TV stations get lots of tips from people who have an ax to grind.   Stations seek tips since they don't have enough reporters like newspapers do to patrol the community for news.  Some news tips are valid, and some aren't.  If you're in government, or a private citizen, or a small business, you're fair game for TV criticism from tips or any other source.

The only people TV stations don't go after are their own advertisers and sources.  Virtually never will a station even run an adverse story on an advertiser.  However, if it's too big for them to ignore, the story will short and sweet and they'll not assign a reporter to seek out an ambush interview.

Consumer News - we're looking out for you  (and us too!)

Consumer News only goes after small business or government.  Many stations have popular "Action News" teams--well publicized "we're on your side" features regularly scheduled and promoted on newscasts.  Making this a staple of the newscast is another consultant 'truth'.   These Consumer News operations are designed to to build community good will--to make viewers think stations are looking out for them.  The stations takes phone complaints from people wanting to sick the press on companies which have done them wrong.  The stations staff, or volunteer groups which man the Consumer Lines, then write ombudsman letters on the caller's behalf to the businesses.  Even if a company is falsely accused of bad business practice, they'll often settle with the consumer because the TV station's letterhead is very intimidating.

Pressure from advertisers to kill adverse stories

When an over-zealous reporter uncovers a story affecting an advertiser, the advertiser finds out during the course of the story production, and places a pressuring phone call on the station's Advertising Sales Manager.  That displeasure works its way to the News Director and before long, the story is minimized or dropped altogether.  It's simply declared "non-news" or unsubstantiated, and killed.

Two incidents in the midwest years ago illustrate what happens when stations violate the unspoken rule.  In one case, an aggressive reporter put together a story revealing kickbacks car dealers got from local banks for sending new car loans their direction.  The fully completed investigative story was killed after the station's lobby was filled with car dealers threatening to pull their advertising.  The other case did hit the air.  A station news crew went along with health officials to inspect restaurant kitchens.  They got plenty of close ups of bugs, dirty floors, and unsanitary conditions.  That series prompted a city wide restaurant rating system and won a great deal of favor with viewers.  The news reporter landed a better job shortly thereafter with a Dallas station's investigative team.  But the story cost the TV station.  The local restaurant association boycotted the station's advertising department for more than ten years.  Most stations are not willing to pay such a cost.

TV News goes easy on police, firemen, and sports teams

When stations do air rare stories on radar traps or brutality, they quickly discover they're paying the price when phone calls to police are not returned, crime details are no longer volunteered, and crime scene access is denied.  Competing stations get all the sensational tidbits and insider information needed to go with their nightly crime stories.  The offending station gets nothing it doesn't hear on the police monitors.  Similarly, a TV station will never air a report about how firemen let a building fire rekindle, causing a big loss. The last thing reporters want is a war with the cops or the fire department--because the station will lose stories.

Sports people learn the same thing.  If they're too harsh on a local professional team or some player beating up his girlfriend, all the athletes are suddenly unavailable for daily interviews.   So aside from speculation on who will start on the next game, sports "journalists" resort to home-team boosterism--which helps promote their game broadcasts as well as pave the way for winning the local contract to carry games next season.

The point of this is to illustrate that the temptation is very great for local stations to get a bit too chummy with some of the institutions they need to fill their newscasts--ones they should also be watchdogging on our behalf.

  Popular stories but too costly. These exposés of business rip-off and official corruption would be popular with many viewers, if not their sources and advertisers.  Stations work very hard to convince viewers they are dedicated to ferreting out wrong-doing in the public interest but stations tend to support the establishment by what they cover and don't cover. The stations face a dilemma to keep their news departments independent but sometimes the cost is too great.  So these unholy alliances are best not discussed out loud.  They're just understood as a cost of doing business in a competitive marketplace.  One must always keep in mind that TV stations are businesses, the financial stakes are high, and stations need help to fill their daily newscasts as inexpensively as possible.

How to tell when a station has sold out to its own interest

Should you see stories which you sense are not news but basically free ads for government or industry, then you can rightfully suspect the news department has sold out its detached objectivity for it's own self-interest.  If your particular police department is known for being a bit, er, heavy handed, and your favorite station doesn't cover that issue from time to time, perhaps, it's time to consider switching the channel.  If all the stations avoid these kinds of stories, then, sadly, you're in what's called a 'weak news market.'  This is too bad, for most elements in society need a bit of television light shined on them once in awhile--as a sort of disinfectant.  The media needs a bit of light shined in their direction as well when they fail this responsibility, but you won't often see them turn the critical camera on each other--and never on themselves.

(next page under construction)

Click here to comment on this essay on Rman's blog comment page