What I did detect, was that the smaller the local affiliate's population coverage, the better their output was.
This is my experience as well. Many small market stations do a good job providing their communities relevant issue-oriented news, while many large-market stations fill their airtime with crime, fires, and the like.
Small market stations do plenty of crime, too. It's just that there's less crime happening in those places, so more of those newscasts end up being filled with regional and national content pulled from news wires. Where local TV news shines (regardless of market size) is when major stories happen that have a big impact on the community. That shooting in Oregon last month? National and international media came in, rented every hotel room for miles, dusted off the script from the last shooting, filled in the blanks, and packed up for the next disaster 48 hours later. Local outlets are there for weeks to cover how the loss of nine people impacts everyone in a town of a few thousand and can hopefully connect deeper to law enforcement in order to give a community story the depth it deserves.
It's a well edited montage then, because it gives a pretty good impression of the actual programme.
Essentially, the first hour is almost 100% hard news. Today and GMA will have had a fair bit of fluff by quarter past seven. Then, in the second hour CBS This Morning will lighten up a bit too - but I've found that even when they're discussing "non-news" topics, their discussions are far more in-depth and informed than their competitors. They've got Charlie Rose who is an incredibly seasoned journalist and interviewer (he also has a show on Bloomberg) who always knows what question to ask, Norah O'Donnell who I believe used to be a Washington correspondent for CBS and seems to know politics inside out. The two of them have both done 60 Minutes which is like the holy grail of hard news in the US. There's also Gayle King, who doesn't have the same hard news chops as the others - but I imagine she's always been there for the lighter side, to ask the question that Joe Public wants asking.
Their graphics etc are much more understated than Today and Good Morning Americas, meaning it can be taken seriously, although to be honest they've changed them a few times and they're becoming increasingly brash.
It's very much like comparing Breakfast to Good Morning Britain.
I'd say this is a pretty fair assessment. Charlie Rose is in many ways a Stephen Sackur of the US -- he's well-known for his minimalist interview program on PBS, and I think CBS wanted to send a clear signal that they were finally getting serious about their morning show when they signed him on. They also made a big point about having a nice, circular desk instead of the cliché morning couch, which makes the show feel more adult.
A good comparison for how the CBS handles "lighter" content differently: around 8:30 (90/120 minutes in) last week, ABC's GMA had all their anchors dressed in elaborate Halloween costumes in a fashion show of sorts in Times Square with screaming fans surrounding them. Meanwhile, CBS was having a roundtable interview with Jon Oliver.
Last edited by Charles on 5 November 2015 10:19pm - 2 times in total