There's a brand new Knight News Challenge on the way. Here's what you need to know nie.mn/zUkXJK
SHARE
Nieman Journalism Lab
Nieman Journalism Lab
Pushing to the future of journalism — A project of the Nieman Foundation at Harvard

What opportunities are there in broadcast for nonprofit news?

The AP’s Andrew Vanacore had an easily digestible story over the holidays about the problems about to befall nation’s local TV stations — and how they could spell the end of “free” TV.

Turns out, the nation’s big four TV networks are pondering ways that they can cut local affiliates out of the revenue stream by selling their signal directly to cable TV providers. Vanacore writes:

Pay-TV providers are paying the networks only for the stations the networks own. That amounts to a little less than a third of the TV audience, which means local affiliates recoup two-thirds of the fees. If a network operated purely as a cable channel and cut the affiliates out, the network could get the fees for the entire pay-TV audience.

He goes on to say: “If forced to go independent, affiliates would have to air their own programming, including local news and syndicated shows.” But I’m not so sure about the news part. Given a choice between paying the cost of producing local news and airing another segment of “Wheel of Fortune,” I don’t think there’s any doubt that they’ll do what they need to stay afloat.

The forces undermining the local broadcast model are different than those that are pummeling the newspaper advertising-and-subscription model; the relationships among networks, stations, cable companies and advertisers aren’t as easily disrupted by the Internet. But the bottom line for local civic affairs coverage is pretty much the same: The local news that broadcasters have provided as a public service — though arguably not in the same depth as newspapers — is going to get cut back even more. Call it the legacy media flu; there’s no cure except to lower expectations.

So what to do? In the world of words, nonprofits have emerged to help fill the void, and they have been particularly successful at the local and regional level, as reported earlier this month.

This is where I leave my comfort zone, as I have no professional experience in the broadcast arena. But it seems to me that there is a natural opportunity for nonprofits to help fill the void in broadcast as well by shouldering some of the cost of producing local TV news. At the same time, local stations would do well to seek out and nurture these relationships.

It’s already happening at some local stations. On Dec. 18, KHOU in Houston aired a segment about members of Congress taking trips at the expense of interest groups. The report was based almost entirely on reporting by Andrew Kreighbaum of The Texas Tribune, the new nonprofit based in Austin. The only significant cost to KHOU (owned by Belo Corp.) was the time it took to interview Kreighbaum and have its own reporter do a voice-over.

                                   
What to read next
topheadlines
Justin Ellis    February 2, 2012
The experimental mobile app from The Wall Street Journal skims homepages for the top news from a universe of sources.
  • Dan

    Great idea! We’ll call it “public television”. Unfortunately, its programming will be interrupted by pledge drives for much of the year. Half of its budget will be spent on fundraising. And it will have to produce programming with mass-appeal, so as to bring in corporate underwriters. And even then, it will struggle to support itself.

  • Pingback: Lost Remote | Can non-profits help the local news void?

  • Scott B

    It’s very interesting to think of what might happen if local stations are cut loose from the networks. Such an event would undoubtedly result in a considerable amount of consolidation among local stations. But I believe it would also result in more, not less local news being produced by each station. Even with the recession, local TV news is still quite profitable, by and large. Before the recession it was ridiculously profitable (think: 50%+ profit margins). Most of the problems faced by certain owners of local stations can be traced back to their heavy debt burden, not to problems making money from local news programming.

    Increasingly, I’m convinced that the future of news, on a local level, will revolve around TV. Local TV news, despite being a bit of an anachronism and a laughingstock in the eyes of many (think: Ron Burgundy), is still stubbornly holding on to the distinction of being the way most Americans get their news. Over the past decade or two, we saw companies like Tribune talk about the “synergies” that they tried to achieve by owning a TV station and a newspaper in the same city. Those synergies never really amounted to much. But I believe real synergies are possible if you ditch the legacy newspaper business model.

    The new Jim Brady web project at Allbritton will, I predict, leverage the existing advertising sales and newsgathering staffs in place at ABC7/NewsChannel8, while adding additional multimedia competencies and newspaper-like reporting beats. I think it has a real potential to reveal a sustainable model for a local web site with newspaper-like reporting depth.

    As for the dynamic between local stations and non-profit news orgs, I think there’s tremendous potential for mutually advantageous cooperation. I never really understood what nonprofits like ProPublica have to gain from having their stories published wholesale in the pages of newspapers, with only a small byline to show for it. But allowing a TV reporter to piggyback off their stories seems like a more natural fit. The nonprofit gets great exposure and publicity while still giving people a reason to go to their web site and read more, and the station gets to break a story they would have otherwise never had the resources to put together. This sort of symbiosis is very encouraging!

  • rudy

    So the free content model (broadcast TV) is dying, but the paid content model (cable) is thriving. Wow! I thought information wanted to be free.