In my experience, if you want to learn about things in your neck of the woods, local news outlets are much more reliable than national news.
I wrote a few days ago about an event I had personal knowledge about:
> The local newspapers were the best. They didn't report false facts - they verified them. They had the most detail (continual coverage over months rather than random sensational headlines).
I find the access to local news clips on YouTube pretty interesting. They're usually much bolder at covering controversial or off narrative topics or featuring pretty colorful individuals.
> They didn't report false facts - they verified them.
Unless they're directly copying from press releases or, worse, police reports. Too many local (and for that matter, even national) papers don't have the money left to do actual boots-on-the-ground journalism.
In the case I was referring to, the local news outlets were usually the only ones who dug deeper and questioned the police/FBI/prosecution statements. National outlets rarely did it - it was big enough to be national news, but amongst national news it was a smaller item.
Of course, this was a big case in the region. For small cases, I find that both the local and national news outlets simply suck.
This reminds me of the Richard Jewell case I saw on the news as a kid. I remember how the news went on about him having nails in his garage and I was like "WTF? That's the best evidence they have?" even as a kid.
He was, of course, not merely acquitted but proven innocent later. I think they made a movie about that this year, but due to Covid it's been a long while since I've seen anything.
local papers are not always your best source of news in many areas, investigative television news is where its at and because there can be multiple of these in an area they tend to cover stories that printed media won't or don't always slant the same way.
The idea that news is only printed media long ago passed.
edit : the idea here is at the local level the source of news is flipped when compared to what is valuable at a national level.
Local news tend to be more fact driven and less opinion drivel in my experience. In a lot of big stories the local news can often be way better than any national coverage.
> In a lot of big stories the local news can often be way better than any national coverage.
2-3 media firms basically own local media, so we're really just talking about a few mega-corps, such as Sinclair.
> A 2019 study in the American Political Science Review found that "stations bought by Sinclair reduce coverage of local politics, increase national coverage and move the ideological tone of coverage in a conservative direction relative to other stations operating in the same market."
The article was also about the US news media, so it’s relevant. I think if you looked at other countries it’s actually very similar anyway. I mean even in the UK you’re far more likely to be exposed to the BBC’s coverage; through their site, their radio stations, their TV channels; than anyone else’s.
I think if you compare something like NBC News with your local NBC affiliate you’ll see it’s similar. Don’t equate national news media with just CNN and Fox News...
I find local news mind numbing. It’s the kind of “human interest” stuff that drives me insane, but is exactly what my mother loves... clearly I’m not their target audience.
For example, I had an argument with my mother a few years ago. Someone (probably drunk) drove into a tree on an empty rural road at 2am. While it’s obviously tragic that they died, I don’t find that to be “news”. News is something that has an impact on a group of people that is larger than a single family. My mother disagreed, she cared much more for the local news than the “depressing” stuff covered by news outlets like the NYT.
Well, it's kind of understandable isn't it? Everyone in pretty much every field has a notion that making it to a national stage/level of your work means something more meritorious than just being #1 in your little town, don't they? You don't just get to cover the Secretary of State's trade visit to Southeast Asia after graduating high school and working for the local paper, do you?
That is not to say that there's not absolutely good journalism done at the local level. And important journalism at that.
But to say that the average local journalism happening (at 5,000 local news outlets, say) will generally equal the level of national quality, is probably just not true. So the bias is not without foundation.
You get to the big leagues by doing a good job in your local level.
But it does not have to follow that there is not good work being done at the local level. Some people take that equally valid and societally important path, and it's important to point it out.
> You don't just get to cover the Secretary of State's trade visit to Southeast Asia after graduating high school and working for the local paper, do you?
Hmm, there's an idea... A recurring meme is local stringers and journalists resenting high-profile journalists who "parachute" in for an event, and spin something shallow and misleading that misses the real story, the context, all nuance, and a clue.
A high-school student say visiting family in Southeast Asia, with a local paper affiliation for press credentials, and with very different constraints and incentives than US national journalists, might actually do some exceptionally nice work.
Admittedly, when US national journalism struggles to even mention say the role of pharma's insistence on imposing US regulatory-captured industrial policy on China in kicking off the trade war, it's not a very high bar.
What's missing however, is socio-technical infrastructure to reward that student. And all the local or domain-expert journalists who might also contribute better content. The contrast in quality between say "popular tech press" arstechnica journalism by Eric Berger on rockets, and the front page of NYT convering the same stories is... not a happy thing. Hmm... now what community might be able to focus on creating such infrastructure...?
Perhaps on the flip side, real journalism is more valuable locally while sensationalism is more valuable nationally. People might care about facts at home, but they seem to prefer entertainment—e.g., some tantalizing story about some group they hate—on national news. Seems like it could go either way.
Do they prefer it, or does it simply work better because they can't check whether it's true? You could do sensationalist news locally as well, but everybody drives by the house you wrote "exploded" every day and they can see that it wasn't more than a burning trash can. That's different on the national level: almost all of the audience isn't where the story is, so they can't verify personally. That allows for much more sensationalism without being regarded fake. And more sensationalism = more viewers = more money, so there's an incentive to go there.
That seems plausible, but there have been lots of news stories where every major outlet published an absurd sensationalist story which was objectively refuted by the story's own sources. Even here on HN years later people subscribe to (and will die on the hill for) the trivially debunked sensationalist interpretation. Two examples that come to mind are the [Covington Catholic fiasco][0] and the [Google "Diversity Screed" memo][1].
Besides, it's my perception that the news has become more sensational, and I certainly don't think it's accurate to say that the jobs of fact checkers have become more difficult (except in the sense that their superiors hamper them in some manner on account of the profitability of sensationalism, which is essentially my point).
I personally think there's some merit in the notion that we live in a post-truth world. Both the media and the POTUS feel comfortable lying quite overtly as though they understand that the value of credibility is at an all-time low. Academics in critical theory fields deride objectivity as fundamentally racist and talk about "other ways of knowing". Maybe I'm wrong, but it feels like there's a sea-change in our values, especially as they relate to truth and integrity.
Local news is probably more likely to be relevant to peoples' lives. I don't know what I'm supposed to do with information about some politician's trip to Asia. Local stories are more likely to be actionable, in my life anyway. The local paper tells me about local matter that directly pertain to my life, like information about the city bus system changing their routes or rules for covid.
> Everyone in pretty much every field has a notion that making it to a national stage/level of your work means something more meritorious than just being #1 in your little town, don't they?
To be fair here, national level also implies a much larger target audience and therefore (usually) a larger reader/user pool. So this isn't totally out of the blue.
I don't know about that. If there are 5000 local news outlets and there are 50 national, then it's impossible that the national have correctly taken the cream and left the dregs. There are likely a greater number of local journalists just as good as the national journos --they just don't get the recognition and prestige or have the same vanity.
If national journos wrote stories anonymously, I doubt they would have the same inflated perception of themselves.
Disagree. National journalism is nowadays politically charged entertainment, sensationalism and fake news. Local journalism is more likely to be real news.
Local news seems to be inherently hard to do well. Small towns tend to have fewer resources and "everyone knows everyone," so you don't want to be controversial because if you are, you are stepping on the toes of people you actually know and/or people who can directly impact your life in some way.
People with a lot of talent tend to work for bigger publications because they pay better, so local organizations are often left with people who aren't all that good (edit: implicitly: This fact probably undermines credibility/reputation for local papers).
This is a problem for small towns for any serious profession, not just journalism. Small towns have trouble attracting good talent for any kind of job requiring "professional" skills because those same people can got to a larger city, apply to the same kind of job and get a better paycheck while living someplace most people typically feel is more desirable than a small town.
I sometimes wonder how to address such problems because I think this overall trend causes other problems that I think are very serious, but I don't know where to begin.
This article is not corroborated by my real-world media experience at all.
Local stories are simple. That makes them more reliable. If it's newsworthy, then national, followed by international journalists will pick up on it and it becomes something big.
I don't want to give unnecessary details but I've been the subject of news stories multiple times, which always started in my humble local media. One time it led to a massive career opportunity that benefited me for ten years. The other time, I got significant international media attention which hugely boosted a charitable donation drive.
Each time, journalists at the national level picked up my local story and landed me attention at that level. So, yeah...something's wrong with this study or at least how it's been communicated by NeimenLab.
Also, local journalism is important. Let's not undermine that bastion of independence, free speech, and resistance to political censorship, fake news, or media corruption, shall we?
If you find this frustrating I recommend finding a local news source that you trust and supporting it. Your money goes a lot further and will be more appreciated with local events. Be aware it's not always a paper per se. In San Diego the best local news is Voice of San Diego.[1] Which is afaik just a website and podcast.
For journalism, they absolutely are. Do you know where national news outlets typically recruit their journalists? From local news outlets. The nationals pick up the folks doing the best work. By definition this means the people left over aren't quite at the same level. I distinctly remember we had a local guy who was active in the Twitter meet-up group in my area around the same time I was (many years ago). He was just starting out as a journalist for a local paper. He was great - his articles were well written, easy to understand, and he was prolific in his writing. He was picked up by the NYT within a year or two while the people who were less of all the above stayed behind.
I'm a former news editor who went from a national, NYC-based publication to a metro newspaper in a small state.
It wasn't because my skills were lacking -- I was being recruited by other national publications in NYC -- but because my wife and I wanted to be closer to family, so our children would have an opportunity to see their grandparents regularly.
I found out that this sort of decision is common, and as a result, local papers tend to have a mix of:
- Talented up-and-comers, some of whom will end up at bigger-name publications. And that's great for people who want those illustrious jobs and also want the lifestyle that goes along with them.
- Wash-outs, who either tried and failed at bigger-name news outlets or knew their limits well enough to not even try.
- Downshifters, who previously worked at a bigger-name publication but decided that they didn't like the location or the lifestyle.
- People with deep roots, who could easily do well at bigger-name publications, but who love their local communities and have no desire to go anywhere else.
Yet if those same Journalists saw that same story they dismissed, suddenly trending upon social media - they would be all over it.
So in many ways, social media attention has become a sudo voting system for news items. Though equally, the news feeds into social media - so the potential for feed-back loops is not zero.
However, those who do social media are perhaps not the clearest insight into the public as a whole and how much weight upon that the various news outlets use will vary.
Sometimes that means their own paper. The Washington Post has at times seemed to want to be the Journal of Foreign Affairs, and to have scanted local coverage.
I wrote a few days ago about an event I had personal knowledge about:
> The local newspapers were the best. They didn't report false facts - they verified them. They had the most detail (continual coverage over months rather than random sensational headlines).
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24366381