- Beyond Addressable Advertising . . .
Despite some of the earlier declarations it seems quite obvious that ATSC 3.0 is not actually about providing 4K television content, because honestly there really isn’t any. Labeled as "NextGen TV," it appears to be a push to modify linear TV in a way which would effectively result in yet another customer data collection platform.
It's already baked into just about every other media based technology -and now it seems OTA station owners want a piece of the action. The new market is data. In this case, data gathered on audience members' viewing habits, location, gender, age, interests, income level, and social status, all of which can be leveraged to target campaigns.
A campaign may not necessarily be monetary but aimed at the selling of social ideas. This type of technology dominates every aspect of digital interaction. Over-the-air TV is one of the last technologies left untapped. We would love to say this tech is simply about "addressable advertising" and brand promotion to better serve customers, but data is the new currency, and it’s the viewers who are actually the product up for sale. The market for this type of intelligence is vast and ripe for abuse.
The sale of behavioral data, along with demographic, psychographic, and geographic information, can be aggregated and analyzed specifically to enable organizations to gain insight into group propensities, predispositions, and susceptibilities to specific campaigns, whether products, politics, or influence over social thought and interaction.
The Media Bubble . . .
In a recent Pew research survey, about 65 percent of the journalists surveyed thought that the media does a good job in covering important issues and reporting accurately. However, among the American public only 35 percent thinks so, a 30-point perception gap.
One of the biggest expectations the public has of journalist is that they are (will be) a proxy for the people. They will ask the questions and share the concerns of the viewers to which they report. This becomes nearly impossible given the lack of diversity in newsrooms, in terms of both demographic diversity and a diversity of perspectives. Demographic diversity refers to the composition of newsroom staff in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, age, and socioeconomic backgrounds. Journalists from diverse backgrounds often bring a deeper understanding of cultural nuances and sensitivities to their reporting.
The absence of representation has had major implications for audience engagement and the perceived relevance of the role of news in their lives. When the news media continually fails to address the concerns and interests of significant portions of the population, it impacts the broader perception of the free press as a vital institution of democracy. This is why it is becoming more and more important to differentiate between local and national news. Having a national news outlet speak through a locally owned affiliate does not accomplish that end. Physically being in the same city does not always guarantee a connection.
So, why do journalists believe they are performing better than the statistics suggest? One reason may be their professional training; journalists operate within a framework of standards, practices and procedures. News quality is assessed using criteria that differs greatly from that of the general public. Media coverage is commonly evaluated from an industry perspective, focusing on established bureau or agency protocols. There are also media economics, at the end of the day the overwhelming majority of journalism jobs are in corporate newsrooms. As a necessity of corporate competitiveness, there may be a tendency to prioritize stories thought to draw the largest viewership or to rush to be the first to break a story or to garner academy prestige. This of course means little to an audience focused on personal impact issues and in large part may account for the growing disconnect between the perceived value of what's being reported.
It’s important to be aware that people are not simply looking for information, they are looking for help. The journalistic community may be unaware that the population's perspective of reporting is to uncover helpful information that will make a positive impact in their lives. And with that, they feel let down.
The Netflix Archetype . . .
There are unexplored possibilities that could transform the way local news and information is deliver and consumed. One of the most promising prospects could be the emergence of delivery models that draw inspiration from the success of streaming services like Netflix.
Community news and information delivery could incorporate the same key features that have made streaming platforms so immensely popular.
Imagine a platform where news is available in a fashion similar to the way streaming services operate. Viewers could gain access to a wide range of local community content, including in-depth reporting, geographically exclusive interviews, as well as local events and resources. Much like binge-watching a TV series viewers could deep dive into issues that interest them most, exploring subjects at their own pace. This on-demand approach to information delivery has the potential to cater to individual preferences and schedules. It eliminates the need to adhere to linear broadcast schedules or the distractions, re-directions and mis-information associated with online searches. Instead, the viewership can explore a pooled source of information programing to find the issues most relevant to them. Available researched reporting much like choosing shows on any streaming platform.
The concept of local independent original news programming could begin to gain prominence over national corporately owned local affiliates. Streaming platforms have shown that producing original specialized content can be a compelling draw for viewers. With the proper infrastructure in place it would become more practical to invest in creating exclusive content, such as investigative reports, in-depth features, and documentaries, to entice viewers.
Personalization is another element that could shape the future of news delivery. Streaming services excel at recommending content based on a viewer's past preferences and selections. Local platforms could tailor recommendations viewer interests, ensuring that they receive more nuanced information on issues that resonate with them.
Streaming and on demand media has now become commonplace in consumer culture, making it quite practical to envision a Netflix like model for geographically based news content. Digital technologies continue to create new opportunities for innovative approaches to news consumption. Adopting that technology to cater to the specific preferences of local audiences should be the next logical step in evolution.
Low-Power Stations May Be A High-Power Resource For Local Reporting . . .
Low-power television (LPTV) stations are an FCC classification of television broadcasting stations that operate with a relatively limited transmitter output. A Class A license provides certain broadcast rights, including primary status with respect to its spectrum allocation. These stations are intend to serve small micro-markets, making them ideal for providing localized niche programming to specific communities.
Unlike full-power stations, LPTV stations have a shorter geographic broadcast range, which means they can only reach viewers within close proximity of their transmission towers. This more narrow coverage area is well-suited for independent journalist wishing to speak to certain audiences, such as those in rural areas, information deserts or specific zones within a larger metropolitan area.
Low Power stations are poised to offer programming that caters to local interests, including news, community events, culture content, and programming in languages other than English. They may also carry syndicated or independently produced shows that appeal to niche audiences. When evaluating LPTV as a sustainable economic model, it's important to note that on average most people shop within 10 to 15 miles of their homes. This makes advertising partnerships between these stations and local area businesses an ideal combination. In the past, this role was served by longstanding community newspapers.
Another advantage of LPTV stations is their cost-effectiveness. Because they have lower operating costs than full-power stations, they are frequently used by faith based organizations as well as city and county governments to provide community-centric content to residence absence the financial and regulatory burdens associated with larger broadcast operations. This could prove particularly beneficial to under-served communities.
Not to be confused with Diginets, (digital multicast networks). Diginets are networks that operate as sub-channels of full-power television stations. When this broadcast spectrum was initially introduced it was our hope that it would result in increased local programming. However, it is now typically relegated to old studio catalogue content, reruns of TV series, old movies, and game shows which are much cheaper to acquire than developing new programming. As subchannels of full-power stations, Diginets are subject to the same regulatory framework that apply to full-power television stations.
LPTV stations, however, are subject to less stringent FCC rules and licensing requirements, operating under 150 kW of power on Channels 14 through 36, or 3 kW on Channels 2 through 13. We believe Low-Power Stations could represent a considerable resource for independent community base news organizations. Quality of life programming in collaboration with local businesses may possibly fill some of the gaps resulting from the decline of community oriented newspapers and the corporate acquisitions of local station affiliates.
When Misinformation Becomes A Voting Bloc . . .
The increasing prevalence in the deployment of misinformation think tanks, particularly in the digital space, represents a new and dangerous development in information warfare. These unofficial privately funded organizations operate with the intent of influencing public opinion, policy decisions, and societal beliefs by developing and promoting specious ideologies. Their origins and affiliations vary, most often being associated with special interest groups, corporate concerns, political actors, and nation-states.
Their objectives typically revolve around advancing particular agendas, propagating specific viewpoints, or undermining perceived adversaries. Misinformation think tanks employ a wide range of tactics to spread disinformation, including the creation and dissemination of divisive narratives, the production of fake news stories, along with the misrepresentation of facts, events, statements and statistics. They are super adept at leveraging the power of social media, online forums, and other digital platforms to rapidly promulgate their content.
One of the primary objectives is to manipulate public perception, creating doubt and confusion that makes it difficult for the public to distinguish fact from fiction. This manipulation can serve a variety of purposes, such as achieving political power, adversarial destabilization, economic profit, or simply furthering currently on-going disinformation warfare efforts. Misinformation think tanks often exploit socially fractious issues and crises to amplify their messages. This is why events like elections, natural disasters, or public health emergencies seem to provide such fertile ground.
To be effective, misinformation must first rely on the discrediting of trustworthy sources of information. This strategy is at the core of deceptive power. The decline of trust in established reliable information sources creates an incubator where the false and misleading can flourish. This process involves the use of various tactics to undermine traditionally respected institutions, such as reputable news outlets, scientific organizations, and government agencies. Such sources are reframed as biased or motivated by hidden agendas, tapping into existing cynicism and disillusionment. It leverages fear, anxiety and sensationalism to trigger emotional reactions that cloud rational judgment, making it easier to cast doubt on any truth.
One of the most troubling trends for modern democracies around the world is misinformation which ultimately evolves into voting blocs, where the deliberate spread of deceptive narratives coalesces individuals into voting groups driven by shared but erroneous beliefs. The consequences have proven to be far-reaching, paving the way for the erosion of public trust in the media, the election of candidates with dubious motives, exacerbation of social divisions, and the undermining of the very foundations of democratic decision-making. Local journalists are tasked with the challenge of developing resilient media literate communities capable of resisting the divisive influence of misinformation.
Self Defense in a Predator Friendly Economy . . .
A free-market economy has been celebrated for its emphasis on ingenuity and innovation with minimal government intervention. At the outset, it thrives on the principles of competition and entrepreneurship. The belief is that when businesses are free to compete, innovation flourishes and prices are determined by market forces. In theory, efficiency and customer value will become the primary drivers of revenue growth.
But overtime the concentration of extreme economic power in the hands of a few dominant players inevitably leads to oligopolistic and monopolistic conditions. Once the restrictions of competitive norms have been disrupted, this now powerful class is free to succumb to the temptation to exploit their market dominance by engaging in predatory practices, stifling competition and distorting the once level playing field initially responsible for their own success.
1st up, regulatory capture. The exertion of undue influence over regulatory frameworks intended to safeguard fair competition and protect the interests of consumers, gives way to lobbying and manipulation tactics of influential players. The continued attrition of regulatory oversight provides opportunity for predatory behavior to thrive, unchecked by the safeguards that would otherwise be in place.
Next on the to do list, silencing media through acquisition. This provides masterful tools in controlling the dissemination of information and manipulating public perception. When major media outlets are acquired, the acquiring entities gain significant control over what stories are covered, how they are presented, and which issues are even allowed attention. Controlling the flow of information offers a form of inoculation from public backlash by shaping public opinion or the simple omission of pertinent facts.
Open season, the manipulation of markets and essential commodities such as housing, healthcare, food, education, etc. begin to take its toll on social stability. As a substantial portion of the population grapples with financial hardships, their capacity for meaningful political engagement diminishes. Giving further opportunity for corporate and special interest to leverage its considerable economic influence over legislative policies and priorities, perpetuating a cycle that deepens the chasm between the privileged and average citizens.
Historically various forms of media have remained compartmentalized, with news, entertainment, publishing, digital etc. existing in distinct silos. It may be time to break down these barriers and consider cross platform collaboration for a more comprehensive approach to positive cultural content creation. Independent media of all types banning together to create an entire media literate ecosystem designed to counter sources of mis, dis and duplicitous information. Pioneering alternative content that encourages honest critical thought with news and entertainment programs that promote truth and integrity may in fact be our last available defense.
TV News: Just Collateral Damage ...
The decline of linear TV, is often seen as a result of the inevitable march of technology, but this only tells part of the story. In reality, a significant factor of the decline is the way in which the industry is being managed, with leadership focusing on short-term financial gains at the expense of sustainability. Sure, the fact that streaming platforms are changing consumer viewing habits by offering more tailored content and viewing flexibility isn’t helping.
Nevertheless, decisions made by corporate management—often driven by private equity-like behavior—have compounded these challenges, accelerating the decline.
One of the key signs of this financially driven behavior is the focus on cutting costs, particularly in content creation and talent layoffs, to maximize short-term profits. Traditional television companies have increasingly slashed budgets for original programming, which has led to a degradation in the quality of content. At the same time, higher management salaries and stock buybacks are prioritized, leaving less room for investment in innovation or future growth strategies. This approach mirrors the behavior of private equity firms, which typically aim to extract as much value as possible from their acquisitions in a short period, routinely at the cost of long-term viability.
Television news has arguably suffered the most as a result of these trends. Once a trusted pillar of broadcast television, TV news is now facing dwindling audiences and budget cuts that have severely impacted its reach and quality. The newsrooms of many major networks are shrinking, with investigative journalism being among the first casualties. Without adequate funding, the integrity and depth of news reporting are eroding, and as digital competitors like YouTube and social media capture more market share, news organizations are caught in a downward spiral. What was once seen as a public service has now been commodified and downsized, leaving traditional TV news as collateral damage in the broader decline of linear TV.
In addition to shrinking audiences and decreasing ad revenues, linear TV faces significant challenges in monetizing digital content. Many traditional broadcasters have been slow to adapt to the streaming model, and those that have entered the digital space often do so with outdated strategies or fragmented services. As a result, they will continue to lose ground to digitally native projects designed to thrive in the digital age. This managerial failure to evolve in a rapidly changing market will only hastened the demise of linear TV, with management choices proving just as damaging as the technological shifts driving audience behavior.