ABC journalists and presenters working from home, including Anna Henderson, Richard Glover, Ben Knight, Nadia Mitsopoulos and Paul Kennedy.
https://twitter.com/Natasha1Johnson/status/1251687447139762176?s=09
4 Likes
Love the old ABC News mic there!
1 Like
I know this is US but still:
1 Like
The MASSIVE difference is in the US even stations in markets the size of Newcastle and Victoria produce around 6 hours of local news a day
Normally a morning show 5-7
Lunchtime news
News at 4, 6 and 11pm
Not the 30 minutes our stations produce
In the US they actually serve their communities
4 Likes
No thanks. We donât have to be like America.
4 Likes
Thereâs no doubt that the current output is terrible and needs to be improved - but 6 hours a day is a bit much, is there even the content to justify it? This just seems a response to needing to fill holes in a schedule that cant be filled from network content
I donât buy this - this is almost producing news content for the sake of producing (and could be considered excessive) and I dont see how its not an attempt to control the news agenda by needing to generate news to fill broadcasts.
There is a limit to more is better
3 Likes
Not sure that the content is there, but the demand is. Whenever a station adds an hour of local news the ratings in that slot normally go up. Hence why there is so many hours a day of local news on each station. Local morning shows on Fox and independent stations often out rate the national morning shows.
2 Likes
Itâs market driven. Itâs in response to ratings. Whoever has the dominant local news often the dominant local station, in primetime too. Add more local news - ratings often go up. Also, itâs the most profitable for of content for stations as they get to keep 100% of the ad revenue. Syndicated programming is the only other option (things like ET, Access Hollywood, Ellen,Jeoprary, Inside Edition) and this is not cheap and they have to split ad revenue with the syndicator.
As you pointed out US networks dont program 24/7. They only program about 8 hours a day (2 in the case of Fox) so this is the system in the US.
Local stations do serve their communities. They offer live coverage of local events (unlike in Australia) they offer local weather information, traffic information, school closings, council elections, local mayor broadcasts, local COVid news, they run many many community stories and investigations and consumer advocate news. Itâs how statins dominate the ratings in the US, The station with the strongest ties to the local community often is the #1 station. So itâs not for the sake of the sake as you say. Itâs to win ratings. They do it by being the best local station they can be,.
I dont think its excessive. There is no other programing avail. And itâs what rates. Americans have access to 200 national Channels on cable. on FTA, they like FTA to be local.
7 Likes
And has 100% of the production costs (this seems to be forgotten in a lot of conversations around increasing local content) - however, the reality however is that the economics of local television in the US is very different to that of regional television in Australia.
I find it extremely hard to believe that the drive to win ratings doesnt have a significant impact on what the stations cover which subsequently drives the news agenda - we see it here.
And these stations are local, quite possibly hyperlocal - if we followed a similar model, we would have 10âs of stations across the current regional licence areas.
5 Likes
I agree!
1 Like
With so many hours of local news, Iâd imagine those US stations are getting more airtime from the same reports repeated in every one of those local news bulletins (just adding the studio production costs), so each report in a single (local) evening bulletin in Australia effectively costs more (per minute of airtime).
I donât think we should emulate the Americans, but there is not enough local content here, especially now since 9News killed/suspended their regional bulletins.
The question is how to make it sustainable, but everywhere, at least a certain amount of news, including local news, should be required (and more than the current low levels, a particularly poor example is Prime7 Canberra).
A proper news service needs to seen as a cost of being in the TV business (news shouldnât need to be profitable on its own, it can be subsidised by the rest of the stationâs revenue).
4 Likes
A lot more happens âlocallyâ in America - lower levels of Government (local, county) have a significantly broader remit then what we have here.
It also doesnt help that a lot of content that may be of interest to a community in a our licence areas may get spiked because our bulletins have to appeal to a much wider regional audience.
4 Likes
That is how WIN have run their business for much of its life. But the money (revenue) isnât there anymore. Hence in the past 8-10 years bulletins they have slowly been removed as revenues have declined. They have even invested in technology and centralised which is no doubt a key reason why they still produce a dozen weekday bulletins to this day. Without that last bit, all but maybe one or two would have been axed by the affiliation changeover.
3 Likes
I lived in the US 13 years, I would say they donât run the same reports. They cover the same story yes, but always a new live cross. A new take. New information. A new way to frame the story. I very rarely if ever see stations just run the same report
Also, much local news In the US is not standard bulletin for at. From 4am-5am itâs standard bulletin style. 5am-9am is more often breakfast tv format. Interviews. Live crosses. Lots of traffic and weather. In studio cooking and interview. Community information. Sports. Entertainment. Also local news shows In the US show local. Regional national and international news. Local news is very profitable in the US, as stations get to keep 100% of the revenue themselves rather than sharing it with the network
I think News budgets in Australia are smaller. As our networks spend a disproportionate amount of their programming budgets on expensive primetime reality shows. Our production values are really world standard. Weâre talking 1.5m to 2m an ep, for a very small market. Thatâs a lot of money. Leaving less for the networks to do local news in the mornings and late nights. And it means less for affiliates as they are paying large chunks of their revenue to the networks to pay for expensive reality fare
3 Likes
Im not sure. Iâve lived in the US 13 years. The Americans are just better and making content. âLocal newsâ here is not always just news. Itâs lifestyle community entertainment sports arts and a LOT of traffic and weather. They boil guests. They do entertainment. They send cameras everywhere m. Im not sure more happens In the US, but the stations are better and going out and finding and producing the content to fill out the hours.
1 Like
@Aurora Iâd be curious to know what % of overall revenue and what % of their overall programming budget WIN spends on local news
I can tell you the % would much much much smaller than what a US station group spends.
Yes, one thing American TV does do right is local news, and Canada largely follows the same model too, while you guys in Australia has the almost unique hybrid of national/local news from each state in early peak. As an outsider looking in itâs really odd you donât have early evening national newscasts, especially when news rates so well.
2 Likes
@Brekkie however in Canada there is much less Canadian content in general on TV than in Australia. Much much less. Networks and stations in Canada are known for using news as a way to meet Canadian content requirements.
1 Like
Wasnât the whole point of ârealityâ TV that it was cheap but popular?
My understanding is that quality drama programming is whatâs actually expensive to make.
I think youâre right that affiliation agreements in Australia, paying the network regardless if networked-content or locally-produced content is aired, is a serious problem & actively discourages local content production, pushing affiliates to do just the minimum.
Perhaps the Australian government should outlaw such provisions as part of the local content requirements?
I like the mixed content formula, ideally it allows presentation of whatever is the top story, regardless of itâs a local, regional/statewide, national, or international story.
Of course it means duplication of presentation (& studio facilities, etc.) for those bulletins, and more coordination to still be able to do live crosses to wherever a major national or international story is happening, which is probably why it would be unworkable in a country with 300M+ people, and so many local stations.
3 Likes
Bingo.
If Prime, WIN and SCA got to keep 100% of the revenue booked in local programming it would offer a bigger incentive to provide local news
2 Likes