Updated: 08/30/2005

The Decline of

TV News Credibility

Although TV news has its moments of shinning success, (such as the coverage of the terrorist attacks on the East Coast of the United States in September, 2001, and the invasion of Iraq in March, 2003), over the last few decades the credibility of TV news in general has been undermined by "bottom line" corporate interests.

For example:

TV news is no longer seen as public interest programming; it's a moneymaking endeavor. As media mergers continue, and Programming Departments and bottom-line business interests take over news operations, TV news has cut back on reporters, writers, videographers, and technicians. In 2001, CBS, ABC, NBC and CNN all announced major staff reductions. Network news now relies much more on outside sources for news and videotape.
Since rating points translate into profits, maximizing audience size is now the driving force behind most TV news. This has resulted in a shift away from stories which have social and political significance to stories that are "more exciting" to the greatest number of viewers.
Some local stations do little to cover the fact that in order to boost station ratings they regularly use their newscasts to promote, or cash in on the popularity of, shows on their network.
With the popularity of tabloid TV shows, news values are being distorted and audiences are having a difficult time distinguishing between reality (news) and reenactment (drama). As a result, the line between them has become blurred in the minds of many TV viewers, and the credibility and believability of hard news has diminished.
With the emphasis shifting to form over substance, stations tend to favor "news actors" over competent news reporters. This article and the follow-up letter speak to part of this issue.
Since the government controls broadcasting through the FCC, as media conglomerates attempt to change regulations in order to increase their media holdings, they are (1) reluctant to play their role as "watchdogs" if they know it will antagonize those in high government positions, or (2) to publicize their expansion efforts—efforts that they know much of the public opposes.
The major drop in press freedom in the United States in recent years has meant that many viewers are now turning to the Internet and to foreign news broadcasts such as the BBC and CBS for their news. (By 2003 the United Sates had dropped to about 30th position in press freedom among nations. Events in 2005, such as the jailing of journalists, may drop the U.S. even further down the list.)

Referring to the news media in general, New York Times columnist Frank Rich says, "...[we have seen] a 20-year trend in which the media...have steadily replaced journalistic standards with those of show business."

News and Politics

A study conducted by USC's Annenberg School for Communication and the University of Wisconsin-Madison analyzed newscasts of 122 local TV stations in the nation's largest media markets during the 2002 mid-term elections. They found that the majority of the newscasts at these stations did not contain a single campaign story.

Of those that did, the average story was 89 seconds long. Most stories that were broadcast just focused on who was ahead in the election. A clear link was found between stations owned by media chains and the absence of local election information.

It is assumed--generally by newscast consultants hired by the stations--that election news does not help ratings. Of course, ratings are associated with profits. At the same time, political advertising is a major source of revenue for the stations.

According to the researchers money (profit) is the driving force behind "the deterioration of local news," and it explains why budgets have been cut, personnel reduced, and more and more stations are owned by fewer and fewer corporations. The result has clearly impacted the quality and content of TV news.

The decline of TV news is well documented in Who Killed CBS—The Undoing of America's Number One News Network by the respected author, Peter J. Boyer. In fact, there is little disagreement that TV news in the United States has abandoned its earlier high standards in favor of ratings and corporate profits.

...most of the nation's newspapers and magazines and television stations, seeking greater profits through larger audiences, fed the public a diet of crime news, celebrity gossip, and soft features, choosing to exclude more serious topics that news managers feared would not stimulate public attention.

CNN Journalist Peter Arnett with one
explanation as to why Americans tend to
be less informed about world events
than citizens of many other countries.

Serving the Interests of Big Business

As conglomerates have taken over the major news media outlets -

the number of aggressive investigative reports uncovering corporate and U.S. foreign policy wrongdoing—especially when U.S. multinational corporations are involved—has decreased

a number of reporters and newspaper editors employed with the major news outlets (that have often won major awards for investigative journalism for uncovering corporate and U.S. foreign policy misfeasance) have been fired or "reassigned" when they tried to pursue stories that would have uncovered embarrassing or illegal corporate activities

In most cases the pressure to not cover specific stories and cover others is never overtly expressed, but subtly tied to such things as promotions, acceptance, and the nature and desirability of future assignments.

At the same time, most aggressive investigative reporters admit that they can get controversial stories on the air—as long as they "pick their battles" and tread lightly. Thus, it comes down to the number of stories that air and their content.

Reporters, especially at the network level, often complain that "touchy" elements of their stories are deleted. Although this is often because of legal concerns, these deletions have been especially evident in the coverage of U.S. military actions around the world that impact U.S. multinational corporations. It may or may not be relevant that two of the three network media conglomerates receive a major share of their corporate profits from military contracts.*

Added to all of this is a new form of censorship—the threat of litigation. Defending a libel case averages well over $250,000. One questionable action against CBS was pegged in the billions of dollars.

Although a newspaper or TV station may clearly have truth on their side, having to spend this kind of money proving the point in court has caused more than one news organization to back off of an important story. All it may take is one party saying, "if you run that I'll sue you!"
The power U.S. companies originally had over cigarette related stories at ABC and CBS represents the most notable example. This is dramatically presented in the award-winning film, The Insider, which is well worth renting.
With the ever-increasing emphasis on profits, a court case will not only impact the bottom line, but, at the same time, it can create enemies in a corporate and political circles.
In short, many ask: "Why risk it?"

At the same time we need to put some things into perspective.

For many years TV has represented the number one source of news and information for the vast majority of people in industrialized nations.
During times of national crisis, such as the September 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the nation and the world immediately turned to television for information. The dramatic and moving television images during this time brought a nation together in shared grief and outrage.
On September 21, 2002, almost all of the U.S. networks devoted two hours of commercial-free programming to a telethon to raise money for the 9/11 victims. The same type of commercial-free coverage took place in March, 2003, when the networks covered their first war "live"—the invasion of Iraq.

When a scandal is uncovered on "60 Minutes," "Dateline," or a similar U.S. news show, we often see action taken.

When the spotlight of TV scrutiny is focused on a problem in a distant land, and there is public outrage, we often see steps taken to correct things. This is the reason that third-world despots fear, and have taken great measures to ban, the press, in general, the TV news in particular. (Does not the fear of exposure keep many on a nobler path?)
Often the news isn't pleasant. As the bearer of some unpopular messages TV news has generated many critics. In fact, TV news probably gets more complaints than any other type of programming, especially from those who want to believe "a different truth."
Many longtime professionals remember a time when newspapers and electronic journalism were held in much higher esteem—primarily because there was a "high wall" separating news departments and bottom-line corporate interests.

It appears that the drop in credibility may be impacting where people are turning for news.

Note in the graph below that among college-age students the Internet is now the primary source of news. More than one person in this age group has explained that they can simply get the information faster from the Internet—and without all the commercial clutter.
Note that in the graph below that newspapers are in last place.
Although this graph doesn't represent the general population, it may suggest a trend. Studies have shown that college students typically change their media habits once they graduate. Even so, with the increasing importance of the Internet, the graph above may well reflect the future.
To reduce the profit potential of TV news runs against the bottom-line interests of the conglomerates who now control the major TV networks. Although it's undoubtedly impossible to turn the clock back on these "bottom line" decision processes, there is little disagreement that TV news should be insulated from corporate profits by a "high wall" separating the news and revenue-generating functions of media organizations.

Many U.S. citizens are turning to foreign news broadcasts via satellite— primarily the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) and the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) for what they feel is a more balanced perspective on world events.

A good example of a national newscast that takes a reasoned, in-depth look at the events of the day is "The National Magazine," an hour-long newscast from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC).
Although the U.S. networks have long wanted to expand to one hour to more effectively cover world events, this has been opposed by local stations that felt that they could make more money with local programming.

*There have been numerous reports of reporters investigating such stories being discredited, fired, or reassigned. A well-known exception some years back involved, two reporters, Woodward and Bernstein, who, with the backing of The Washington Post, tenaciously pursued a story that was "impossible to believe." Their revelations, which were ignored for some time by the other news media, not only brought down a U.S. Presidency, but also changed the face of investigative journalism. (This is dramatically documented in the award-winning film, All The President's Men, which is available at most video rental stores.)

An important international element in this discussion can be found in The Media's Role in International Politics.
The criteria for newsworthiness can be found here.

TV Production Index
To Home Page

© 2005, All Rights Reserved