Local TV news has driven viewers - all viewers, it seems - away, with its nonsense crammed between automobile and male enhancement ads. Sports? Why wait for the sports news when you can get better and faster coverage on dedicated sports channels and the internet. The weather? Sites like weather.com, or the weather channel do it better. Why *would* anyone watch local TV news?

LAMBERT: But for the moment they're still making money -- and a lot more of it than "weird ass" web sites.

The share numbers are important, but is there an indication whether the pie is shrinking. For example, is it possible to go from a 16 share to a 17 share and actually LOSE audience? In other words, are both numbers related to the same total audience size? Are more or fewer people watching local news?

LAMBERT: Tune in for part 2.

Part II? OMG.

LAMBERT: Which was better "The Godfather" or " The Godfather, Part II"?

How about some even worse news for these stations? Head over to siteanalytics.compete.com and check out the number of people visiting the station Web sites Feb. '07 to Feb. '08:

wcco.com -8.4%
kare11.com -11.6%
kstp.com -15.6%
myfoxtwincities.com -4.4%

Run the same numbers on newspapers:

twincities.com -26.4% (!)
startribune.com +11.8%

To me, there is more behind these numbers than appears on the surface -- some of it outside the control of the stations/newspapers -- however, particularly for the TV stations, they tell me that those stations are simply not giving the community what they want and how they want it.

It's also too early for me to tell if this seismic shift away from traditional media is permanent, or if viewers and readers (currently called users online) are checking out new ways of getting news and some will start trickling back soon.

Either way, the current model certainly seems busted and tentative half steps aren't going to work. These organizations need to start scouring for experienced and proven online publishers, bring them on board and *listen to them.*

LAMBERT: All of these places claim to see the importance of an aggressive on-line presence. But what society are they appealing too? The society of 2008 or 1988? Somewhere in here lurks another variation of the "knucklehead" issue, the crowd that has to be entertained while it's getting its information, or only wants to hear what it wants to hear. But my point ... and yours, it seems ... is that the breakdown extends beyond newspapers.

[sigh] I'm gonna say this again another way...

The area TV channels and newspapers (don't get me started on radio) seem to think that Minneapolis-St. Paul "edutainment" is the center and bedrock of the Minnesota news universe. For some people in this state, it ain't all that.

I get more information from international and national cable news channels and web sites and absolutely local channels and web sites. And, since I've been Twittering, I've been able to get feeds from diverse locations as well as localized news sources (like MinnPost) and I'm appreciating them more and more.

Money Public Radio, by the way, has "covered" Twitter, but doesn't deign to have a feed even though the big boys do (BBC, CNN, NPR, the Strib). Even Minnesota Monitor has a stream, although it hasn't been updated since 3/19. (Are you listening, MnMonitor?) Heck, even WCCO's Twitter is following MnMonitor's!

The days of "individual journalism" are fast approaching - both for good and ill - allowing readers more diversity and, at the same time, more pointed localism and parochialism. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Yep, I'm in one of the coveted viewer cohorts sampled above - and I'm watching Jon Stewart at 10 p.m. Oh, snap!

LAMBERT: Am I disagreeing with you? I don't think so. There is a point where the governing ethos of the broadcast entity has to separate the on-line "products" and let them appeal to their own unique audience, which with news organizations I think is a much more active, avid consumer of both information and analysis/commentary. The "old school" managers are extremely reluctant to loose those reins because of legal issues (giant corporation name, libel, etc.) as well as a lack of personal affinity for that style of the game.

"Knuckleheads" is a rather subjective estimation.

It is also a judgement that smacks of liberal elitism, the rejection of which has turned the media order on it's ear, as you seem to be fixated on.

What a delicious and delightful conundrum for "media columnist".

Got to run, I'm "under sniper fire"!

LAMBERT: You're quick, aren't you?

What about that other demographic that you omitted? WCCO seems to believe that the "Roundup" user is vital to their ratings.
Or are those ads just fill for the decline in other segments?

On another topic, Michele Bachmann's "Light Bulb Bill" deserves its own entry on your blog. She actually said that the government was taking away our freedom of choice by eliminating incandescent bulbs. Could there be anything better to make a pundit salivate? Do you suppose that Al Franken, the satirist, would be having a field day with this if he was not running for office?

LAMBERT: All the stations have a certain "out state" audience that the "Roundups" want to reach. But as things are they'll sell time for DelRay Bloddo's Used Yugo Lot if he pays cash. And yes, Ms. Bachmann. She just keeps giving. Almost as good as Ventura.

All the stations/newspapers are living in the past and -- like Hillary Clinton and the presidency -- assuming they are entitled to own the future of media ... and are sorely mistaken.

LAMBERT: There are a number of stark parallels between traditional Democrats and traditional media.

Are you still a card carrying "Media Jackal"?

LAMBERT: Damn right I am. And I'm never happier than when I see a big fresh steamy heap of political roadkill.

Are you going to be allowed back in the Hubbard building after posting this?

LAMBERT: I think the Hubbards saw these numbers before I did.

The "old school managers" have existed since time immemorial. Those who "control" the flow of information often seem to have the most power and influence (and $$s), which they are loathe to lose. But these can, and most certainly will be, wrested from them eventually.

A clear example on which I daresay Montevideo Catholics and Benson Lutherans would agree is the Age of Schism. Commonly called the Reformation. it is a prime example of the what happens when there is a seismic shift in control.

Prior to this time the control of literacy, economics and salvation, to name just a few, was in the hands of the Pope and the clergy, who could read and write Latin. (It *is* a handy skill...) Then along come German bumpkins Johannes Gutenberg with the printing press and Martin Luther with seditious, blasphemous ideas for the common man and - bingo! - western civilization is altered forever.

Another example would be the story of the American Revolution.

Moral of the story? Every time there is a major shift in communication technology, we see a major shift in the dissemination of knowledge/news, giving more "power" to those who can quickly utilize the technology most effectively and a loss of power, earning potential and influence for the old guard.

What we're seeing with the microjournalism of new media technologies like Twitter, YouTube, iTunes, podcasts, etc., coupled with social networking and related tipping points, are major shifts from the traditional MSM when it comes to what is deemed newsworthy and how this is determined, reported and received.

It's likely that more voices will be heard in our generation than in all the generations previous. That's both frightening and exciting.

Maybe I'm just preaching to the choir, but I think it's fascinating, all the same.

LAMBERT: We're in agreement. But I think the "old school" crowd of today is getting flattened at a faster rate than say their predecessors of the late '80s, people whose salad days were the Sixties. Nothing is going to remain unchanged for five years anymore, much less 20 or 30.

"Old media world splintering".

Ho-hum.

Given the share issues revealed above, maybe you can expound on why only 53% of the homes in this market have cable?

And what the people meters will reveal at this time next year?

Oops, got to get going, leaving for Houston to see the Rev. Wright's standing ovation.

LAMBERT: I'm checking on that cable penetration number.

Uh, seems to me the Hubs are actually winning viewers.

Less fluff and happy talk = good.

So does sultry brunette weather bunny.

LAMBERT: TV news was made for you.

I assure you, the 53% market penetration number here is still the "big secret" in the TV world.

Unless you are selling the local affiliate stations. They know very well.

Any advertiser has to realize that when he buys cable, he instantly starts with just 53% of the market here.

Call your old pal Donna Azarian. They beached her, though. Lives in EP.

LAMBERT: My always reliable source says the number is 54.2% as of this February. That's much lower than I thought ... which means ... oh, Christ help me ... you were within 1.2% of being correct about something. That's a factor of 100 better than you usually do. But I gotta tip my hat.

As long as your digging up cable statistics for dear little bertram, jr, it would be a good idea to include the percentage of households with satellite TV and how many *don't have access* to cable/satellite. And then start to break down those figures by urban, suburban and rural.

Of those that don't have access, we probably can't determine how many of those are without because of 1) unavailability of the technology (many rural homes can't get cable), 2) economics (can't afford cable or, in the case of rural, satellite may be prohibitive) or 3) just plain don't want it.

I've got many contacts who are still trying to access the Internet on 19k dial-up. Ugh. No YouTube videos or streaming podcasts there. And what happens in 2009 when digital TV becomes the "standard" and plenty of folks are screwed with the perfectly fine TV sets they had?

Or am I getting ahead of the game, Lambert? Sorry...

By the way, I get a kick out of the speed with which things happen now. My immigrant grandparents would be floored - and they were "early adopters" of the technology of their day. (It runs in the family...)

LAMBERT: The Feb. 2009 transition is no serious obstacle, other than for the utter Luddites and technically illiterate who can't plug in an adapter. (They'll give them away, eventually.) But broadband speed is a favorite issue of mine. Someday the U.S. might catch up with Korea and Japan. But that is a long ways off.

Closed circuit to Tuned Out In Washington (County, no doubt):

When knowledgeable people, and Lambert, discuss TV ratings matters , they do so regarding the DMA, which is mostly defined as the 7 "money" countiea in the metropolitan area, although there are 13 counties in the DMA.

So you whining about "don't have access" is just, well, silly. Anyone can put up a dish (25.3% of homes in DMA are SAT homes), most can get the cable into the house.

So, that means 79% of the DMA can actually get "Rock of Love ". However, local advertisers can NOT buy SAT ad time unless it's done so via the network itself (FSN for example) or the local network affiliates.

It's really all about "how" people are using television, not "how many" are using television.

That's the game.

Try to keep up.

LAMBERT: Mmmmmm. Let's ask a couple GMs and buyers for Denny Hecker if they're more interested in the "how" than the "how many".

OMG! This is bad news for all of the PR flacks/media pitchmen who make a living feeding stories to reporters. With newspapers running more and more wire stories and more and more "really, really local" stories, we hardly ever get a client mentioned in print anymore. TV is what pays our bills.

If no one's watching, who will hire us to pitch?

Make me want to by a resort somewhere hot.

LAMBERT: At the current rate some shrewd MBA/news executive will see the "enhanced shareholder value" in having the PR kids write the newspapers and report the TV news.

Why don't you and your poor man's Dale Carnegie get a room at a Best Western and hold your sales seminar there. Zzzzzzzzzzzz.

LAMBERT: Uh oh. I'm falling beyond on my Gary Eichten quota.

A fundamental flaw in little bertramjr's comments is that he begins by assuming that my concerns about access are based in my self-interest or personal lack of access (based on my choice of nom de plume?). They're not.

I will refrain - well, no I won't - from inserting a comment here about how bertramjr's faulty logic generally reflects on as basic differences between conservative and moderate/liberal political focii. It's not about *you*, dude, it's about *everyone else*.

"Anyone can put up a dish" (or link to cable) is, simply, not true nor factual. DMA is not the only area to consider anymore in the ratings or ad games. As for "how many" relates to "how", just wait until the rating systems change to a more inclusive - and therefore more accurate - pool of viewers and their habits. Then you'll really see some interesting shifts in the ad game.

I wonder if anyone has considered what might happen if all homes had the choices and access that satellite/cable homes now have? Well, it might mean that people with bertramjr's world view might actually be challenged or - gasp! - changed by what they might see with a wider variety of channels. (They can always turn to Fox9 HD when they need a "fix".) A prime example? Look at what's happening in China as Internet access increases.

By the way, it's my anecdotal experience that the majority of those who don't have TVs are those who *choose* not to have them - and who get their news from other sources.

As for the 2009 switch, I think it's worth being concerned about the Luddites - and others. One survey said that 74% of those polled misunderstood how the transition will work and that 36% knew nothing at all about the switch. The only stations I see proactively educating/preparing their viewers for this are public television.

So bertramjr may be looking behind him to laugh at a lack of progress or understanding, but he's clearly looking in the wrong direction. Some folks don't need to "keep up" 'cause they're already out front.

I was *so* tempted to get snarky with little bertramjr here -- but then I remembered that one is always limited by the quality of the material with which one is trying to work. (His, obviously, not mine.) One must, apparently, be patient and long-suffering.

My admiration for you, Lambert, grows.

LAMBERT: The echo chamber "view", clouded though it is, is anchored into the bedrock of self-interest. It favors whatever makes it (more) comfortable, usually in a zero sum way. As for "little" bertram, he is what I think of as an invaluable object lesson/reminder.