
Journalists perceive stories published in local news outlets to be less worthy - hhs
https://www.niemanlab.org/2020/09/journalists-perceive-stories-published-in-local-news-outlets-to-be-less-newsworthy/
======
BeetleB
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).

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24366381](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24366381)

~~~
mschuster91
> 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.

~~~
BeetleB
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.

~~~
Natsu
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.

------
christkv
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.

~~~
inetknght
When I think of "local news", I think of this [0] video.

[0]:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZggCipbiHwE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZggCipbiHwE)

~~~
sudosysgen
I don't know why someone would downvote this. There has indeed been massive
consolidation of local media, and that is a good example.

------
supernova87a
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.

~~~
throwaway894345
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.

~~~
luckylion
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.

~~~
throwaway894345
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.

[0]: [https://reason.com/2019/01/20/covington-catholic-nathan-
phil...](https://reason.com/2019/01/20/covington-catholic-nathan-phillips-
video/) [1]: [https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/the-
mos...](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/the-most-common-
error-in-coverage-of-the-google-memo/536181/)

------
DoreenMichele
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.

------
mindfulhack
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?

------
arthurjj
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.

[1] [https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/](https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/)

------
pc86
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.

~~~
jawns
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.

------
Zenst
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.

------
cafard
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.

------
WarOnPrivacy
Charlie Reese was our county commissioner (lifetimes ago) and afterward he
wrote a local column for years (eventually syndicated by King).

That man went after everyone with equal ferocity; no favorites. He often tore
apart pols I supported & when he did, I paid attention.

I've never instinctively trusted another journalist, like I did him.

------
agustif
I for one, perceive stories published in mainstream media outlets to be less
trustworthy

------
pessimizer
That's because the goal of most journalists is to become close to the
powerful.

~~~
readred
Cover local kitten stories or wine and dine with celebrities?

