Job losses, falling ratings, consolidation: What’s behind the decline in local TV news 17%

By Stephen Battaglio0% Cerys Davies34%

3/23/2026, 10:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Status Quo Bias, Negativity Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 7.5% saturation with 91 hits. Analysis detected 577 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,213 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 32.4% and a BS Rank of 17% (18,308 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 83.70% of the article peer group.

Ellina Abovian, a veteran correspondent for KTLA-TV, was recently on assignment covering a story about Los Angeles International Airport when she received a message that every media business professional dreads. 
She was asked to see her boss at the station when she was done. 
At the meeting, she was told she would be losing her job after 11 years. 
"I was totally blindsided," said Abovian, 40. 
"There was no indication." 
The Glendale native was among several longtime KTLA personalities who were laid off amid a wave of cuts at outlets owned by Nexstar Media Group in Los Angeles and other cities. 
They included midday anchors Glen Walker and Lu Parker along with veteran meteorologist Mark Kriski, who first joined the station in 1991. 
The layoffs prompted an outpouring of support for the journalists among Los Angeles TV viewers, who saw them as friends and neighbors. 
Abovian said she received more than 20,000 messages of support. 
“I had no idea that people felt so strongly," Abovian said in an interview. 
"For people to say, 'I loved hearing your voice,' and remember all these little moments. ... 
It's sad because you have these people in your living room every day.” 
Once the primary source of community news and information, local TV news stations are struggling with their own tough story, one marked by declining ratings, stagnant revenue growth and rapid shifts in how media is consumed in the internet era. 
Broadcast TV stations have long had the highest profit margins in the media business. 
But the financial model that sustained that growth has steadily eroded in recent years. 
Streaming  which now accounts for more than 40% of all viewing  has pulled consumers away from traditional TV, putting pressure on outlets to control costs so they can remain financially viable. 
More than 2,000 TV stations nationwide still provide a vital role in communities, delivering as much as 12 hours a day in programming, live sports and local news to every household in the U.S. 
But they are now faced with an aging audience that isn't being replaced by younger viewers who prefer streaming platforms and social media. 
"It used to be that people would grow into the news habits of their parents, and now they're not," said Andrew Heyward, a former president of CBS News who now advises local TV stations. 
"The next generation of consumers are never going to run home to watch the newscast at 5, 6, 10 or 11." 
A recent S&P Global report estimated local ad revenue for TV stations growing at just 1.5% annually over the next five years, less than the rate of inflation, hitting a peak of $25.58 billion in the election year of 2028 and dropping to $22.11 billion in 2029. 
Since 2000, TV stations have seen their take of ad dollars decline by an inflation-adjusted 36%, according to BIA Advisory Services. 
The dollars that TV station owners receive from cable and satellite operators for carrying their signals are expected to stagnate because of the dwindling number of pay-TV subscribers. 
As cord-cutting reduces the number of pay-TV customers, station groups have to wrangle higher fees out of the ones that are left. 
Those pressures have squeezed Nexstar, the nation's largest station owner with 164 outlets. 
The Irving, Texas-based company posted a net loss of $170 million in the fourth quarter of 2025. 
Nexstar declined to comment further about its cuts, which also hit stations in New York and Chicago and affected some 20 newsroom employees. 
And more could be on the way. 
The company has closed a $6.2-billion deal to merge with another large station group, Tegna, and has told financial analysts that it expects to see $300 million in savings with the combined companies. 
That probably means more layoffs. 
Nexstar is not alone. 
Every TV station group owner says they need to consolidate and have clamored for the government to lift the cap that limits them to covering 39% of the U.S.  a number set in 2004. 
The companies say they need to get larger in order to remain competitive with tech companies that have no such limits  such as Google, which owns YouTube. 
"I think the business needs a healthy level of consolidation," said Adam Symson, president and chief executive of E.W. 
Scripps Co., which owns 65 stations. 
"It is not sustainable to expect these businesses to continue to operate with the revenue pressures they have in an environment that pretends like we are only competing against four or five television stations." 
The revenue squeeze also comes at a time when TV stations are actually producing more hours of local news than ever before. 
The major networks are offering fewer hours to their affiliates in daytime. 
Syndicated shows are going away as they can no longer attract large enough audiences to support them. 
Talk shows starring Kelly Clarkson, Sherri Shepherd and Steve Wilko are ending after this season, leaving hours of time for stations to fill in September. 
Local TV newscasts are also vital to station ad sales departments because the programs are the first stop for political campaign commercials. 
Although TV news viewers are older and less desirable to consumer advertisers, they are more likely to be voters who are engaged in current affairs. 
TV stations say they have to adapt to streaming as well if they want to have a future. 
One Nexstar insider not authorized to comment publicly said one reason circulating for the recent cuts at its stations was to free up money to invest more in its streamed programming as other companies are doing. 
Fox Television Stations have been experimenting on their streaming platform to develop leaner, less expensively produced news shows that are less dependent on slick sets and highly paid anchors. 
If they can draw a sizable audience on streaming, the plan is to put them on traditional TV as well. 
Scripps cut ties with several big-name anchors at its stations several years ago to invest in more on-the-ground reporting. 
Symson said younger consumers who are going on social media for news are not looking for the familiar TV tableau of two anchors seated at a desk. 
Stories for digital users need to be designed for sharing on social media platforms and don't require an anchor to introduce them. 
"The net effect has been to provide better coverage for the communities where we operate," Symson said. 
But advertisers won't pay as much for commercials on digital content, which is why there is a need to keep the traditional newscasts going as they generate most of the revenue. 
"Everybody is wrestling with that transition," Heyward said. 
Meanwhile, journalists who have years of exposure with local audiences on TV are using that equity to launch their own digital platforms. 
After moving on from KTLA, Abovian is focusing on her podcast, “Breaking Through, The Ellina Abovian Podcast,” where she discusses "the unpretty pivots in life.” 
“Local news will always be very important," Abovian said. 
"However, the delivery and the way the industry takes form are changing. 
It's up to all of us to realize what our niche is, what our voices are and how we can continue to be storytellers, just in a different format.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Stephen Battaglio: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 2.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Battaglio: 0.4%Daily Pilot: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Battaglio: 2.1%Daily Pilot: 3.5%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Battaglio: 1.2%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Battaglio: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Battaglio: 1.8%Daily Pilot: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 1.6%Stephen Battaglio: 1.5%Daily Pilot: 7.5%Framing Effect1.6%This article: 0.0%Stephen Battaglio: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 6.1%Stephen Battaglio: 1.1%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Status Quo Bias6.1%This article: 0.0%Stephen Battaglio: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.7%Stephen Battaglio: 5.5%Daily Pilot: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.7%This article: 1.0%Stephen Battaglio: 2.4%Daily Pilot: 1.4%Pessimism Bias1.0%This article: 5.5%Stephen Battaglio: 4.6%Daily Pilot: 7.8%Negativity Bias5.5%This article: 1.4%Stephen Battaglio: 1.4%Daily Pilot: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias1.4%This article: 0.0%Stephen Battaglio: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Battaglio: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Battaglio: 0.4%Daily Pilot: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Battaglio: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Battaglio: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 5.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Battaglio: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Battaglio: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Battaglio: 0.7%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Battaglio: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Battaglio: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Battaglio: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 2.8%Stephen Battaglio: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Straw Man2.8%This article: 0.0%Stephen Battaglio: 2.5%Daily Pilot: 4.9%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 1.5%Stephen Battaglio: 1.4%Daily Pilot: 1.2%False Dilemma1.5%This article: 0.0%Stephen Battaglio: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Battaglio: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.5%Stephen Battaglio: 4.5%Daily Pilot: 4.4%Hasty Generalization7.5%This article: 0.0%Stephen Battaglio: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 3.0%Stephen Battaglio: 0.9%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Bandwagon3.0%This article: 5.4%Stephen Battaglio: 4.4%Daily Pilot: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion5.4%This article: 0.0%Stephen Battaglio: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Battaglio: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Battaglio: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Battaglio: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Battaglio: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Battaglio: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 1.4%Stephen Battaglio: 3.8%Daily Pilot: 2.8%Anecdotal1.4%This article: 0.0%Stephen Battaglio: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Battaglio: 1.8%Daily Pilot: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Battaglio: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Battaglio: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Battaglio: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 2.3%Stephen Battaglio: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Special Pleading2.3%This article: 0.0%Stephen Battaglio: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.0%Stephen Battaglio: 1.0%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Unattributed Quote3.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Battaglio: 0.4%Daily Pilot: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Battaglio: 1.3%Daily Pilot: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 2.4%Stephen Battaglio: 0.7%Daily Pilot: 1.5%Indoctrination2.4%This article: 0.0%Stephen Battaglio: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Battaglio: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.1%Stephen Battaglio: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 4.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.1%

1213 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers28%attributed speech871writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageEllina Abovian • 7 words • 0.0% coverageEllina Abovian • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageEllina Abovian • 10 words • 0.0% coverageEllina Abovian • 14 words • 0.0% coverageEllina Abovian • 16 words • 0.0% coverageEllina Abovian • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Heyward • 34 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Heyward • 21 words • 0.0% coverageS&P Global • 47 words • 0.0% coverageBIA Advisory Services • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Symson • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Symson • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Symson • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Symson • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Heyward • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageEllina Abovian • 9 words • 0.0% coverageEllina Abovian • 12 words • 0.0% coverageEllina Abovian • 29 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Adam Symson

100%flagged-word coverage
97 attributed words28% of attributed speech31% writer coverage
0%2.5%5.0%Unattributed Quote-4.1 ptsWriter: 4.1%Adam Symson: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -2.9 ptsWriter: 2.9%Adam Symson: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.