If Channel 4 were a horse, it would be shot. The Project for Excellence in Journalism has released a study concluding that WSMV-Channel 4’s newscast is among the worst of the 53 stations it surveyed and “by far the worst in Nashville.” The study, funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts, slapped the station with a grade of “D,” marking yet another public setback in what has been a humiliating year for the tradition-rich Channel 4.
Over the last 12 months, WSMV has endured slumping ratings, high-profile staff defections and a series of devastating stories in the Nashville City Paper chronicling the station’s use of a “Time Machine” device to shrink prime time broadcasts and squeeze in more advertising.
Channel 4 news director Mark Shafer admits that the station has gone through a challenging period, but he insists his outfit is starting to click.
“While I respect the opinion of the people at the Pew Center and think they are fine folks, I respect the people of Middle Tennessee more,” he says. “I think we have a great television station here and have a really good product that people are responding to right now.”
Although it’s early in the November sweeps, Channel 4 has a slim lead in the 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. newscasts for the first time in nearly a year. Those were time slots that Channel 4 used to dominate without breaking a sweat. The station is losing, however, to its rivals for the morning, midday and 10 p.m. newscasts. During the critical May sweeps, Channel 4 lost to Channel 5 in every time slot. Critics have claimed that management’s recent emphasis on short, fast-paced news is not only ratings cancer, it’s bad journalism.
“I assume there are going to be many changes at Channel 4,” says Robert Spires, chairman of the Department of Electronic Media Communication at MTSU, who says the station’s grade may be too harsh. “They are going to look at this and say, wait, we don’t want to be graded with a 'D.’ ”
Meanwhile, Channel 4’s two main rivals, which once barely even registered on the station’s competitive radar, garnered impressive scores from the Washington, D.C.-based think tank. In fact, top rival WTVF-Channel 5 landed an “A,” finishing 11th overall. The study concluded that Channel 5 “had the most stories focusing on public malfeasance, the most mix of opinions in the market and strong enterprise reporting.”
“I think this clearly said to my staff that they are doing quality journalism,” Channel 5 news director Mike Cutler says.
In the study, researchers for the Project for Excellence in Journalism, which is loosely affiliated with the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, reviewed two weeks of newscasts—March 4-8 and April 29-May 3—the latter period representing the start of May sweeps. (That’s also when Channel 5’s Phil Williams began airing his series on Davidson County Clerk Bill Covington and his beer-fetching employee.) Because the study only reviewed 10 p.m. newscasts, WZTV-Fox 17 wasn’t included.
The Project’s extensive survey evaluates each station according to several journalistic standards, including the local relevance of stories, the depth of stories, original reporting and the number of sources typically interviewed per story.
In addition to Channel 5, WKRN-Channel 2 scored well in the survey, receiving a “B” and surpassing several larger stations in Chicago, Houston and New York. According to the study, Channel 2’s stories “had the most local relevance and the fewest national stories without an angle.” WKRN, an ABC affiliate, typically finds its newscasts a distant third in the ratings behind Channels 4 and 5, dragged down in no small part by the low ratings of ABC’s prime time shows.
“Because we’re generally third in the ratings, people may think we’re the third station in the market,” says Channel 2 reporter Jay Korff, “but day in and day out, we hold our own and sometimes do better than anyone.”
The study’s critique of Channel 4 was particularly strong, detailing a laundry list of journalistic transgressions. “The station has the most stories from feeds or other wire sources and aired the most national stories with no connection to the local audience,” the report reads. “It had the most stories sourced anonymously or using only passing references, the fewest stories featuring a mix of opinions, and was the least likely to air stories featuring expert sources. Many of WSMV’s stories had no sources at all.”
Channel 4’s Shafer says that the report’s disdain for shorter stories is misplaced. “There’s no secret that we’re airing more stories, which in some cases means shorter stories. But that means that we’re getting into a lot more neighborhood and more hometowns than our competitors are, and we’re proud of that.”
Although the report gives sterling reviews to Channels 2 and 5, it doesn’t give them a free pass. Channel 2 is criticized for too many crime stories and “no stories focused on public malfeasance or significant trends in the news.” Still, Channel 2 is perhaps the most consistent and reliable station in the market. To use an industry phrase, it needs to air more “appointment television”—news stories that viewers arrange their schedules to catch.
Meanwhile, the report makes note of Channel 5’s fascination with “pop culture.” The station corroborated that criticism this week airing a news series called Tennessee CSI, a blatant sweeps ploy based on the popular forensics drama that just happens to run on Channel 5.
But while Channel 5 can overstep the bounds of sensible journalism, it also shows an admirable dedication to hard news. Last August, in the wake of a series of reports from Phil Williams investigating state contracts given to Gov. Don Sundquist’s friends, the governor’s office pulled $160,000 in highway safety ads from the station. In many mid-market stations, that might have made Williams a pariah among the money people. Not at Channel 5. “I ran into the general manager in the parking lot that day, and she told me to keep doing what I do,” Williams recalls. “That was an outstanding example of the kind of support I get.”
