CAN SPORTS SACK LOCAL NEWS?

Since I've been working at CBS in New York City, several of our weekend local newscasts have been canceled - either Saturday at 6 pm or the Sunday 6:30 pm show - because a sporting event ran longer than expected. Sometimes, the game would feature teams cross-country from the Tri-State area, but the network would still commit to the final buzzer. That just shows you the overall power of sports in our society. A hard-working, deadline-driven, pressure-filled team of writers, editors, producers, reporters and anchors can create a 30-minute show down to the second, but a last-second, game-tying three-pointer at the end of regulation can completely erase someone else's purpose for going to work on a given day. Quite interesting.

Well, I spoke with former CBS Sports Senior Vice President of Production and Programming, Rick Gentile (pictured), to learn more about the local news business, how it's adapted to emerging electronic media technologies and its future in competition with sports television.

Mr. Gentile, who was previously a 10-time Emmy Award-winning sportscaster, headed CBS' coverage of the Winter Olympic Games from 1992 to '98 in Albertville, Lillehammer and Nagano. Currently, he is a sports management professor at Seton Hall University where he recently directed the Seton Hall Sports Poll, the first-ever university-based, ongoing polling service.

Q: What are your thoughts on the current state of local news in regards to quality and viewership?
A: I think local news has not changed all that much in quality over the years. It's obviously easier to get live feeds from the field and local stations have all increased the number of live-field reports. I find that true not just in the New York market, but in smaller markets as well. I have a house in Pennsylvania that receives Scranton local stations, and while the quality is not up to New York standards, they still feature multiple live or taped field reports throughout the show. I think viewership has probably not suffered as much as overall network viewership - too many choices, etc. But the landscape is extremely competitive, and even if viewership decreases, quality will continue to improve, especially technologically.

Q: What factors go into deciding whether a sporting event should extend into the local news time slot? Who makes those decisions?
A: The decision as to whether sports will run over into news time is made ultimately by the local station. It always has the ability to pull the plug on the network, but rarely does so to avoid incurring the wrath of the viewers. It's hard to justify cutting off the last few minutes of a close contest or even a blowout to go to local news. In the case of sports running into the network news, that decision is made jointly by the sports and news divisions of the network. Again, usually sports wins and stays on and the news broadcast is shortened or completely eliminated. That's not a big deal on the network level, but a local news show that is eliminated carries a significant cost factor. In some cases, with the PGA Tour and NFL for example, the networks are contractually committed to stay to the end of the event.

Q: Do networks see that 30-minute news window, which is a couple of times per day, as a blockade from adding more sports programming?
A: I do not believe the networks see the local news show as problematic. If an event needs to be scheduled past the news window, such as the Masters and the NCAA Tournament Selection Show, the network will notify stations well ahead of time. Networks are generally capable of scheduling comfortably, allowing for an off time of 6 pm on weekends except for the examples I mentioned before, such as the Masters. Runover is another issue as I discussed earlier.

Q: If networks add more sporting events to their programming, can local news see its demise? If not entirely, what about news during the weekend when most games are going on?
A: I do not see more sports programming on the networks affecting local news, and rarely does it impact weekday news broadcasts. The issue is almost exclusively a weekend issue except for those rare weekday sportscasts which are scheduled well in advance, so the stations know what's in store for them. Affiliated stations need that local news time for revenue purposes. They make more money on the 30 minutes of local news than on the local spots they would get in those corresponding 30 minutes of network sports. If the network sports divisions want the continued cooperation and clearance of local stations, they need to respect the financial needs of those stations. And local news is a big part of those financial needs.

Q: With the advent of streamline video, newscasts are transitioning into webcasts. Is this reason enough that networks can say, "There's a higher financial demand for sports television, so if you want to watch the news, turn to the Internet?"
A: But the problem is that there isn't necessarily more money in sports, certainly not for the local stations. Networks need cooperation from the stations; the majority of stations are not owned by the network. If the stations revolt and refuse to carry the network's sports programming, which raises all sorts of other issues, the networks will be hard-pressed to command the kind of advertising rates without the 100 percent clearance they're accustomed to. Those sports programs generally do not make money for the local stations. They add an audience that carries over into local programming, like news, that does make money. It's a symbiotic relationship, but there's a delicate balance that has to be maintained.

Q: Would you say the Dan Rather, Peter Jennings and Tom Brokaw era of news anchors is ancient now?
A: I think the days of the "Voice of God" anchor are probably coming to an end. The audiences for those shows have really eroded over time at a higher rate than general network programming. I think network news will continue to try to be more entertaining and start to resemble morning news shows more and more - more teases, more promotion, more women correspondents if not anchors, etc. The networks will try whatever it takes to get more people to watch. Obviously, simply presenting "hard news" as Dan Rather used to say isn't getting it done.

Q: Do young people, 18 to 34, really care about who's anchoring the news? Aren't they more attuned to sports TV personalities who nowadays act more like entertainers?
A: I don't think young people care whether Tom Brokaw or Bob Schieffer or whoever is anchoring the network news shows because I don't think young people are watching at all. If they are watching anything it's CNN and FOX News, but more likely they're going to the web for their news fix if they're going anywhere at all. I think, for the most part, the networks have given up trying to get young people to watch network news shows, or news magazine shows for that matter. They probably are more attuned to sports personalities - not necessarily TV sports personalities. I don't think they care if Jim Nantz or Bob Costas is hosting a show. It's the show or event that counts and has to be compelling. Very few on-air personalities can command an audience: John Madden to some extent in football, John McEnroe in tennis, maybe Dick Vitale in basketball and possibly Charles Barkley. For the most part, the game's the thing.

Q: Do you think the local news broadcast will change its format in the future? If so, how?
A: I think local news broadcasts are always changing to adapt to or try to attract new audiences. Graphics are always changing and music is becoming more and more a presence. That's not a new phenomenon. It's the constant mandate for local news to try to attract new audiences - attempts to hire younger, hipper anchors and more minority representatives depending on the market. But keep in mind that local news is not network news - two completely different animals.

Q: If 24-hour local news channels exist, such as New York 1, why do networks still compete with each other over their local news programs when they're essentially airing the same content?
A: Because there's money to be made in broadcasting local news. The costs are controllable to a great extent and it gives the local station an opportunity to brand itself in the community. For example, this past weekend the Scranton CBS station preempted all the network basketball games on Saturday to air the St. Patrick's Day Parade in Scranton from 1 to 4 pm. [The parade] is sold all the time and [the station] keeps all the money. Local news gives stations the opportunity to endear themselves to the local market. So yes, they all air the same stories, but they all try to give [their audiences] the personality of the station. There is often a combining of news shows - two or more stations in the same market might air the exact same news show - but each sells it separately. Local news is critical to local stations.

Q: Right now, the FCC restricts the number of hours per day and per week a station can air network programming. The only exceptions are long-running sporting events and major news events. Do you think these rules will change?
A: The FCC rules are always changing to some degree, but no, I don't think they will change too drastically. The point is to avoid monopoly of news distribution - allow for many voices in each community. In giving networks the right to own more stations representing a higher percentage of homes in the U.S., the FCC is already granting the networks more power over public opinion. If the only voice the viewer hears is the voice of Viacom or G.E. or Disney or FOX, we're all in trouble. That's why local stations are important bearers of information to the community. There are other FCC rules covering public service announcements, equal time and access to candidates prior to elections, obscenity issues, etc. Each network has a program practices division stocked with lawyers overseeing programming and issuing proclamations.

Q: If sports can't entirely take over local news, can reality shows be added to the equation, especially when you consider "American Idol" dominated the Winter Olympics in ratings?
A: I don't see reality shows cutting into local time any more than sports. "American Idol" beat the Olympics this time around. Maybe next time the Olympics beat "American Idol," but they lose to the next great sitcom or drama. Who knows? But the one thing I think will continue as long as the TV environment stays on the same course is that local news, and generally local programming, will continue to be a cash cow for the local stations. Many stations would rather run "Oprah," or "Jeopardy," or "Wheel of Fortune" than any network show.