Surveys tell us that local television is the number one source of news for most Americans, and that two-thirds of those surveyed rate its quality as excellent or good.¹ But local television news is not as popular as it once was. It's beginning to lose its audience. In many markets across the country, more than half the people watching television at the traditional early evening news time are watching something other than news.

In the past three years, according to the Pew Center for the People and the Press, the number of people who call themselves regular viewers of local television news has declined by 11%. In 1995, almost three-quarters of those surveyed (72%) said they watched the local news regularly. In 1998, fewer than two-thirds (64%) fell into the category of regular viewers.²

Data collected for a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism found a similar decline. Over a three-year period, the combined viewership of local news was down in almost three-quarters of the markets studied--in some cases by as much as 20 percent.³ Why? What's turning people away from local television news?

The conventional wisdom is that it's all about lifestyles. People are too busy, not at home, or asleep when the news comes on. Indeed, fully half the respondents to a 1996 survey by the Pew Center said they had no time to watch local television news. But a substantial minority--29%--were either critical of the coverage or said they had no interest in it.⁴

NewsLab wanted to know more about this growing group of non-viewers. Working with Professor Walter Gantz at Indiana University, we helped to design a pilot study--a survey of adults in the Indianapolis area.⁵ A review of Nielsen Media Research ratings data for the three network affiliates and the Fox affiliate in Indianapolis indicates that the market mirrors the trend in many other markets--over the past five years, the Indianapolis audience for local news has been slowly trending downward.⁶ Despite the limited reach of the study, we believe the findings are intriguing.

Over half the respondents (58%) said they watched the local news "regularly," at least several nights a week. When we asked those who said they only watch the news "sometimes" why they didn't watch more often, the most common answer--as expected--was lack of time (45%). But a substantial minority (23%) mentioned content as a reason for not watching. More than half of those respondents specifically mentioned annoyance with content laced with violence, sex and scandals.

We also found an interesting split in the audience. About a third of our sample said they watch the news more often now than a few years ago, and a similar number, about a third, said they watch less often. What's the difference between those two groups? Well, people who watch less are not more apathetic. In fact, they are less likely than frequent viewers to say they don't pay much attention to local events. And people who watch less local news are no busier than anyone else. In fact, they are somewhat less likely to say they don't have time to watch.

Instead, we found that people who have cut back on local television news were much more likely to say they get their local news from other sources. They were also more likely to say the news is too shallow, and that the newscasters are uninformed. And there are indications that people who watch less may be turned off by the promos for the news.

The two groups don't differ greatly in some areas where they might be expected to. They are about equally likely to criticize crime coverage and to say the news is boring. But people who said they had cut down their viewing of local news were less interested in specific kinds of content they're likely to see on the news: the weather, accidents, crime, education and high school sports. Interestingly, frequent viewers also said they didn't care much about two of those topics: accidents and high school sports.

This study is too limited for us to draw any firm conclusions. The sample size was small, and the respondents tended to be more female, older, more educated and more affluent than the Indianapolis population as a whole.