IS LOCAL TV DYING?
Back in late 2023, during a station wide “State of the Union” meeting at the local TV station I worked at, a senior leader said, “Think of us like the Titanic, and we’re heading straight for the iceberg.” After nearly five years in TV and over a decade in digital marketing, I couldn’t help but cringe because I knew that the reality was much worse. We had already hit the iceberg and begun sinking.
What made this situation even harder to swallow was the leadership’s dismissive and almost mocking attitude toward independent digital creators. They referred to them as “any Joe in a basement,” producing news on YouTube or live-streaming shows. But these “Joes” were raking in more views, engagement, and revenue than entire TV stations. Rather than seeing them as a new wave of potential collaborators, TV leadership viewed them as competitors, completely unable to keep up with their speed, agility, and scalability.
It was in that moment, sitting in that meeting, that I, a 42 year old man, realized my time in local TV was over. The decline was no longer looming — it was happening right in front of us. What had once been an industry with a powerful grip on the public’s attention was now struggling to stay relevant. Local TV wasn’t just falling behind; it was on life support.
I first noticed this downward spiral when I entered the industry in 2019. Coming from a background in digital marketing, where I specialized in SEO and helped generate millions in revenue, I knew video was the future. YouTube had already become a major search engine, and I thought local TV would have adapted to this shift by then. To my surprise, I was wrong. The internet had already eroded the foundation of traditional television, and local TV was too slow to catch on.
While live sports, weather, and breaking news still give TV stations a brief window of relevance, the long-term outlook for traditional broadcasting is bleak. The days of viewers sitting down for the 6 o’clock news are gone. Today’s audiences want immediacy, interactivity, and personalized content — things many local TV stations continue to ignore as they operate like it’s still the early 2000s.
In this article, I’ll break down why local TV news is dying, how the industry failed to evolve, and how digital platforms have pushed it to the brink of irrelevance.
1. TV’s Fatal Collision with the Internet
1.1 The Rise of Digital Platforms: The Internet Took Over
The decline of local TV didn’t happen overnight. The seeds of destruction were planted when broadband internet started to become mainstream in the 2000s. However, many local TV stations failed to recognize digital platforms as the future of media consumption, instead viewing them as side projects or competition.
By the mid-2010s, digital platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and later TikTok had solidified their dominance. These platforms revolutionized how content was produced and consumed. Audiences no longer needed to tune in at specific times or rely on TV broadcasters for news and entertainment. With smartphones, anyone could produce content or cover breaking news—thus, the decline of local TV accelerated.
This democratization of content creation significantly disrupted local TV’s monopoly. Viewers who once tuned in for curated news and stories now turned to their phones for instantaneous, interactive, and personalized content. The internet provided a space where anyone could engage with news in real-time, making TV’s one-way broadcasting model feel outdated and irrelevant.
Graph 1: TV vs Digital Platforms (2010-2023)
This graph illustrates the decline in traditional TV consumption compared to the rise of digital and streaming platforms.
TV vs Digital Platforms
1.2 The Decline of TV Viewership
The numbers tell a clear story of the decline of local TV. According to Nielsen’s 2023 Total Audience Report, traditional broadcast and cable TV now account for less than half of all media consumption in the U.S. A decade ago, TV dominated the media landscape with nearly 90% of usage; today, local TV struggles to retain even a fraction of that audience.
A Pew Research Center survey from 2022 showed that only 29% of U.S. adults reported regularly watching local TV news, down from 46% in 2016. Among viewers aged 18-34, the numbers are even more grim. The shift towards digital platforms has been rapid and irreversible, leaving local TV scrambling for relevance.
Graph 2: Percentage of Adults Who Regularly Watch Local TV News (2016-2022)
2. Social Media and Digital Platforms: The New Gatekeepers of Information
2.1 The Power Shift: Social Media is the New Newsroom
The decline of local TV is further fueled by social media platforms that have replaced traditional news sources. According to Pew Research Center, by 2021, 71% of Americans were regularly getting their news from social media. Platforms like YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram have become the go-to sources for both information and entertainment, particularly among younger viewers.
Unlike the one-way communication of TV, social media allows for real-time interaction. Viewers no longer passively consume news—they participate in it. The passive vs active media consumption dynamic shows how traditional TV’s inability to foster interactivity has hastened the decline of local TV.
2.2 The Rise of Citizen Journalism
One of the most disruptive forces in today’s media landscape is the rise of citizen journalism. Armed with smartphones, anyone can report on the world around them in real time, whether it’s livestreaming protests, natural disasters, or breaking news. Platforms like TikTok and Twitter have turned ordinary people into real-time reporters, covering events as they unfold, often long before traditional TV crews can even arrive on the scene.
For local TV stations, this shift has been nothing short of devastating. They no longer have the monopoly on breaking news coverage that they once enjoyed. By the time a station dispatches a crew, the story has already been widely covered on social media, with in-depth commentary, multiple angles, and real-time reactions from the public. The traditional news cycle has become outdated in a world where people are getting their updates straight from their phones.
2.3 I’ve Been Digital Publisher Since The 90’s
I built my first website back in the mid-90s. Yes, it was hosted on Geocities, and yes, I had a “link network” in my footer to boost traffic. And, okay, it was a Michael Jordan fan page—but guess what? Even as a middle schooler, I was a publisher. I was creating content, building an audience, and figuring out how to drive traffic long before social media and SEO became the standard tools of the trade. Looking back, it was a crash course in digital marketing, even though I didn’t realize it at the time.
I spent years trying to explain to my coworkers that in today’s digital age, anyone with a blog, website, or social media account is a publisher. Coming from a digital background, where our goal was to drive traffic through online platforms, I knew how powerful a well-run website or app could be. It could even surpass the impact of an entire TV station.
At the station, though, digital platforms were treated as afterthoughts. They were seen as “additions” to the TV product instead of important, stand-alone platforms. The leadership and on-air talent were too focused on the traditional TV model. They couldn’t see, or refused to see, that digital media wasn’t just an extension of their work—it was the present. And they were already falling behind.
During the five years I spent in TV, there was always talk about the importance of “digital,” almost as if management felt the need to reassure employees that they were keeping up with the times. But in reality, it was clear they didn’t fully grasp what was happening in the media world. They were blindsided by the shift, even though the warning signs were everywhere, showing how quickly the industry was evolving beyond their control. These warning signs had existed for almost two-decades:
3. The Passive Nature of Traditional TV vs. The Active Engagement of Livestreaming
3.1 The Passive Style of Traditional TV Production
Traditional TV follows a passive, linear model, where content is pre-packaged and broadcast at fixed times. Viewers are expected to consume this content on the broadcaster’s schedule, with little room for interaction or feedback. The audience is a passive receiver, much like reading a book or watching a film—there’s no opportunity to influence the content in real time.
Key elements of this passive style include:
- Fixed Programming: Pre-determined schedules dictate when content airs.
- One-Way Communication: The broadcaster sends out content, and the viewer passively receives it.
- No Interactivity: Viewers cannot engage with the content or provide feedback in real time.
- Pre-Produced Content: Everything is heavily edited and curated before airing.
This passive viewing model worked well in a pre-internet era when TV was one of the only sources of news and entertainment. However, the rise of the internet has made this approach feel outdated.
3.2 Why Livestreams Demand Active and Engaging Content
In contrast to TV, livestreams thrive on active viewer participation. Livestreaming platforms like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitch foster a sense of community and engagement where viewers don’t just watch—they participate. Audiences can comment, ask questions, and shape the direction of the livestream in real time. This interactive element is something TV simply cannot replicate.
Key features of active livestreams include:
- Real-Time Interaction: Livestreamers can respond to comments and questions in real-time, creating a dynamic conversation.
- Flexibility: Unlike TV’s rigid scheduling, livestreams can adapt to real-time developments.
- Personalization: Livestreams feel more personal and spontaneous, allowing the audience to directly engage with the content.
- Community Building: Livestreams foster a sense of belonging, with viewers contributing to the broadcast’s direction and flow.
3.3 So… Why Are We Cramming Passive Style Content On New Media Platforms?!
I used to cringe every time I watched our so-called “revolutionary” live stream products at the station. Despite being branded as something fresh and innovative with a “plus” symbol tacked on to the end of the name, they were essentially the same old passive news shows dressed up in fresh branding. The creative services team did their job by marketing and branding things great, but the format of the show(s) hadn’t evolved at all. There was no live chat to foster real-time interaction, no opportunities for viewers to engage or participate, and absolutely no dynamic elements to draw people in. The elements that had been expected from viewers on streaming platforms for nearly two decades were non-existent. It was simply the same traditional content the TV station had always produced, just being delivered on a different platform.
For today’s audience — who expect immediate interaction and the chance to shape the conversation in real-time — it was a complete missed opportunity. Instead of building a true two-way experience, it continued to be a one-way broadcast, disconnected from the needs and expectations of a more participatory and digitally-savvy audience.
What made the situation even more frustrating was that I had been successfully producing livestreams independently since 2017. Not only was my audience engaging with me, but they were actively participating and donating during the streams. Real people were interacting with me in real-time, asking questions, and even sending super chats (monetary donations on YouTube) to support the content I was creating. Although I wasn’t doing this full-time and my audience was small, the micro-success of these streams clearly showed that there was genuine demand for interactive, engaging content. It was incredibly strange—and honestly disappointing—that the TV station I worked for completely disregarded my experience and insights. Leadership acted like livestreaming was something new. The fact is livestreaming has been around since the mid-90s and YouTube has offered livestreaming capabilities since 2013.
Despite the evidence that this kind of participatory content could thrive, they clung to outdated formats. They missed a huge opportunity to transform their livestreams into something that could truly resonate with today’s viewers. It was like they were blind to the shift in how people consume media—choosing to recycle the same old formula rather than embrace a more forward-thinking, audience-driven approach.
4. The Failure to Adopt New Technologies & KPIs
One of the clearest reasons local TV is struggling to stay relevant is its resistance to adopting new technologies. While media and technology have rapidly advanced, many stations continue to rely on outdated production methods and metrics. The tools are available — what’s missing is leadership’s willingness to adapt and let go of old habits.
At my first job in TV, I pushed for using smartphones to create promotional content for digital platforms. The technology was readily available, offered faster production times, and was far more cost-effective. I shot promos with an iPhone, and when we aired them, they looked just as good as those produced with the station’s expensive cinema cameras. Despite the obvious benefits — speed, flexibility, and cost savings — my boss couldn’t justify his preference for traditional methods. Side by side, most viewers couldn’t tell the difference in quality. The real issue wasn’t about production value; it was a resistance to change, even when that change could save time and resources.
This resistance wasn’t an isolated case. I also produced a live-streaming show independently that outperformed some of our local newscasts in impressions and viewership. I expected this success to signal a shift towards digital media as the future. Instead, my boss dismissed it, saying something that still resonates with me: “If it doesn’t have ratings, I don’t care.” This mindset is exactly why local TV stations are faltering — they measure success using outdated metrics that no longer align with how people consume media today.
To bridge the gap between traditional and modern approaches, I had to dive into TV ratings and translate them into the KPIs I had used throughout my digital marketing career. The difference between old-school TV metrics and digital media KPIs was staggering. I had to align concepts like Gross Rating Points (GRPs) and reach with impressions, engagement, and conversion rates. It took considerable effort to reconcile the two, as traditional ratings simply didn’t measure up to the data-driven KPIs that dominate digital media.
The core issue is that ratings — a holdover from the old TV model — are no longer a reliable measure of success. In contrast, digital media thrives on real-time engagement through metrics like impressions, shares, and comments. Yet local TV stations continue to focus on reach and frequency, which fail to capture the depth of audience interaction with content.
4.1 Why Digital KPIs Are Better Than Traditional TV KPIs
A key factor in local TV’s decline is its heavy reliance on outdated metrics like Gross Rating Points (GRPs) and Reach. While these metrics were once the standard for measuring success, they no longer align with how audiences engage with content today. In contrast, digital media platforms use modern KPIs that provide a far more accurate picture of how content is performing.
- Real-Time Data vs. Delayed Reporting: Traditional KPIs, such as TV ratings, only provide delayed and generalized data on how many people potentially viewed an ad or segment. In contrast, digital KPIs offer real-time data like impressions, clicks, and engagement. This allows digital platforms to make immediate adjustments, optimizing content for performance as it happens—a capability local TV lacks.
- Actionable Insights vs. Exposure Metrics: TV relies heavily on exposure metrics like GRPs, which only tell you how many people saw a piece of content. But just because someone saw a TV ad doesn’t mean they engaged with it or took any action. On the other hand, digital KPIs such as Engagement and Conversion Rates go beyond just exposure, measuring actual user interactions and the business outcomes they generate.
- Precision Targeting vs. Broad Demographics: Traditional TV can only target broad demographics based on general assumptions about its audience. Digital media, however, allows for precision targeting, enabling content to reach specific user groups based on interests and behaviors. This leads to more relevant messaging and higher engagement, whereas TV is stuck broadcasting to wide, largely uninterested audiences.
- Measurable Outcomes vs. Assumptions: Metrics like Return on Ad Spend (ROAS) in digital media provide clear, measurable results that link directly to revenue. In contrast, local TV stations are still relying on GRPs and reach metrics, which offer no insight into how many viewers were influenced or led to conversions, making it difficult to prove actual business outcomes.
- Real-Time Optimization vs. Static Content: When something isn’t working on digital platforms, adjustments can be made in real-time. For example, if a piece of content isn’t generating enough engagement, you can tweak it, re-target the audience, or adjust the spend. In contrast, a TV ad, once aired, is static—there’s no chance for optimization if it’s underperforming.
4.2 Why This Matters
Local TV stations continue to measure their success based on an outdated, exposure-driven mindset, while digital media thrives on interaction, engagement, and actionable results. In an era where consumers demand more personalized content and direct interaction, the old methods simply don’t cut it anymore. By refusing to embrace digital KPIs that can drive real engagement and revenue, local TV is missing out on both viewership and potential business growth.
To truly compete in today’s media landscape, local TV needs to adopt the data-driven approach that digital media champions. It’s no longer just about how many people see your content — it’s about what those people do afterward. Engagement, conversions, and direct business results are the new markers of success, and local TV needs to catch up or risk being left behind for good.
5. Is the TV Itself Dead? The Outdated Hardware in a Mobile-First World
5.1 The Rise of Mobile: Is TV Hardware Becoming Obsolete?
We’ve seen the shift happen slowly at first — televisions, once the centerpiece of living rooms, are being used less and less. But now, we have to ask: Is the television itself dead? Just as radio and newspapers gradually became relics of a bygone era, television hardware seems to be heading down the same path. It’s not just about how content is produced or consumed; it’s about the hardware itself becoming outdated.
The rise of mobile devices—smartphones and tablets—has completely transformed how we access information and entertainment. Once, the family TV was the main source for news, weather, and entertainment. Now, the first screen for most people is the one in their pocket. With fast internet speeds and streaming services optimized for mobile, the traditional TV set feels less essential than ever.
5.2 The Mobile Device: A Modern Disruptor of Traditional Hardware
The shift away from TV hardware is part of a larger pattern. The mobile device isn’t just killing television—it’s also responsible for the decline of other once-ubiquitous technologies like radios and even desktop computers. People used to consume information across multiple hardware platforms: TV for video, radio for news and music, and newspapers for print journalism. Now, a single mobile device can do all of these things—and do them better, faster, and more conveniently.
According to Pew Research Center, over 60% of adults now stream shows or movies primarily on mobile devices, while TV sales have steadily declined over the past decade. As mobile devices continue to improve in terms of display quality and streaming capabilities, it begs the question: Why do we need a traditional television anymore? With a smartphone or tablet, you have access to a world of on-demand content wherever you are—without the need for a bulky, stationary screen.
5.3 The End of the Living Room TV?
In my own household, we rarely even turn on our TV. My kids each have their own devices, and we’ve all embraced the personal screen for our entertainment. Whether we’re watching shows, catching up on social media, or reading the news, our phones and tablets have taken the place of the television. The idea of everyone gathering around the same TV set feels almost outdated in a world where each person has their own screen tailored to their individual preferences.
This trend isn’t just happening in my home; it’s a global shift. More families are finding that the convenience and flexibility of mobile devices are simply better suited to modern life. Traditional TV hardware is slowly becoming irrelevant, much like the radio or the home phone did in years past.
5.4 The Data: Traditional TV in Decline, Mobile Devices on the Rise
The data supports this shift. Below is a graph showing the steady decline of traditional TV hardware usage compared to the rise of mobile devices as the primary means of consuming content:
As the data shows, the traditional TV set is following in the footsteps of other outdated technologies. Just as we no longer rely on radios for music or newspapers for news, we may no longer need televisions for entertainment in a world dominated by smartphones and tablets. So, is the TV dead? Maybe not yet—but it’s certainly on life support.
6. The Future: New Screens and the Rise of Augmented Reality
6.1 Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality, and the Next Frontier of Media Consumption
While mobile devices currently dominate media consumption, augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) technologies are quickly emerging as the next wave of screen innovation. Devices like the Meta Quest (formerly Oculus) and HoloLens are transforming the way we interact with media by merging the real world with immersive digital experiences.
The AR and VR market is expected to grow dramatically over the next few years. In 2020, the global AR and VR market was valued at approximately $12.1 billion, but it’s projected to reach $296.9 billion by 2024. This massive growth is driven by increasing applications in industries such as gaming, education, healthcare, and tourism. These immersive technologies allow users to become part of the action, whether interacting with characters in a 3D virtual space or using AR to overlay information onto their surroundings in real-time.
For example, AR-based head-mounted displays (HMDs) are being widely adopted across industries like healthcare, where they assist surgeons by providing real-time, virtual images of a patient’s anatomy. Meanwhile, VR headsets are becoming more popular in gaming and entertainment, offering users highly immersive, interactive experiences. With consumer adoption continuing to rise, the number of VR and AR devices shipped is expected to increase from 14.94 million in 2022 to 32.76 million in 2024.
6.2 Screenless Media: The Next Evolution?
Beyond traditional screens and even mobile devices, we are moving toward a world where screens themselves may become obsolete. Technologies like augmented reality glasses, smart contact lenses, and head-up displays (HUDs) will soon allow users to consume media without the need for a traditional screen.
Imagine watching a movie where characters appear to interact within your living room or receiving real-time news updates displayed in your field of vision as you walk down the street. Major companies like Meta and Apple are already heavily investing in the development of AR wearables, and the market for AR-based HMDs is projected to grow significantly, with the head-mounted display category leading both AR and VR device markets.
These screenless experiences represent the next frontier in how we interact with digital content. As technologies like AR and VR continue to advance, traditional screens and even mobile devices could eventually feel as outdated as TVs and radios in a world dominated by immersive, interactive environments.
6.3 AR/VR Market Growth: A Glimpse into the Future
The augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) markets are experiencing explosive growth, positioning these technologies as the future of media consumption, education, and entertainment. In 2020, the global AR/VR market was valued at $12.1 billion, but by 2024, it’s projected to skyrocket to $296.9 billion. This sharp increase reflects the growing demand for immersive, interactive experiences across various industries, from gaming and healthcare to retail and education.
Several factors are driving this rapid expansion:
- Gaming and Entertainment: The largest consumer of AR/VR technology is the gaming sector, which accounted for a significant portion of the market in 2023. As VR devices like the Meta Quest become more affordable and accessible, the demand for immersive gaming experiences is set to continue growing.
- Enterprise Adoption: Beyond gaming, industries such as healthcare, education, and manufacturing are beginning to adopt AR/VR technologies. For example, AR is being used in healthcare for surgical assistance and medical training, while VR is providing a safe environment for pilots and engineers to practice complex procedures without real-world consequences.
- Increased Accessibility: As AR and VR hardware becomes more affordable and portable, with devices like smart glasses and head-mounted displays (HMDs), the adoption rate is expected to surge. These advancements are making immersive technologies more accessible to both consumers and businesses, further expanding the market.
With this exponential growth, AR/VR is not only transforming how we experience games and entertainment, but also redefining traditional industries. As the market expands, it will continue to shape the future of immersive media, making these technologies integral to both work and leisure.
7. Clinging to Old Revenue Models and Transmission Fees
Another major issue facing local TV stations is their reliance on outdated revenue models, particularly transmission fees. For years, local TV stations have depended heavily on the money they make from cable and satellite companies that pay to retransmit their signals. These transmission fees have been a lifeline for stations as advertising revenue has dwindled, but the model is starting to show cracks.
As more viewers cut the cord and switch to streaming services, the value of transmission fees is rapidly declining. Cable subscriptions are falling, and younger generations aren’t even signing up in the first place. They’re consuming all their content through streaming platforms, social media, and mobile devices, never even touching traditional cable or satellite services. For TV stations, the shrinking audience translates into shrinking re-transmission fees, a trend they can’t reverse.
While stations have clung to these transmission fees as a safety net, they’ve failed to aggressively pursue new revenue streams in digital. Instead of focusing on digital subscriptions, ad revenue through online platforms, or paid partnerships with streaming services, many stations continue to lean on transmission fees, a model that’s on borrowed time. It’s like holding onto a sinking lifeboat when the ship itself is sinking faster than ever.
When I was working in TV, I saw this dependence on old revenue models firsthand. Any push toward digital revenue generation was either sidelined or treated as an afterthought. Leadership was so focused on propping up the old cable-based business model that they ignored the opportunities that digital platforms offered. Meanwhile, platforms like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitch were out there monetizing their vast, engaged audiences—often with fewer resources than an entire TV station.
This reliance on transmission fees is not just a bad strategy—it’s a short-term fix that’s doing more harm than good. The problem is, TV stations are relying on these fees without evolving their content or distribution strategies to match modern viewing habits. Digital advertising, sponsored content, brand partnerships, and subscription models are all avenues where revenue could be generated, but stations are slow to move.
The fundamental flaw is that TV stations still believe they can operate as they did in the 1990s, even though the media landscape has dramatically changed. Transmission fees won’t save local TV in the long term. The only path forward is to embrace digital-first strategies and explore new ways to monetize content. Just like their outdated KPIs, the revenue models local TV stations are clinging to are rooted in the past, and they’re already beginning to crumble.
If local TV continues to depend on these outdated revenue streams, the decline will accelerate, and they’ll lose any chance to thrive in the digital world. Stations need to pivot, investing in digital platforms, online advertising, and interactive content, or risk being outpaced by nimbler, more adaptive competitors who have already embraced the future.
8. Live Sports and Weather: The Final Lifelines for Local TV?
8.1 Live Events: A Temporary Reprieve
While local TV has been on a rapid decline, live events such as sports, breaking news, and weather updates still draw viewers, offering a temporary reprieve from complete irrelevance. These live broadcasts remain important, particularly in moments of urgency, like local emergencies or major sports events. However, their importance is shrinking as digital alternatives rise to prominence.
Even this lifeline is eroding. Streaming platforms like Amazon Prime, YouTube, and X (formerly Twitter) are aggressively pursuing live sports broadcasting rights, challenging TV’s once-unshakable hold on real-time events. Moreover, real-time updates on social media have started to gain more trust from viewers, further threatening TV’s grip on breaking news and sports coverage.
8.2 The Growing Distrust in TV Weather Reports
Weather reporting, traditionally a cornerstone of local TV, has also lost some of its relevance. Historically, TV stations positioned themselves as the most trusted source for local weather updates. However, in recent years, there has been growing distrust among viewers who feel that TV weather reports are either delayed, overly sensationalized, or simply not delivered in a way that aligns with their consumption habits.
Audiences now demand real-time updates, accuracy, and convenience—elements that traditional TV often fails to provide. With the rise of mobile weather apps, social media updates, and more personalized digital weather services, viewers have begun to abandon their once “trusted” TV weather reports in favor of alternatives that offer immediacy and interactivity. TV stations are struggling to deliver weather content in the fast, on-demand format that modern audiences prefer, leading to further fragmentation of their viewership base.
Conclusion: The Final Wake-Up Call for Local TV
The downfall of local TV isn’t just due to changing viewer habits, but a failure to adapt. Audiences today expect on-demand content, yet TV clings to outdated programming schedules. Younger generations don’t even know local TV exists. They live on TikTok and YouTube, consuming content that is fast, interactive, and personalized. The idea of waiting for a scheduled broadcast is foreign to them in a world where everything is available instantly at their fingertips.
Outdated production methods are another stumbling block. Despite modern technology enabling high-quality content creation with just a smartphone, the industry’s ego continues to insist that only expensive, cinema-level production is legitimate. I’ve witnessed firsthand how this attitude has stifled progress. Even when content shot on an iPhone looked great, it was dismissed because it didn’t fit the traditional “professional” mold. Meanwhile, independent creators—often with far fewer resources—are producing content that resonates more with today’s audience.
This brings us to one of the most glaring disconnects: the citizen journalists and creators on digital platforms. Dismissing “Joe in a basement” making content might feel like a justified defense of old media, but the truth is, those creators are often earning more revenue than entire local TV stations. It’s a bitter irony to talk down on them when their influence and reach far surpass what many TV stations can muster. Instead of deriding them, local TV should have partnered with these creators, finding ways to capitalize on their grassroots, digital-first approach. This should have been done over a decade ago, when local TV still had a strong presence. Ignoring the potential of these creators—and the entire ecosystem of citizen journalism—was a missed opportunity that continues to cost local stations dearly.
Metrics like ratings no longer define success in today’s world. Impressions, engagement, and real-time interactions are the true measures of a thriving platform. However, TV remains stuck chasing outdated KPIs that fail to reflect how audiences actually consume media today. Meanwhile, mobile devices have overtaken TV sets as the primary screens for content, and AR and VR are further threatening the relevance of traditional broadcasting. With the AR/VR market projected to hit $296.9 billion by 2024, it’s clear that immersive, interactive experiences are the future—and TV’s passive one-way model simply doesn’t fit anymore. Put all of your manpower on creating content for the web.
The greatest barrier to change, though, is the culture of ego within the industry. During my time in local TV, I saw how forward-thinking ideas were ignored or shut down—not because they weren’t valuable, but because I was too humble and quiet to challenge the dominant mindset. My talents were often pigeonholed into projects that stifled innovation. This refusal to let go of outdated practices and embrace new methods is what’s truly holding local TV back.
Moreover, while diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives are important, the industry’s overemphasis on them has sometimes come at the expense of innovation. DEI should be a natural part of the company’s culture, but reinventing the business model should have been the top priority. Instead, much of the focus was on corporate appearances, with little attention paid to adapting the product to meet the demands of today’s digital-first audience. The result? TV stations are struggling to remain relevant while creators on digital platforms are thriving.
If local TV hopes to survive, it must adopt a digital-first strategy that prioritizes real-time engagement and partnerships with creators—those “Joes in the basement” who have proven that they know how to connect with modern audiences. The ship has already hit the iceberg, and only those willing to let go of outdated models and embrace innovation will find a way to stay afloat.
