• by George Simpson , Featured Contributor, May 10, 2018

A trade association representing the local broadcast television industry released a study that claims 80% of respondents agreed they trust news on local broadcast TV, 75% trust TV station websites, and only 28% trust news from social media.

Even in the fine print, there was no explanation of what is meant by "news from social media" — which runs the gamut from postings from traditional news organizations to drive readership to their stories, to endless discussions of the meanings underlying "This Is America," to the link-bait headlines at the bottom of nearly every cheesy website.

Neither did the study ask if viewers of Sinclair's owned-and-operated shared the same warm fuzzy feelings about their local stations.

I will leave the efficacy of a trade association reporting that their clients are most trustworthy to you and yours to debate. I have my own thoughts about local TV news.

A long time ago, somebody must have published a study that concluded audiences like multiple "anchors" who cross-talk, joke, finish each other's sentences and generally act like they had a hit or two of Molly an hour before the broadcast.

That study would conclude with some rules of engagement:

The weather cannot be presented without commentary from the main anchors, who are obligated to amusingly "blame" the weatherperson for it being too hot, too cold or whatever is falling from the skies in the next 24 hours.

The weatherperson cannot yield to his/her instinct to give them the finger and go on about business. He/she must respond with something hopeful like, "But you will love the weekend."

Bad news involving children cannot end without one or both of the anchors adding something obvious and redundant like "So tragic" — or the even less meaningful, "Our hearts go out to the family."

At least once a quarter, the sports reporter has to do something experiential, like catch a pitch from the local high school star or try to hit a foul shot from half court, deriving significant mirth from the missed shot.

Reporters on crime scenes are required to ask victim's relatives how they "feel" — as if the answer was not entirely self-evident from the tears and embraces from other relatives. Just once I would like someone to say, "Well, he was kind of an asshole, and we almost shot him ourselves a couple of times in the past month. He pretty much deserved what he got."

Before they turn on the camera, neighbors of newly discovered mass shooters must be handed the script that reads, "Well, he seemed perfectly normal. In fact, he walked his dog and said ‘hello’ all the time. We had NO idea."

No “holiday,” no matter how insignificant or unimportant, can pass without a stand-up from the scene of a celebration of some sort with an interview of someone outlining how the event is "not just about X, but really about all humanity." To which the anchors are obligated to agree back in the studio.

No animal will go un-taped. Cat in tree, dog in lake, snake in glass aquarium, matters not.  It runs.

Twice a year the male anchor is allowed to say something incredibly inappropriate about the female anchor, her clothes or a story that just ran, to which the appropriate response will be universal nervous laughter until the commercial cuts in.

I think the real reason people trust local news is that after they top-line the real news in the first minute or two, nothing of consequence is said or done for the balance of the show.

To which we exit all laughing affably.