The article is a slightly edited transcript of what aired in the TV package and appeared in the teleprompter, which is the only strategy most local newsrooms can afford to do. Write once, publish twice. It’s not print journalism, it’s copy intended to hook television viewing interest, and that style does work.

If local news quality bothers you, be more bothered that the person who did the translation almost certainly pulls minimum wage, while the slightly more notable person reading the same thing negotiated a significant contract. I used to write these for $9.50/hour in 2005, for a producer pulling about $13, while the anchor reading them and doing approximately nothing else was arguing over $5 million in their renewal. And the gutting of local hadn’t even started yet. Now most shops can’t even afford photographers and have their reporters shoot their own stories, probably close to minimum wage themselves if they’re fresh from J school.

You think you’re going to get Peter Baker quality reporting in that scenario? You think that newsroom is empowered to develop source relationships and produce reporting that effects social change? They’re covering a shipping overcharge in an investigative feature, for crying out loud. The stylistic technique is far from why local news is ridiculous, and that’s a very shallow assessment.

There’s a clear path to fixing local news but the market won’t permit it, on account of it being a market, not to mention the whole battalion of news directors terrified of change and wondering why their 1994 Eyewitness News rundowns don’t work any more, all the while sweating about how much more the only marketable face is going to ask for when the next book comes out. A lot of it is self-inflicted, but a lot isn’t. But don’t worry, it’ll die. The aforementioned anchor reminded me of this when I was reconsidering the industry again. He now does real estate and begged me not to go back.