When twenty five students in a sports journalism class were asked recently whether or not they watched sports coverage on their local news channel, the response was unanimous, not one hand shot skyward…And you know what, it’s not surprising…
It’s not because they come from out of state…It’s not because they don’t follow the “local” teams”…it’s not even because they don’t own a television…It’s because it’s not relevant…And as any sports broadcast student at BU will tell you, “If you don’t advance the story or tell ’em something they don’t already know”, there’s no reason to watch…Even the prestigious Poynter Institute in Florida has tackled the subject of failing viewers for sports coverage in the last decade…
But it’s very simple…Local stations aren’t doing truly local stories…We’re not breaking ground here but the stations have marginalized sports departments to such a degree lately, people are shutting off in droves…And the cycle goes on…no one is watching, so we won’t possibly consider doing more…
Darren Haynes of WHDH and JP Smollins of WPRI sat in on a sports journalism seminar recently at Boston University and both started in smaller markets where the coverage and the emphasis was on the hometown athletes….And it was a good time for Haynes, who cut his teeth in Alpena, Michigan to tell the students that backwater markets can be good places to learn their craft; “You’re in a small market, so what!…you’re practicing to get to where(Boston) I am now. All those skills, everything you learned together, you see it multiplied by twenty in the City.”
And the smaller markets are also the places viewers rely on local stations for coverage…ESPN isn’t carrying high school football…there’s no cross country coverage on CBS Sports…Yet local stations in professional markets insist on carrying only professional highlights…It’s not working and won’t until someone breaks the mold…
25 Comments
Patrick Thomas posted on November 4, 2012 at 6:34 pm
This past seminar hit close to home for me in one way or another. Local news stations in Boston have become nothing more than highlight makers for pro sports.
I see nothing at Ch. 7 or any other of the other stations on the Celtics, Bruins, Pats or Sox that I have not already heard during the day and it also focuses on just those four pro teams.
NESN and Comcast have done a slightly better job of going in-depth for those teams but still it’s too professional-centric in coverage. Why can’t I watch the Terriers Hockey on the late night news? What about a story about how Joe Jones is motivating the Men’s Basketball team to compete despite being ineligible for the conference championship? Darren referenced digging for a story and even brought up Stan Vereet’s advice of “mining” for a story as well.
That advice could be used to make collegiate sports in this town more appealing. Find a story, figure out the angles and make it creative for an audience. The news is still something that affects people’s lives and their can always be a story out there that appeals to someone’s emotional side.
It is obvious that producers want great ratings so sports anchors and reporters often have little wiggle room to work with. Especially in this area, many people only care pro sports.
That said, there are TOO many college sports here that go unnoticed.
One great example that Phil mentioned in class and I was thinking about when it was discussed, is CSS SportsNite in Atlanta. It hits all the of professional teams in the ATL plus other teams in the MLB, NBA and NFL. Of course SEC football and basketball, and even talks occasionally about high school basketball and football recruits in the southeast.
The show brings on-air talent such as Nick Cellini with Bob Neal and Matt Stewart often filling in as hosts.
http://www.csssports.com/pages/sportsnite
CBS 42 Birmingham is a small market that does a great job of covering the local teams. The Friday Night high school football coverage is amazing. Four stations cover high school football throughout the state. It is amazing.
http://www.cbs42.com/content/sports/highschool/story/Huddle-Up-Homewood-High-School/7cpWhrgd6Eit7LzwS20lVg.cspx
This is a convoluted issue that is not easily solved. It will not be corrected overnight. Honestly, I believe the big markets are inching their way to no sports coverage in maybe ten years or less. Many stations around the country have already done away with the sports segment altogether.
http://blackboard.bu.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_id=_2_1&url=%2fwebapps%2fblackboard%2fexecute%2flauncher%3ftype%3dCourse%26id%3d_56926_1%26url%3d
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-07-12/entertainment/bs-ae-local-sports-decline-20110712_1_sports-anchor-sports-block-late-newscasts
Although I admit I would not want to stay in a small market, I do appreciate the skills a young reporter or journalist adds to their repertoire. That is the significance of what I heard last Thursday. Always look at different ways to pitch a story. It just seems odd to me that we build these great skills for shooting, editing and reporting thru internships and in small markets that when we reach a huge market they become underused. As a prospective broadcast journalist, I could live with someone tweaking my wording to a story. I think I might have a problem though if the only reporting I do is simply just another highlight that could be found on ESPN.
Outside of the small to medium markets, I believe we will start to see more sports only networks like CSS in Atlanta and NESN here in Boston in the larger markets. Unless the big market stations begin to make changes to include collegiate and some high school sports coverage, I really don’t know how much longer the sports segment will continue to be a part of the news.
Taylor Williams posted on November 5, 2012 at 10:05 am
Each of our seminars has touched on the unglamorous realities of breaking into sports journalism, but this one drove them home like none other. Two things made it a success to me: the brutally honest representations of entry-level work, as embodied by local TV sports, and the analysis of the psychology that goes with small-market jobs.
The opportunities that small markets hold for younger journalists have been drilled into my head since my first day on campus. And after working at a newspaper in Wyoming, a state with 500,000 people and one area code, I can’t argue with that logic. That’s where you find editors and producers who entrust you with real responsibilities and audiences who establish personal connections with your work.
Both Darren and Prof. Shorr gave examples of high school athletes and their families who care tremendously about local coverage. When you’re dealing not only with a small market, but a low socio-economic standard, you’ll find athletes with genuine ability, but no plausible pipeline to college. Local coverage is often the only resource they have to get recruiters’ attention. I discovered this when I worked for a football magazine in Louisiana. We covered the best players from every school in the state, which routinely sent me to remote, bayou-filled truck stop towns. Sure, it was long hours for low pay, but it really is humbling and rewarding to have a kid, parent, or coach call you and thank you for writing something that resonated in a small community. I realize that’s a different practice than covering players via local broadcast, but the concept and consequences are the same.
Most of us are in a good position to “cut our teeth” in a small market. We’re young, energetic, children-less, and multi-faceted in our skill sets. We’ve presumably been introduced to working nights and weekends. We recognize the cutthroat nature of the business, hence the premium on personal twists and unique angles, as Darren said. We acknowledge that inches and airtime are being zapped left and right. Whether it’s print or broadcast, these conditions reflect changes in the business that our largely beyond our control. I thought J.P. did an especially good job stressing the importance of mentally embracing them and actualizing them into productivity. If you miss partying, you’re in the wrong line of work.
However, I’m glad the seminar covered the actualities of bigger markets too. Darren’s point about building rapport with every player – you really can’t say enough about that. Invest some time off the record, and it will eventually pay off on the record. Secondly, in big markets, athletes can detect a reporter who is weak or timid. It won’t translate into respect. Man up and be the one who breaks the ice, not the one who leads the pack of followers. Great advice, mediums notwithstanding.
Even though I’m not a prospective anchor, I knew the universal realities of sports journalism when I heard our guests apply them to local TV sports. And I agree with Phillip and Patrick – at least in the south, high school sports are still in huge demand, and local stations do a good job of catering to that. Chalk it up to cultural differences, and thank the War of Northern Aggression.
Paul Ryan posted on November 5, 2012 at 11:48 am
The way local news stations nearly exclusively cover professional sports has proven to be their downfall. I would argue 90% of the people that watch WBZ, WHDH or WCVB are not there to find out the score of the Patriots game or even to learn something new about the game on Sunday. People that watch the local news are, for the most part, over 40 and are watching for the news, not the sports. That’s why sports have been cut so much from local newscasts. There’s absolutely no reason to show pro sports on a local newscast.
As Patrick pointed out, it’s a shame that WHDH doesn’t show more high school or college games, because for the most part, that’s the target audience. It’s not only Amy that wants to find herself on the 11 o’clock news, it’s every high school athlete. Why show me the professional teams when I can easily find that information on CSNNE or NESN, if not somewhere else on the internet? Sure the reporters have access to the locker room and can do 1-on-1 interviews with certain athletes, but the audience would be much better reached if Boston stations focused more on high school and college sports.
I come from a smaller market where there are no (longer) professional sports teams. Therefore, a good deal of the sports part of the broadcast is devoted to UConn and high school sports. In my opinion, the local station that does the best job of covering sports in Connecticut is WFSB, which is the CBS affiliate.
http://www.wfsb.com/category/229245/friday-night-frenzy
They’ll cover whatever high school sports they can, and have a 15-20 minute “Friday Night Frenzy” for high school football in the fall. They’ll do highlights, name players of the week, everything that the Boston stations do not do. I find this to be reaching the target audience a lot better than WHDH or WBZ.
I completely agree with Professor Shorr’s point that someone needs to break the mold. Everyone else is afraid to go out on a limb and do something their competition isn’t doing. If you watch all four local newscasts here in Boston, you can pretty much guarantee that everyone will be doing the same stories. Someone needs to be different and take a risk. I really hope Darren does what he said he would and pushes for more local sports. What do they have to lose? Certainly not more viewers.
Kendall Salter posted on November 5, 2012 at 1:55 pm
This seminar made one thing abundantly clear for me: I do not want to be a local TV sports anchor. It’s not that I think the position is unimportant. It’s that I don’t see any development in that industry away from the status quo. I’m sure that people with intimate knowledge of this particular profession may disagree, but from a relative outsider’s perspective, it is hard to see that there is any room for creativity or story development in that format.
In TV time, 2-3 minutes is a considerable length of time. But for the things that I am interested in, it just isn’t enough. I would find it very hard to adjust to the demands of news directors more than ready to cut time from the sports segment.
One of the things that I think we didn’t touch on enough was the reason that local Boston TV sports coverage doesn’t succeed as well. Here is what I think: local sports have a very hard time succeeding in a town with so many professional sports teams. It really is that simple. I’d be that in New York, Boston, Chicago, and even to some extent, Los Angeles are dominated by coverage of the major teams in that area. Local coverage — high schools on down, are more seen as the job of other stations like Fox Sports West/South/Midwest, stations that don’t also host professional games. In smaller towns, local sports coverage is seen as more relevant because there is actually demand for it. Grand Forks, South Dakota cares more about their high school football and hockey teams because that’s what they are invested in, what they have to watch.
This is a lot harder in Boston. Breaking the mold is hard when there might not be a clear demand for breaking it. If this station starts promoting high school sports, will people really keep that segment on? Perhaps, but it would certainly be a big risk to take.
Mary Gagliardi posted on November 5, 2012 at 8:34 pm
A key piece of information that I gained from this seminar, and what I believe is ultimately very important for the success of local news is advancing the story in a sense that puts a spin on a story that the big networks do not use.
Large networks tend to give you the facts, scores, recaps of the professional teams. What local news could do is take a new angle. Using scores and recaps as an intro to their story, local news could take it a step further and tell a background story about the team, or a twist about a local high school team who were inspired by the pros etc.
I believe this could truly improve ratings and viewership for local news, as you could get human interest and more unknown stories/tidbits/facts along with a quick recap of the result of the game. Ultimately though, after this seminar, I think it would be extremely beneficial for the local news networks because that would give audience a more personal, insider look at the professional teams that they worship.
Starting a segment on local high school and collegiate teams would also give local networks a different “edge” over the big networks. While many people would not care, being from San Diego, I personally would not find high school scores interesting, many locals would be sure to tune into that information.
It is a big leap, making the switch from just telling professional scores and game recaps but we learned that obviously things must change for the local networks to gain and keep viewership. As Professor Shorr stated, it’ll take one local network to break the mold and then the others will follow. Haynes seemed interested in covering local high school teams but stated how since he’s still the new guy it’s hard to change the mind of those who have been around forever. It’ll ultimately take more guys like Haynes who are willing to take the leap and make the switch.
Kaleigh Fratkin posted on November 6, 2012 at 10:48 am
My post this week refers to Vancouver and Boston television sports coverage. Much like Boston, Vancouver suffers the same problem identified by many who observe that most local news and sports stations fail to cover local sports.
Similarly to most Canadians when following television networks in Canada, I look to national networks like Sportsnet and TSN (the Canadian equivalent of ESPN and Comcast sports) for sports coverage. Unfortunately, I rarely look to local stations (hometown affiliates of CTV, CBC and Global) for sports updates because they usually only cover well recognized professional sports. The odd time, local stations, in a manner that appears to be paying “lip service”, will do feature stories on rising star amateur athletes or dive into a local sports human-interest story. But, they need to do more! As an athlete, I find these stories interesting. Even non-athlete or non-sports fanatics for that matter, enjoy the stories. This type of coverage offers another side to sports news. On a local level, people like to see a successful athlete in their town or city. People feel a connection to that athlete, even though they may not know them.
If local networks are marginalizing sports departments and even shutting down sports departments (usually for economic reasons) they nonetheless should offer more local stories and coverage. Cities like Vancouver and Boston are endowed with many amateur sports available for coverage. It may be a little different in Canada than the United States when it comes to high school sports because of the local interest as high school sports are not big in Canada. Even so, news outlets don’t cover a lot of semi-professional sports (15-21 year old athletes). This is particularly so, even when semi-professional sports are a “big deal” in Canada (especially hockey). The lack of coverage on amateur sports in Canada is comparable to the minimal coverage on college sports in Boston. There are a lot of colleges with NCAA divisions 1 and 3 sports (both male and female) in the city of Boston, yet NESN will only cover some college division 1 men hockey games and ESPN 3 will cover some division 1 basketball games. There certainly isn’t a lack of amateur and local sports teams or players to cover in big cities.
I follow local sports teams and I feel if local stations tailored their coverage to the amateur level and semi-professional sports and left the professional sports to the big national networks (Sportsnet and TSN), they would obtain more viewers and provide an important local service. Those viewers would be tuning in to watch features of up and coming athletes and teams and provide a local “connection” between viewer and city or town. This would be much better for sports enthusiasts and serve the interests of the local stations and community at the same time.
Remember… amateur or local sports don’t create advertisers, which means no profit for those stations. No profit, means minimal or no coverage at all. Local stations need to find a way to get advertisers in amateur and local sports then viewers will get local coverage. It’s a vicious circle… no viewers, means no advertisers… Many viewers, means advertisers and bigger sports departments.
“If it doesn’t pay to play then no coverage as they say.”
Phillip Kisubika posted on November 6, 2012 at 12:17 pm
As I mentioned in class, the market dictates the coverage, especially when it comes to sports. I come from an area (metro Atlanta) where the focus is fairly evenly distributed among pro teams, college teams and high school sports. Atlanta is more a college sports town than anything. Just try getting around when the Chick-fil-A kickoff game, Chick-fil-A bowl or SEC Championship game is in town. High school football gets more than its fair share of coverage.
Here’s a sampling of what the Atlanta ABC affiliate does with high school football:
http://www.wsbtv.com/videos/sports/high-school-football/high-school-football-videos/lJF/
From what we heard in the seminar, being in local TV sports is one of the hardest jobs in the business. Time constraints make it hard to be creative and thorough. Local reporters are losing ground to all-sports networks that put the time and resources into producing the best coverage (i.e. Comcast Sports Net). Darren Haynes made a point of talking about the little things he does to spice up his stories, even if he only has a few spare seconds. I think that’s an important lesson for all of us.
For me, what Darren said about his previous stops stuck with me. None of us expect to have glamorous jobs right after college, but if we treat the smaller markets like “training camps” and put in the time and effort to do the best job we can, the rewards will come.
Nate Weitzer posted on November 6, 2012 at 12:53 pm
Sports have been cut from Local News broadcasts without mercy because of all the aforementioned reasons. Networks believe they have a grasp of what their demographic wants to hear about, and professional sports is clearly not among those desired topics. But is the problem that the audience has no interest in sports, or what the station is choosing to cover?
Paul made a good point about the Local News’ audience being over 40 and generally uninterested in sports. Well, it should be the role of the sports anchor to make them somewhat interested.
How can they accomplish this? Darren touched on it by talking about how you can approach stories from unique angles, tap into the human element of a sports story and present those facts in a telecast that could stand alone without anything but a ancillary reference to the details of a sporting event.
Local TV is far behind the curve in this respect. You look at the Globe and Herald’s coverage of High School Sports and it is rather comprehensive. You can find information on local tournaments, standings in all sports, and feature stories on local kids that people may find quite interesting: http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/high_school/
Yet none of this information qualifies as news in a metropolitan market?
Granted, there’s not enough time allotted to sports for a lengthy feature but perhaps that is due to the problem itself. If coverage became more appealing to the target demographic then the numbers would change and this may sway producers to give more time to sports broadcasts.
Sure covering High School games may drive away a few people that don’t live in the area or prefer to ignore local sports, but it could capture the interest of those who find the information to be relevant and refreshing.
There is a market for these kinds of stories, and if Local News can’t find space for this content then someone else will. Boston is a huge sports market and there are plenty of media outlets covering the pro teams, but it’s time for an outlet to dedicate their resources to the local athletes whose development can qualify (objectively) as news.
Jashvina Shah posted on November 6, 2012 at 12:58 pm
I think local television stations should mirror local newspapers. When you read local newspapers, they focus on local sports — something I know local television in my area does not. But that’s the reason why we read local newspapers, and that’s exactly why we don’t watch local television.
The survey released in 2006 under the class readings shows a very negative idea of sports in local newscasts. Over half the people who participated believed sports would die out in the local newscasts, 43 percent thought news directors didn’t care about the sports segment and 76 percent said they thought sports wasn’t playing a huge part in local TV news.
As far as my knowledge goes, the area where I live — and I looked this up in the TV listings as well — only one channel is a local channel, and it never shows sports. The local news stations, ABC, NBC and FOX affiliates are all either New York of Philadelphia stations, and I’ve only seen them cover professional sports. And I never go to those channels for highlights, because I can either see those highlights on ESPN or the NFL Network.
And even though the article in the class readings, Local TV Still Top News Pick, But Technology and Hype Nibble at Edges, sated that consumers aren’t really interested in watching sports in newscasts, it doesn’t show that local sports shouldn’t be covered.
When I freelanced for a local paper in Princeton, N.J., over the summer, I covered local sports — as in little league and the like. The closest I got to covering professional sports was when I covered Devils rookie camp, and only because two of the skaters played for Princeton’s men’s hockey team. Otherwise I was never covering professional sports for them. Here’s the website, to give you an idea of the kind of sports we covered: http://www.centraljersey.com/hssports/.
Local newspapers cover local sports because local people are interested in those local sports. It’s part of the reason why local sports are still around. They’re covering different things from major newspapers, things you can’t find in major newspapers.
As Professor Shorr pointed out, you need to do things differently to survive in the media industry. If you’re going to do something the same, you need to do it better. And local stations can’t post better highlights than a giant like ESPN can. On the other hand, if you can provide something unique — a certain type or story, or you only cover a certain type of team — people will consume your product because they can’t get it anywhere else.
Some may argue in certain markets, like mine, that no one cares about seeing local sports covered on local TV news. But local newscasts aren’t going to attract more viewers by talking about professional sports, so it’s worth it to try something new.
Greg Picker posted on November 6, 2012 at 6:19 pm
In the era of ESPN, NESN, Comcast Sports, MSG, YES, etc., there is no reason for people to tune into local news stations for their pro sports information. There is no motivation for someone to turn on WHDH to watch the Bruins highlights for 30 seconds, when NESN will give much better highlights and in-depth analysis. The same goes for all the other professional sports in New England and for respective teams and local news stations across the country.
I can’t believe that local news stations will get rid of their sports departments because there is still a market for sports on local television. It isn’t professional, or even college, but high school sports. Maybe I’m biased because of my internship with MSG Varsity, a station that shows high school sports in the New York/New Jersey area. However, there is the untapped potential of high school sports on local television.
People can’t go to see themselves or their high school team’s highlights on ESPN or NESN. However, if there is the slightest chance they could see themselves or their high school on tv, they will absolutely turn into the local news report. Not only will they want to watch, but they will call their aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents, all for them to see their relative score the game-winning touchdown on tv. As Darren Haynes mentioned in the seminar this past week, this turns into a snowball effect. If someone sees someone from a rival high school on tv, they might say “maybe I’ll be on tv next week. I should tune in.”
In just its fourth year of existence, MSG Varsity has ramped up its coverage to broadcast 1,500 games throughout the school year between its station and website. http://msgvarsity.com/long-island?qr=1. Not only is it showing full games, there are highlight shows, talk shows featuring guests, and much more. There is the potential for this to take off in more markets than just in the New York area. Think about how huge high school football is in Texas and other southern states. Sure there might already be more coverage there than in other places around the country, but an entire network dedicated to high school sports in Texas could have huge potential.
Amy Barry posted on November 6, 2012 at 7:05 pm
Where I’m from in New Hampshire the local news station sports spot is dedication to the locals. For the most part, it’s mostly high school, but occasionally a segment on UNH gets thrown in.
I never sat down to watch the sports segment until one day during my junior year in high school. All of my parents family and friends called my house late on a Friday night to let my parents now, that I had a spot on the 11 o’clock news for my basketball game that night. My mom woke me up late and we watched to together. After that, I would sit down every Friday and watch the news with my parents.
After my basketball career was over, my parents had all my highlights from the news put on a DVD. It was pretty cool to see.
When it comes to Boston its local sports are the professional teams. Maybe it’s because I come from a small town, but I wish the local news reported on the local teams, not professional teams because professionals have so much coverage on the national outlets like ESPN, Comcast, etc.
But, because the stations won’t change and will continue to cover professional teams, it’s important to a put a new twist on the story instead of just highlights. This idea was a major concept during the seminar and a lot of class time at BU.
Besides putting a new spin on the same story, time is also a issue for local sports coverage. A three minute spot doesn’t allow a lot of time to get the word out. Time is truly of the essence and must be used wisely.
If it was up to me, I would stick to the local, locals; not the professional teams. It means a lot more to the little people to be highlighted on the news rather than professionals who could turn on ESPN and see their face.
Ashley Driscoll posted on November 6, 2012 at 8:36 pm
The demographic of people who watch ESPN all day is not the same demographic of people who watch the local news each night.
ESPN’s viewer profile: http://www.nationaltvspots.com/ntvs-networks
Thirty-one percent of ESPN viewers are in the 18-34 age bracket, 40% are 35-54, and 29% are 55+. The gender breakdown is 72% males to 28% females.
(For the purpose of this post, I am going to assume that nobody tunes in to the local news just for the sports component. Rather, those who watch local sports happen to be watching as a part of the newscast in its entirety. Therefore, assessing the demographics of viewers who tune into local news should give us a good idea of who also catches local sports.)
WHDH audience profile: http://bostonvideoproductions.com/WHDH-Sales/audience-profile.html
As expected, the largest demographic of WHDH viewers is in the age bracket of 70 or older, coming in at 14.7%. If we want to compare those who watch ESPN with those who watch WHDH in Boston, ESPN viewers are only 29% for 55+ while WHDH viewers are 35.7% (by combining the top 4 age bracket percentages provided).
The gender breakdown is evenly distributed for WHDH viewers, at 51% female to 49% male, which is in contrast with that of ESPN, which, as expected, has a higher percentage of male viewers.
Based on the age and gender breakdown of ESPN and WHDH, it is clear that these are two very different audiences. The point I’m trying to make is that those who have ESPN on all day are not necessarily the same as those who tune into the local news and see the local sports coverage, so if local news does give highlights of what has already been distributed via ESPN, the chances that the same audience will see it isn’t as high as one might think.
Even if the same people who watch ESPN happen to tune in to the local newscast, they do so because they are looking for something different from a local newscast than from ESPN. I don’t get local sports on ESPN and I don’t expect to, but I do expect to find local sports on local news, and that’s exactly what happens when I turn on the local news when I go home to Connecticut. Most of the local sports coverage is high school sports, particularly football in this time of year, and of course UCONN sports is a big draw for most Connecticut stations. Because Connecticut has no professional football, baseball, or hockey teams, there’s little professional sports coverage to be seen.
Professor Shorr noted in his blog that local stations aren’t doing truly local stories and that local stations in professional markets only carry professional highlights. The point of emphasis here is “professional markets” because plenty of smaller markets don’t cover professional highlights, but rather cover truly local sports at the high school and college level. In a large market such as Boston, sports anchors like Darren Haynes have a tough job. If they don’t highlight the professional sports they might lose even more viewers than they currently have, but if they do people will complain that they have already seen it on national networks. When you only have 3 minutes to highlight professional sports and also get some local coverage in, it’s nearly impossible to please everyone, and it’s not a job I would relish.
Both guests this week urged us to be unique and tell the story in a creative way. They also emphasized the importance of knowing your audience and what they are looking for. It doesn’t take a heavy amount of research to understand what your audience is looking for, and local sports coverage should emphasize what is truly local, and leave the professional coverage to national networks. I think the best course of action would be to do as Darren has suggested to us: tell viewers something they don’t already know, and appeal to those who enjoy news, not necessarily those who are huge sports fans.
Jonathan Lemons posted on November 7, 2012 at 10:28 am
If, as Ashley and Paul point out, local TV news is intended for a demographic altogether different than that of ESPN (or NESN, CSNNE, etc), showing pro-sports highlights of yesterday’s game isn’t necessarily a problem. As Ashley said, “if local news does give highlights of what has already been distributed via ESPN, the chances that the same audience will see it isn’t as high as one might think.”
Paul says, “I would argue 90% of the people that watch WBZ, WHDH or WCVB are not there to find out the score of the Patriots game or even to learn something new about the game on Sunday. People that watch the local news are, for the most part, over 40 and are watching for the news, not the sports.” I can’t speak to the accuracy of the percentage but I agree with his larger point, though I would tweak it slightly. I think it’s safe to say that people watching the news are not doing so SPECIFICALLY for sports, but there are certainly folks for whom keeping a tab on the local pro teams is part of why they watch the news. What I don’t follow is why Paul goes on to say “there’s absolutely no reason to show pro sports on a local newscast.”
People watch local news to keep up with what’s happening where they live. They want an idea of what’s going on with their local businesses, politicians, weather, crime, and, in theory, sports teams. It seems to me that if local general newscasts are intended for people interested in local general news, it’s only logical for them to show local sports teams, including the pro teams.
In his Poynter column, Kevin Benz alludes to market research indicating that sports segments of local television newscasts rank near the bottom of reasons to watch. I couldn’t find any market data in Boston and I wonder whether it holds true here, in a sports obsessed city where the pro teams are undeniably the biggest draw.
The fact that no one in class watches sports coverage from local newscasts is due largely to the fact that most of us are sports fans. As such, we go to outlets whose focus is solely (or primarily) on sports. Again, we are not the demographic being targeted.
Ultimately, I think it’d be very interesting to see the response in this market to a news outlet focusing on local non-professional sports teams. I certainly understand the logic that because there are so many sports-focused media outlets who do much more in-depth coverage of local pro teams, it would behoove local news to cover offer something else.
However, I’d point to JP and Darren’s emphasis on the importance of knowing your audience and what they are looking for. I think the question for the Boston market is, what is the local news audience looking for?
Matt DeFonzo posted on November 7, 2012 at 12:13 pm
Lots of people who have posted already have suggested local TV stations would do better to cover local sports than they would to report on professional ones. While I don’t necessarily disagree with that idea, I do believe there are a limited number of instances in which local stations should do stories about pro teams.
First, when a professional sports team wins a championship, local news outlets are, in a way, obligated to do a story on the team. A TV station in New York City can’t just ignore a story as big as “The New York Giants won the Super Bowl!” If they neglect such stories they are in essence overlooking the biggest local sports news there is. When a local team wins the Lombardi Trophy, every news station nearby should carry the story, since it’s such a big deal to have the best team in any major pro sport.
Second, stories about the safety of athletes should make the local newscasts, even if they are national stories. Concussions, for example, are a big deal right now, and any important news that involves head trauma should be replayed on both national and local TV outlets so that as many people as possible learn about the dangers their young athlete could potentially be facing. By spreading the news on brain injuries in sports to people that wouldn’t normally go looking for information on athletics, local TV news stations can perform a very important function of educating people on the risks of head injuries. So any news that breaks on head trauma in sport should be covered by local TV stations, even if that news is national in scope.
Third, local TV stations should also cover the biggest, most popular news stories even if they are national. Let’s say that a few days before their Thanksgiving NIght game against the New England Patriots, Rex Ryan, head coach of the New York Jets, announces Tim Tebow will be the Jets’ starting quarterback for the game (This is a hypothetical example, but highly plausible nonetheless). This is the kind of story that screams “Report on me!” if you’re a local TV station in New England, because it puts one of professional football’s most popular players on the field against the local NFL team. When a story that big comes up, one can’t ignore it, even if working for a local news station.
So should local TV outlets cover lots of local high school and college sports that probably won’t be televised anywhere else? Yes. But there are also instances in which local stations should report on national stories. There are some news items that, even if they are national in scope, are just too big to ignore.
Greg Huntoon posted on November 7, 2012 at 5:12 pm
It is clear from Darren Haynes, Prof Shorr and every link about the subject on blackboard that local news in big markets is in trouble. A lot of the solutions that have been thrown out revolve around covering smaller, more local teams and stories. But I say this is easier said than done.
When you only have 1-3 minutes to get your stories across and the demand to get good numbers, you need to put out the stories that are going to get the most people to watch. In a smaller market, the “local teams” are followed by most of the people who watch the local news. For example, the people who watched Darren in Alpena, Michigan all probably were IceDiggers fans and could relate to the high school teams that he would do stories on.
Compare that to a bigger market like Boston, though. Not all viewers of Darren now are able to relate to the high school teams and some of the college teams. But what do most fans in the greater Boston area relate to? The pro teams, or as Darren called them, “the local teams.” You have to focus on teams that will get the most people to watch.
But there is still the problem of how to “advance the story” with these teams. When I interned at Channel 4 this summer, they had a deal with NESN so that they could have Don Orsillo and Jerry Remy on for a quick chat during their slot on the 6:00 news. This allowed for them to give the viewers the newest stories that they didn’t already know.
Channel 4 is also the official television station of the Patriots. They air all the preseason games, have a weekly hour-long Pats show on Fridays and get to air all the Pats games that air on CBS. This coming Sunday, they are the only station that will have a Patriots post-game show following the game. They are giving Boston fans the information they want about the Pats that they can’t get anywhere else. For this reason, the staff often refers to Channel 4 as “the Patriots station.”
Don’t get me wrong, I would enjoy seeing smaller, more local stories, but they would have to be in a longer format show where the stations have the time (Channel 4 does a Sports Final show on Sunday nights that allows them to focus on the more local teams). But with the limited time they have and the demand to attract viewers, they need to focus on the teams that the most people care about. And while doing that by just giving scores and highlights will not get the job done any more, there are ways that covering those teams can be successful.
Davis VanOpdorp posted on November 7, 2012 at 8:44 pm
To be completely honest, local sports is heading in a different direction. And, well, if it hasn’t, then it needs to in order to survive.
The direction that it needs to start to turn to is to cover teams that aren’t covered on ESPN or NBC Sports. It’s ok to still show the professional sports during your segment, but showing more than 30 seconds of highlights is useless, because most of the time, people have already seen them (MAYBE the only exception is the 11:00 news, but even then, people watching television are probably watching the game).
I think that Darren, JP, and Professor Shorr all agree that the Boston markets don’t cover high school and other local sports enough. One of the first things that I learned in JO 307 (or JO 250 now I guess) was Professor Elizabeth Mehren telling my class that people LOVE reading about themselves. When I was an athlete, I LOVED seeing my name in the newspaper, and my mom made a push to get my name in the newspaper more. Switching to more local coverage (in my opinion) will engage the local audience more (who is exactly who you’re targeting anyways).
Now, I am not saying that local sports should completely ignore the professional sports. I thought it was interesting that both Darren and Professor Shorr said that they interviewed and filmed everybody at the beginning of training camp in order to have material for later. After all, local sports can be kind of like beat reporters in the sense of providing access to professional locker rooms that isn’t necessarily allowed. I also thought the concept of mining was interesting, which Darren also mentioned, to try and find a different angle to put on local teams. But showing highlights from the game is starting to become superfluous, because that is not what the local audience is looking for.
This is the big reason why I think that this seminar was extremely important. Thinking outside of the box to get your stories doesn’t necessarily stop at the local news level. I think it’s interesting that the Boston Globe (and the Boston Herald to some extent) is focusing a little more on high school sports, because they know that people love hearing about themselves, or their son’s and daughters.
Nick Hansen posted on November 7, 2012 at 9:13 pm
Back in my younger days I loved waiting for Randy Shaver to deliver Timberwolves highlights on Kare 11. He was my favorite anchor on TV and I saw him a few times in person. I was so excited.
One thing that local sports anchors have going for them is their celebrity. For a lot of people, especially a small-town boy like me, local anchors are celebrities. And seeing them is probably the closest most people get to see a “tv star.” They should use that to get access for unique stories.
A person who does this well is Erik Perkins from Kare 11. He has a segment called “Perk at Play” where he finds the wackiest sports stories from across the area and usually participates in them. He even came out to my university to do a segment on a couple of my friends who invented a supped-up version of living room basketball. (I can’t find the video though, unfortunately.) Here he is doing a segment on a “Homegrown Lacrosse” which is basically a cross between Lacrosse and Dodgeball.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Vk2Q_oN4Ms
A 40 year old guy getting hit with tennis balls whipped by third graders? Yeah, that’s good TV. The stories are funny, engaging, and most importantly, locally relevant. ESPN and NESN can’t do that.
Local sports reporters have a unique role in their community. They’re well known, but they’re still pretty much regular citizens. That allows for more creative ways to cover sports. The coverage of the big teams is important, but I think television stations need to take advantage of the quirky things that big networks don’t touch.
I liked that Professor Shorr pointed out that “it’s your job” to find stories when things are slow. If Erik Perkins can find interesting stuff in Minnesota, I’m sure their are plenty of great stories out there that are ripe for covering.
Tim Larew posted on November 7, 2012 at 11:11 pm
I was never into local sports television. After hearing a lot of my classmates talk about their experiences with it growing up, it hit me – I’m from a small town in Connecticut. When I got to high school, we had only had a high school football team for a few years. No one really cared about any local basketball, soccer, etc. Every bit of sports coverage I sought, ESPN provided me.
When I came to Boston, nothing really changed. I grew up a Yankees fan and not particularly an exclusive fan of any team from the other major sports leagues. I’ve flipped on local Boston sports TV here and there, but never with the intent on watching it for a specific reason or for an extended period of time. I was never conditioned to do so.
However, after hearing Darren talk about his job and what has gone and continues to go into it, I’m going to make a point of watching his show at some point in the near future. As I learned in last year’s broadcast class, it’s all about telling your story and advancing it in a unique way. That’s exactly what Darren says he takes pride in doing, so I’m going to follow up and see if it’s true. If not for the local coverage, maybe ill become a local sports TV fan because of a talented anchor… Or at least look at it in a different light.
Nate Boroyan posted on November 7, 2012 at 11:13 pm
This trend of local broadcasts either neglecting or not “mining” for stories is actually fairly foreign to me.
In Maine, the networks are fortunate enough that Portland is actually a hotbed for minor league teams. In fact, Portland is home to three: the Sea Dogs (Red Sox) the Pirates (Buffalo Sabres) and the Red Claws (Celtics).
When one factors in the high school teams and UMaine athletics, the anchors actually have enough information that viewers care about that does not get covered by ESPN. Even with the state adopting Boston teams as “local,” anchors very rarely have to spend more than a minute producing a standard rundown.
When listening to Daren and J.P. I began to wonder if local stations in major markets with popular teams feel as though it is important to discuss the pro teams, or if it is a necessary evil?
Personally, the only time I find myself watching the local coverage of the Boston teams is after a particularly big win and I just want to hear a biased angle. Its never in the hopes of hearing them “advance” the story.
I agree with Patrick’s theory that big markets will eventually eliminate the sports segment of the broadcast. Its a shame because I feel it is unnecessary. In Boston, especially, there is plenty more to focus on besides the professional teams.
Even if one contends that high school sports just don’t generate enough of an interest, college sports have a passionate following. With BU, BC, Umass, Harvard, and Northeastern, just to name a few, in the area, local sports can be salvaged.
At the risk of labeling “mining” as unnecessary, I feel as though it is not necessarily as important as focusing on other teams.
The other problem I see with “mining” is that the major networks have internal competition that calls for the practice as well. Just look at ESPN.
The Red Sox, Celtics, and Patriots are already a large focus of the national broadcast and coverage. When you factor in ESPNboston, NESN and Comcast, “mining” has the potential to seem contrived by local coverage.
I know local anchors are responsible for doing whatever it takes to produce a quality angle. After all, it is his or her job. Ultimately, until one makes it into the national spotlight, he or she is ultimately learning on the job and honing his or her skills for a better opportunity.
Bobby LeBlanc posted on November 7, 2012 at 11:17 pm
There was a time when I watched my local news channel specifically for professional sports coverage. I lived outside Chicago growing up and did not have cable. The only way I was going to get my sport highlights was by watching the local news channels. So I would sit and wait patiently until Bulls or Cubs highlights came on the television. The time for that has clearly come and gone, and yet, local sports coverage has not changed.
Again, I was young, and my father had not yet fully developed me into a Boston sports fan. That’s obviously beside the point, but what’s key today is that I have yet to see a real change in sports coverage on local television. Occasionally I will be watching the local news channel in Boston and the sports segment comes on. What do I see? I see highlights of the Red Sox game that I have already seen three times. There is nothing that I haven’t either heard or seen before, so I flip the channel.
One thing that we didn’t bring up in the seminar is how much the Internet may take away from the relevance of local sports coverage. Personally, if there is a highlight to a game I am dying to see, I turn to the Internet over ESPN. The Internet brings immediate access to almost anything you want to see that is sports related. If 47% of the respondents in Penn State’s study said the Internet was making local sports television less relevant in 2006, I can only wonder what they’d think now.
I believe that Darren Haynes has the right ideas in trying to make the local sportscast relevant again. You have to be able to make the story unique and show something to people they haven’t seen before. If local sports newscasters can find a different angle and make the non-sports fan interested in the story, it’s a start to becoming relevant again. I also agree that with Darren when he says he wants to focus more on the local high schools in his sportscasts or even do a show devoted to local high school sports. People don’t go to local stations for professional sports coverage anymore. If I were in high school, I would be more inclined to turn to local television stations to watch highlights of my school. The coverage of high school sports has a lot of room to grow and can possibly rejuvenate local sports broadcasts.
It certainly won’t be easy making local sports television relevant again, but I think it can be done. It has to be different, and that starts with more than simply showing the highlights of the professional sports teams.
Caitlin Donohue posted on November 8, 2012 at 12:37 am
As an aspiring broadcast journalist, I was particularly intrigued by last week’s seminar. I enjoyed hearing about Darren and JP’s journey from college to their current networks, and I was not surprised to hear that many of their early experiences in the field were less than glamorous. I was surprised, though, to hear about how drastically the sports news market is changing. I couldn’t believe that some TV networks were eliminating sports segments altogether, refusing to compete with stations like ESPN.
The link below further explains the struggle of local TV sports and local TV news in general. My biggest concern is that cutting down on sports segments means less job opportunities for students like us, since when the networks “reduce their commitment to sports they are also reducing their sports staffing levels.” Darren and JP kept stressing the word “unique.” If we want a successful career in TV sports, we have to present our stories in a unique, attention-grabbing manner that is outside of the norm. Sports segments on TV are very traditional and as a result, they often end up being boring or unexciting, especially compared to human interest stories. Our job will be making these everyday stories significant and new. The Red Sox may have lost a million times this season, but what makes one loss different from the next? And when we’re trying to report on local athletics, we’ll have to try even harder to make the story interesting.
http://thesportjournal.org/article/changing-role-local-television-sports
Darren put it best. When asked if Boston cared more about sports than other markets, he said no. He said that even in the small Michigan city where he started his work, people showed up and cared about local sports. So clearly, although local sports news may be struggling, it is not dead. Like Professor Shorr said, I think on-air reporters should gradually “break the mold” and find more time to focus on local sports. Even if it is just a few seconds of on-air summary, it’s important for the public to know what is going on in their community athletics, not just what is going on with the big regional sports teams.
Despite the fact that sports segments are being shortened, I think that they will always hold a spot on TV news networks. Like any other medium, TV delivers a lot of hard-hitting news stories involving crime and natural disasters, so sports is a much-needed break from all of that heavy material. Plus people will always be interested in sports, so it’s here to stay.
Andrew posted on November 8, 2012 at 12:48 am
Friday Night Lights was a TV show that premiered on NBC a few years ago and was subsequently demoted to cable TV before ending early last year. The show ended after 5 season not because the show was bad, in fact the show received very high praise from multiple critics and many people credit it with making high school football relevant again in many communities around the nation.
However, despite its many passionate fans, the show was cancelled because of lack of viewership. And I equate the lifespan of this show to that of local TV in particular their sports programming.
In the show when the athletes on the football team move off to college I equate it to talented broadcasters such as Darren Haynes and JP Smollins moving on to bigger markets and national brands. In the show there are many passionate fans of the Dillon Panthers similar to the passionate fans of local sports broadcasts. Trust me there are, when I interned at Channel 5 I answered many phone calls containing compliments and suggestions for a story idea or tie color for Mike Lynch. So there is a plenty of passion, is there enough to sustain local TV if they went hyper-local…I think so. If the newspaper can reinvent itself with “Your Town” sites then local sports TV coverage can convert with the same local flare.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/29/sports/football-a-touchdown-teaches-a-lesson-for-life.html
This is a story about a friend of mine from high school who loved playing football, despite not receiving much playing time because of his mental disability. It didn’t matter his love for the game and his teammates always put a smile on his face. So when he actually was able to a score a touchdown, not only was the entire town glued to television sets but the entire county as well. The local coverage was intense and so big it made to the NY Times.
It is characters like this that should drive local sporting news, characters that the viewers see on the street; characters that viewers know by their first name. If local news did this I would be shocked if there wasn’t better ratings because where else could you get that coverage…ESPN?
Sandeep Chandrasekhar posted on November 8, 2012 at 12:53 am
Because I never got seriously into news as a child, I never watched any local sports television. I did not see the point in watching three or four minutes of a sports segment squeezed into the end of a news telecast. Clearly, sports was not the most important topic in these local news telecasts, so I had absolutely no desire watching them while I was younger.
Years later, my opinions on local sports news have not changed. I personally only watch Comcast SportsNet Bay Area to watch the coverage of my favorite local teams. I would prefer to watch a full hour long show completley dedicated to covering local sports compared to only a few minutes of coverage. They can provide more in-depth coverage on the major professional sports teams, which I am most interested in covering, and can additionally provide extensive analysis on these teams. In only three minutes, local news telecasts cannot provide the same detailed coverage.
As Professor Shorr mentioned multiple times in the lecture, I believe local sports news stations can only survive if they deviate from the normal trend. People can receive information on the major professional and collegiate sports teams in multiple news stations, such as ESPN, CBS Sports, and each city’s primary sports local station. Unless they can focus on high school sports or other teams that appeal to the local town (Minnesota hockey, Indiana Basketball), there is no reason for people to tune into local news stations for sports.
However, with the expansion of social media and increase in the number of sports websites online, people can readily access their favorite teams. Thus, I believe news stations will have a much more difficult time gaining sports viewers in the future in their news telecasts. Even the most obscure sports teams have a webpage dedicated to their performances. It would not be practical to expect high viewership when a news telecast cannot distinguish itself from other sports outlets.
Ultimately, sports coverage on local news stations is becoming a dead breed, as they are having a difficult time distinguishing themselves from local sports news outlets, including online and social media.
Stephanie Jarvis posted on November 8, 2012 at 12:31 pm
While the biggest obstacle in local TV sports might be fighting for time in a news heavy outlet, it also doesn’t help when local sportscasters are simply showing highlights from Sunday’s Patriots game on Monday night’s 11 pm newscast. As we’ve talked about in this class and Professor Shorr’s 524 class, the majority of viewers have already seen the highlights so what’s to keep them from changing the channel? It’s up to those in the sports department to find the new or interesting storyline to keep viewers tuned in. And while the professional sports will always be prominent in Boston’s local market, I also think it’s important not to focus entirely on these teams. ESPN’s 24-hour broadcast combined with the power of twitter and the availability of scores and reports on the internet has virtually changed the way we look at local sports coverage.
Just from my observations after living in a different part of the county, I think this problem differs from market to market. In my hometown on the Ohio/West Virginia border, we are able to watch the Charleston/Huntington stations or the Columbus stations. In Charleston and Huntington, they’re not close to a particular professional team, so they have to cover the high school and college athletics in the region. It’s actually the best part of the newscast for those stations, because it’s always something new and hyper local. With the Columbus affiliates, the majority of sports coverage is focused on Ohio State during the football and basketball seasons, so there’s always a reason to tune in. Some stations do half hour sports shows during the football season on different days of the week, and that’s when you can watch Urban Meyer’s press conference or hear from former players.
I think we actually need to bring the local back to our local sports departments. There are so many interesting stories and athletes in this area outside of the Patriots and Celtics, but they’re just not being covered. Part of our job as journalists is to tell a story and paint a picture for our audience, and we can do this to make any story captivating.
I thought this article had a lot of good statistics and made some very good points relating to sports coverage in the local markets. http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_sports_media/v007/7.1.halliday.html
Jason Lind posted on November 9, 2012 at 10:59 am
Unfortunately I missed this week’s seminar, so I can’t really comment on what Darren and JP said.
I’ve spent most of my life in two SEC college towns: Gainesville, Florida and Athens, Georgia. UF and UGA are universities with huge athletic budgets and consistent national coverage. They aren’t exactly small markets like the often-mentioned Sioux Falls, South Dakota, but they aren’t Boston either. Local television has a unique opportunity in towns like Gainesville and Athens. There, local sports coverage can 1. Cover the high profile college teams (football, basketball) with depth that national sports media outlets like ESPN cannot, 2. Shine a light where national collegiate athletic coverage hardly exists and 3. Cover the area’s high school and junior college athletes (that could wind up at the university).
The first opportunity is applicable anywhere there is a team with a national profile. Don’t use stock footage from the game. Don’t give people the same highlights they saw and read about on multiple platforms already. Pitch the story forward. What happens next? What can WCJB-TV 20 in Gainesville provide to the conversation about the Gators 14-7 win over Missouri that ESPN College Football Live can’t? WCJB has all of its resources in Gainesville; that’s a huge advantage. Go talk to the players and coaches that national news won’t think to talk to. Find out who the best interviews and best sources of information are past the quarterback, the star player and the head coach. Go to practice. Like the Poynter article alluded to, make this coverage feel local. Make the audience feel like they’re getting information here they cannot get anywhere else. Is a local Clarke Central High School kid now a contributing walk-on at UGA? Profile him. New, hyperlocal media ventures like DawgNation and GatorNation from ESPN look to compete with local sports coverage, but these blogs still don’t have the resources in the market that the local TV stations do.
While it’s important to capitalize on that first opportunity, it’s with the second one that local sports television coverage has its best chance to regain lost relevance. UGA has a pretty impressive equestrian program, but many students and Athens residents don’t even know it. The golf team is better recognized, but still warrants more coverage than it receives.
http://gradynewsource.uga.edu/blog/2012/11/01/grady-newsource-sports-weekly-update-november-1/
This is Grady Newsource, a product of UGA’s Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication. It’s experimental, but they’re trying new things with local sports coverage. There are people in Athens who will tune in for Golf and Equestrian coverage because it exists nowhere else. The number is likely small, but think about how many viewers local sports TV could garner if it covered more marginalized sports. Some of those less-covered sports have surprisingly large audiences, like the Gator Women’s Soccer team (former team of Olympic hero Abby Wambach).
http://www.wcjb.com/sports/2012/11/no-10-florida-routs-auburn-10th-sec-soccer-tournament-title
The game itself was broadcast on ESPNU, but the interview with the coach was a WCJB exclusive. That’s the important part; providing coverage where no one else does.
Last, its important to venture outside the colleges. We’ve talked about how high school coverage is important. It unifies the community. It’s what the moms, the dads and the high school students want. Here’s an article from the Indiana Star about how popular the “Game of the Week” is on local TV:
http://www.indystar.com/article/20121101/SPORTS02/211020322/High-school-football-basketball-games-continue-home-local-television?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CIndyStar.com%7Cs
But in Gainesville, it’s also important to cover another college that local media neglects: Santa Fe. WCJB does a great job with Santa Fe basketball coverage:
http://www.wcjb.com/sports/2012/11/santa-fe-hoops-seasons-tip-thursday
If local television sports coverage can fulfill these three duties in towns like Gainesville and Athens, it will serve the public in a way that all journalism strives to: by providing the community with information it cannot get anywhere else.