Beyond the Front Yard

I was actually fascinated by a book that's required for one of my broadcast journalism class. In his book, We Interrupt this Newscast, Tom Rosenstiel argued that newscasts are preoccupied with crime, accidents, disasters, and soft news for the sake of gaining viewership or ratings. What I find to be really interesting about this book that it was actually able to present a five-year empirical evidence to back up its point. Is it necessary for a story to “bleed to lead?”. Is it more important to “hook and hold” an audience than to get a new one? Will the audience find stories with issues like politics, health and education attractive? Or do they crave for the sensational factor in each story?

He says it's only a myth that viewers only care about local news. I second that statement. Viewers don’t only care about local news. I've witnesses so many cases that proximity dictates what should go in the newscast. The more local it is, the more it will trigger viewers' interest. That's not entirely true. They would also like to see the windows to the outside world. They’d like to know what’s happening on the other side of the world. Or even just a national story that they can’t really see from their front yard. They’d like to explore issues that they don’t normally touch in their daily life. People like to learn new things.

I know, I know, local news is pivotal for the community. But I just want to stress that national/international news has a strong appeal too. Small market, big market, there are always viewers out there who would like to see things beyond their surroundings. We shouldn't underestimate them just like that. And I bet the concept of local news to Gen Y a.k.a the Millenials is as foreign as Twitter is to my grandma.