(Untitled)

[talldean]

The entire northern half of Africa is basically in open revolt, demanding actual Democracy, and the evening news here doesn't even report on it? "Cats rescued from fire", "trucks speeding on a back road", and ten minutes of Julie Bologna explaining snow

Comments

[dabroots]

It's the sensationalism that bugs me, especially since little of it requires much work, but instead just showing up with a camera crew. I'd like to see some serious investigative journalism on a local level.

[koredono]

In Pittsburgh? Definitely yes, you're out of luck.

Or, why, I stopped watching the local news years ago (at least once I could get a decent forecast online), and quickly skim the online P-G to get what local news I need.

[_orz]

This might be a valid point in the pre-internet days when most people got their news from the local newspaper and six o'clock news. It's 2010, though, and the executives at the local news channels know damn well that anyone who is interested in this event ISN'T going to be tuning into KDKA expecting the latest news out of Egypt or Libya. The executives are very wisely sticking to their local news niche in order to remain relevant and profitable.

Frankly, I prefer it this way. I'd rather the local news spend their resources on reporting only local news than do a shitty job of trying to cover everything. Why would I watch the 11 o'clock local news for information about Libya when I can tune into the al-Jazeera livestream on Youtube at any time of the day?

[guitarstrings]

Psst...welcome to 2011 ;]

[herenowhere3]

local news is pointless. there's never any world news, it's just a round up of local criminals and half wits. hell, even if you're looking for the weather on tv, the 2 different weather channels are a better option. if you care about the minutia of the Steelers then local news is good for you, if you care about anything else you are out of luck.

[t3knomanser]

That is sort of the point of local news. It's not like KDKA is going to send correspondents halfway around the world, so they're going to run the same AP stories as everybody else. The only difference is going to be the face reading off the teleprompter.

[herenowhere3]

i get that local affiliates aren't going to have war correspondents but they could at least acknowledge major world events rather than reporting on Ben's morning bowel movements.

[t3knomanser]

Why bother? No one who tunes into local news tunes into it for world affairs. Between the cable networks, the Internet, and ignorance, they simply can't compete. The only reason to turn to the local network for news is because you want news that isn't going to be covered better, and in more depth, by a larger network.

Thirty years ago, when your local news station was the only news station, I'd agree with you. Today, I'd argue it's better for them to be specialized.

[ciara_belle]

Yes, you are out of luck. The local news knows they don't really have the resources or the time to do the local stuff that people who watch the local news really want AND do any sort of justice to the major international stories.

It wouldn't be too much to ask for decent investigative journalism of local issues on a more regular basis, but if you want international news, you're better off with the cable news stations or the internet.