections, Spelling Bee, and on a rare day, feeling quite ambitious, Crossword. If it's just general health or financial information I'm after, comprehensive and quality sites like mayoclinic.org or yahoofinance.com are my go-tos.
For local community news I peruse the online Ames Tribune (which, since Gannett-owned, also gives me access to the DM Register), belong to a service organization, Rotary, that meets weekly with outstanding (often community) guest speakers, regularly attend a worship service and sing in the choir, and, on occasion, volunteer.
Apologies for my ramble, Dave, but I thought it the most authentic way to address your questions. In sum, I don't know that any news manager can create a (local) newscast that will ever win back my viewership.
Jon, it’s a good point about the NYT. As you’ve probably read in my columns, I’m a huge fan. They are successful in part because they have diversified into the games and the cooking app. Nobody accuses them of having sacrificed journalistic standards. The Times simply made themselves more important to people’s lives. And, not incidentally, the journalism is outstanding.
Dave, you likely saw this story in today's NYTimes edition. It confirms your point regarding the importance of diversification, w/o sacrificing journalistic standards, for success in the news market (the comments, thus far, certainly indicate reader enthusiasm/approval as well):
This is of personal interest to me, but I believe it can make for a more exciting cityscape. Cover the arts and not just a rock concert at Wells Fargo. Don't expand coverage of a popular event that happened yesterday. Preview upcoming attractions. Get people interested in what will be. Knowledge can entice attendance and participation. "Word of mouth" advertising is so important to the arts. It starts with the question - what do we want our city to be? Thank you.
good points, with another one being to be a bit more discriminating about the definition of 'celebrity' when it comes to fawning coverage in all forms of local media.
I was going to say the same thing, talk about events before they happen so we have a chance to attend rather than after, so we miss them. Not just the arts, but other events as well, like dog and cat shows, livestock shows, horse fairs, etc.
All interests need to be promoted. As a professional in the arts, I am a strong advocate for the theatre, especially. It is about introducing people about the wonders around them. Iowans don't take big risks unless they know something about them. Engage us early and let it play out.
Thanks for the insight Dave. I think journalists have a part in preserving our democracy and to that still need to cover the political and economic news. I think telling readers why it matters if Deere sends jobs to Mexico and how does that relate to Bridgestone now laying off workers is important. People today are not connecting the dots between issues that may not directly affect them today will most likely impact in the future.
This is so interesting, Dave, as I am a News Junkie. The more information I have, the better prepared I am for what's out there in the world. I would be interested in the breakdown of the ages of the respondents to this survey. I think that would also be useful info.
My first reaction is that the survey of 1000 people must have included many much younger than me. I would not read a story that was intended to help me manage my money once in six months. I would grudgingly admit that health news would be of some interest if it was general enough. I think I am like you, perhaps old school , but I want to know if the mayor’s office is honest, what is happening with the school board, what are some major things going on around town and probably something inspiring to remind me that all is not lost.
I refuse to watch local news because it’s a shill for whoever (arch conservative) owns the station. I am lucky to live in a community (Storm Lake) with a fantastic local paper so I read that and some national political blogs. I wonder if journalism could somehow redeem itself by helping people understand the implications of news. Example: a plant is closing in your town. Interview someone who can explain what that means “downstream”. People do not connect dots anymore, which is frustrating. Maybe journalism can help with that.
Joan, I'll push back some on your comment about local news being a shill for whoever owns the station. With the exception of Sinclair, which has demonstrably pushed a conservative agenda on its owned stations, there are many responsible station owners out there. In my nearly 40 years at KCCI, we had three owners and they NEVER pushed any kind of ideological or political agenda on us. Not one time. They were responsible broadcasters who wanted to serve their audience, fulfill their broadcast license obligations, and yes make money, but in an appropriate way. Nearly all station owners are responsible.
You are indeed blessed to live in Storm Lake- for a lot of reasons - the newspaper being one of them. Art is not shy about his political leanings but you know where he stands.
I completely agree that good journalism helps people "connect the dots". There simply isn't enough of that kind of coverage these days. The concerning part of the survey is I'm not sure it's what Americans want anymore.
The survey results do concern me, Dave, but they don't surprise me terribly, and they don't strike me as all that new.
Like you, I no longer work in a newsroom, but I try to prepare my students for that world. It's a lot different from the one you and I entered all those years ago, but not in every way. Back in the 1980s, news consultant Larry Rickel came to the station where I worked at urged us all to apply a provocative acronym to every story we did: WIIFM. That stood for "What's in it for me?"
The answer was rarely if ever, "This story will help me participate more fully in our democracy" -- though I think a lot of our stories did just that. Sometimes the answers were "I'll be healthier" or wealthier, but also, "I'll be able to hold up my end of the conversation around the water cooler at work tomorrow." Yes, in the old days people used to talk that way.
The WIIFM test was intentionally disruptive (though the world hadn't yet fallen in love with that adjective). It was also a pretty practical way for ensure that we didn't cover meetings just because, well ... that's what you do in news.
I came to understand that even if only 100 people worked at the plant that closed, the reasons for the shutdown might be relevant to far more. Their jobs or neighborhoods might sometime soon face similar challenges. Severe weather coverage wasn't just for those in the path of that storm, it was for others who might learn something before the next storm hit their homes -- or who might want to help the people affected.
You know all of this and more, Dave. And you know how easy it is to fall into habits, without really thinking about why we do the things we do. That applies to news coverage and so many other things in life.
In the '80s, people had far fewer places to go for relevant, reliable news. Today, information abounds -- though of course not all of it is trustworthy or even qualifies as news. Journalists can no longer afford to forget what audiences want, as well as what they need and deserve.
Yes, we all changed for the better during our careers. I was a statehouse reporter and I generated a story every day out of the legislature whether something newsworthy had happened or not. We covered lots of meetings.
At some point, we got better by avoiding officialdom and instead interviewing people affected by proposed legislation. We thought more visually and avoided BOPSA.
Research projects inevitably surprised us and we adapted as best we could to what viewers told us they wanted. But we’ve always done stories we felt people SHOULD know, whether they wanted to or not. Force-feeding vegetables, I guess.
You’re right that everything has changed with constant access to information. There’s no longer a news appetite at the end of the day. If anything, people want to shut down and avoid more information. We’re overwhelmed. That leaves traditional journalists in a tough spot.
Dave, I like your analogy about the veggies. I'd be curious to see Survey results from earlier years to compare. Lack of faith in government (across the spectrum) and a ignorance about how their actions affect us causes people to tune out also.
I was, at first, surprised to learn the results of the Chicagoland poll. But the more I think about it, the more it shouldn’t be surprising. In my own experience, I know that my readers mostly want information they can use.
When I started my Substack, I thought I’d write more “thoughtful” pieces on everything from how the tipping system is fraying at the seams, to why uber-abundant portion sizes aren’t doing anyone any favors.
Then, I learned that basically, people just want me to tell them where to eat. I’m happy to do so, of course, while embedding some “vegetables” throughout my work.
Health coverage is more important than almost all else
Interesting. Thanks for your input. Are you thinking health policy or stories having to do with tips for personal health?
Personal health was on my mind, but larger health policy issues are a close second.
And I ought to have said job losses always are important to know about—in ag and farm areas, just as they matter in areas such as news and related media. Seeing jobs of any kind sent out of Iowa saddens me.
Thanks for your column today, Dave. You have such an interesting perspective that most of us know little about. I am predictably appalled by the survey. I am no longer raising a family, but when I was I was looking for the same thing I am now. I want to know what is happening or has happened, in the community that affects my neighbors, my community, and what the people we have elected to make decisions for us, are doing. This may include health and financial, but it is so much more. If we don’t pay attention,we will not be a part of city, state or national decision making.
Virginia, there’s a lot more interesting information in the survey that I didn’t have room for in the column. Click on the link to it, if interested. For example, a whopping 71% of respondents think local media outlets are doing quite well financially! It’s amazing to me that the message hasn’t gotten through of the financial struggles media are facing.
Great insight, Dave. It is sad that we tend to abide by the drive-thru philosophy—-we want everything perfect and fast! Sadly, most do not ‘worry’ or even consider what is happening to those around them, in their neighborhoods, cities, state, country, world…..only worried about what impacts ‘me’. We all need to have a more global vision starting small and working its way out. Empathy is a much needed attribute we could all use a little more of.
Completely agree, Cindy. I was somewhat surprised visiting young adult relatives in California during the Trump trial that they were not following it at all. They didn’t see how it relates to their lives. They WERE interested in the verdict when it came down, but not any of the details leading up to it. Jobs, kids, dinner prep left them little time to closely follow it.
Were there any questions about weather? That always came back as the top concern in all the research I saw over the years, even if there was nothing important going on weather wise.
Cliff, I didn’t see a reference to weather but I read Medill’s story about it and didn’t read the full survey. It’s available, if interested.
I really enjoyed attending those meetings and appreciated the opportunity to do so. I felt a part of the news team even though I was an engineer. Maybe that gave me more of a Joe six pack perspective.
It was great to have you in those meetings, Rodger, so we could get the non-news guy perspective. Although, you’re pretty close to a news guy!
The survey results were surprising, Dave. And, disappointing. They do, however, perhaps teach a political point. Why else would a rapist, seditious, cheating, fraud, lying convicted felon who could "grab 'em by..." (and I could go on) get a single vote.
Thinking the same thing. Each day we are barraged with story after story about the convicted felon. Why? News value of relevance. Learning how to save money at the store seems to be much more personally beneficial.
But then I think of the election and democracy and authoritarianism and fascism and decide I better pay attention.
It’s a real problem with people being unplugged from the news. The survey found only 52% of respondents said they consume local news at least once per day. That means 48% don’t!
I especially favor TV news programs that fact check, like DsMs WEAREIOWA (5)
I very much dislike programs where watching the "personalities" banter fills time that could be actual news (KCCI, WHO).
Outlets with only one anchor are better because they don't dilute their increasingly limited non-commercial time with banter. I don't want to pretend I'm part of their happy family, I just want news.
I always counseled our anchors to keep the chit-chat brief. Quick toss to the meteorologist, who gives a quick response and then moves on to the subject at hand. The constant back and forth drives me nuts, too. I don’t want them to be robots. They should show a bit of personality, but keep it quick! Respect the viewer’s time.
At 62 years of age I no longer regularly watch nightly (television) news (national or local), and I grew up in a KCCI (excuse me...KRNT) channel 8, every 6:00 and 10:00 newscast-devoted family. The exception being Friday nights and the PBS lineup of news shows beginning at 5:30. I especially enjoy the NewsHour and its Brooks and Capehart segment (a never miss), and the Jeff Goldberg hosted Washington Week.
My daily, first thing in the morning, reading of the NYTimes online often provides me breaking health and financial news...along with the fun, sometimes challenging, Wordle, Connections, Spelling Bee, and on a rare day, feeling quite ambitious, Crossword. If it's just general health or financial information I'm after, comprehensive and quality sites like mayoclinic.org or yahoofinance.com are my go-tos.
For local community news I peruse the online Ames Tribune (which, since Gannett-owned, also gives me access to the DM Register), belong to a service organization, Rotary, that meets weekly with outstanding (often community) guest speakers, regularly attend a worship service and sing in the choir, and, on occasion, volunteer.
Apologies for my ramble, Dave, but I thought it the most authentic way to address your questions. In sum, I don't know that any news manager can create a (local) newscast that will ever win back my viewership.
Jon, it’s a good point about the NYT. As you’ve probably read in my columns, I’m a huge fan. They are successful in part because they have diversified into the games and the cooking app. Nobody accuses them of having sacrificed journalistic standards. The Times simply made themselves more important to people’s lives. And, not incidentally, the journalism is outstanding.
Dave, you likely saw this story in today's NYTimes edition. It confirms your point regarding the importance of diversification, w/o sacrificing journalistic standards, for success in the news market (the comments, thus far, certainly indicate reader enthusiasm/approval as well):
Grab Them. Then Stump Them. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/11/technology/news-tech-sites-games.html?smid=nytcore-android-share
This is of personal interest to me, but I believe it can make for a more exciting cityscape. Cover the arts and not just a rock concert at Wells Fargo. Don't expand coverage of a popular event that happened yesterday. Preview upcoming attractions. Get people interested in what will be. Knowledge can entice attendance and participation. "Word of mouth" advertising is so important to the arts. It starts with the question - what do we want our city to be? Thank you.
good points, with another one being to be a bit more discriminating about the definition of 'celebrity' when it comes to fawning coverage in all forms of local media.
I was going to say the same thing, talk about events before they happen so we have a chance to attend rather than after, so we miss them. Not just the arts, but other events as well, like dog and cat shows, livestock shows, horse fairs, etc.
All interests need to be promoted. As a professional in the arts, I am a strong advocate for the theatre, especially. It is about introducing people about the wonders around them. Iowans don't take big risks unless they know something about them. Engage us early and let it play out.
Thanks for the insight Dave. I think journalists have a part in preserving our democracy and to that still need to cover the political and economic news. I think telling readers why it matters if Deere sends jobs to Mexico and how does that relate to Bridgestone now laying off workers is important. People today are not connecting the dots between issues that may not directly affect them today will most likely impact in the future.
This is so interesting, Dave, as I am a News Junkie. The more information I have, the better prepared I am for what's out there in the world. I would be interested in the breakdown of the ages of the respondents to this survey. I think that would also be useful info.
My first reaction is that the survey of 1000 people must have included many much younger than me. I would not read a story that was intended to help me manage my money once in six months. I would grudgingly admit that health news would be of some interest if it was general enough. I think I am like you, perhaps old school , but I want to know if the mayor’s office is honest, what is happening with the school board, what are some major things going on around town and probably something inspiring to remind me that all is not lost.
Rod, here's the age breakdown in the survey.
18-29 18.5%
30-44 27.5%
45-59 24.5%
60+ 29.5%
The authors say that's consistent with the demographics of the Chicago area.
I refuse to watch local news because it’s a shill for whoever (arch conservative) owns the station. I am lucky to live in a community (Storm Lake) with a fantastic local paper so I read that and some national political blogs. I wonder if journalism could somehow redeem itself by helping people understand the implications of news. Example: a plant is closing in your town. Interview someone who can explain what that means “downstream”. People do not connect dots anymore, which is frustrating. Maybe journalism can help with that.
Joan, I'll push back some on your comment about local news being a shill for whoever owns the station. With the exception of Sinclair, which has demonstrably pushed a conservative agenda on its owned stations, there are many responsible station owners out there. In my nearly 40 years at KCCI, we had three owners and they NEVER pushed any kind of ideological or political agenda on us. Not one time. They were responsible broadcasters who wanted to serve their audience, fulfill their broadcast license obligations, and yes make money, but in an appropriate way. Nearly all station owners are responsible.
You are indeed blessed to live in Storm Lake- for a lot of reasons - the newspaper being one of them. Art is not shy about his political leanings but you know where he stands.
I completely agree that good journalism helps people "connect the dots". There simply isn't enough of that kind of coverage these days. The concerning part of the survey is I'm not sure it's what Americans want anymore.
The survey results do concern me, Dave, but they don't surprise me terribly, and they don't strike me as all that new.
Like you, I no longer work in a newsroom, but I try to prepare my students for that world. It's a lot different from the one you and I entered all those years ago, but not in every way. Back in the 1980s, news consultant Larry Rickel came to the station where I worked at urged us all to apply a provocative acronym to every story we did: WIIFM. That stood for "What's in it for me?"
The answer was rarely if ever, "This story will help me participate more fully in our democracy" -- though I think a lot of our stories did just that. Sometimes the answers were "I'll be healthier" or wealthier, but also, "I'll be able to hold up my end of the conversation around the water cooler at work tomorrow." Yes, in the old days people used to talk that way.
The WIIFM test was intentionally disruptive (though the world hadn't yet fallen in love with that adjective). It was also a pretty practical way for ensure that we didn't cover meetings just because, well ... that's what you do in news.
I came to understand that even if only 100 people worked at the plant that closed, the reasons for the shutdown might be relevant to far more. Their jobs or neighborhoods might sometime soon face similar challenges. Severe weather coverage wasn't just for those in the path of that storm, it was for others who might learn something before the next storm hit their homes -- or who might want to help the people affected.
You know all of this and more, Dave. And you know how easy it is to fall into habits, without really thinking about why we do the things we do. That applies to news coverage and so many other things in life.
In the '80s, people had far fewer places to go for relevant, reliable news. Today, information abounds -- though of course not all of it is trustworthy or even qualifies as news. Journalists can no longer afford to forget what audiences want, as well as what they need and deserve.
Thanks for the thoughtful response, Scott.
Yes, we all changed for the better during our careers. I was a statehouse reporter and I generated a story every day out of the legislature whether something newsworthy had happened or not. We covered lots of meetings.
At some point, we got better by avoiding officialdom and instead interviewing people affected by proposed legislation. We thought more visually and avoided BOPSA.
Research projects inevitably surprised us and we adapted as best we could to what viewers told us they wanted. But we’ve always done stories we felt people SHOULD know, whether they wanted to or not. Force-feeding vegetables, I guess.
You’re right that everything has changed with constant access to information. There’s no longer a news appetite at the end of the day. If anything, people want to shut down and avoid more information. We’re overwhelmed. That leaves traditional journalists in a tough spot.
Dave, I like your analogy about the veggies. I'd be curious to see Survey results from earlier years to compare. Lack of faith in government (across the spectrum) and a ignorance about how their actions affect us causes people to tune out also.
My sense is this was the first of its kind, so no comparisons, I’m afraid.
I was, at first, surprised to learn the results of the Chicagoland poll. But the more I think about it, the more it shouldn’t be surprising. In my own experience, I know that my readers mostly want information they can use.
When I started my Substack, I thought I’d write more “thoughtful” pieces on everything from how the tipping system is fraying at the seams, to why uber-abundant portion sizes aren’t doing anyone any favors.
Then, I learned that basically, people just want me to tell them where to eat. I’m happy to do so, of course, while embedding some “vegetables” throughout my work.
Wini, whatever you’re doing, it’s certainly working!