Why “If It Bleeds, It Leads” Is Failing Local News
Local TV has leaned on crime for decades. But audiences are showing that fear-driven coverage doesn’t just cost trust—it’s bad strategy.
It’s an old story by now, but you know it. There was a shooting, no suspect in custody, a community reeling. It’s the lead story on the 6 pm newscast, and you sit there shaking your head. Shaking your head not only at the violence, the lives lost or changed forever, but at the story’s top billing itself. Why does this story always get that slot? Why, in an old newsroom adage, does it have to lead if it bleeds?
For decades, newsrooms operated under the editorial rule that violent, dramatic or tragic stories must lead the broadcast because they attract attention and, by extension, ratings. It wasn’t cynical editorial policy, it was how audiences behaved. Violent crime stories and tales of human suffering ignite our hard‑wired attention reflexes.
But the “if it bleeds” approach has never been without its critics. One of the sharpest came from Eric Pooley’s 1989 New York magazine cover story Grins, Gore and Videotape – The Trouble with Local TV News:
“The thoughtful report is buried because sensational stories must launch the broadcast: If it bleeds, it leads.”
Despite some claims, William Randolph Hearst didn’t coin the phrase. It didn’t show up until the 1980s, long after his time.
Yes, crime coverage can—and does—drive ratings, and revenue. But another reason for newsrooms’ reliance on it: crime is cheap and easy. Philadelphia Inquirer reporter Layla A. Jones put it bluntly:
“Crime was cheap to cover. It was easy to cover… [The assignment desk] said to the cameraman, ‘You shoot the scene, you shoot the blood, you shoot the victims, whatever they got, and you can do it in 20 seconds.”
But what if everything we thought we knew about crime coverage, everything we thought we knew about audiences, was wrong? What if audiences actually wanted something different? Something better?
We put that theory to the test at Lehigh Valley Public Media with the launch of PBS39 News Tonight in 2018. It wasn’t your classic nightly newscast: no anchors, long‑form segments, no sports, and a different approach to crime.
Crime coverage on the first day of a story is like day‑one news coverage everywhere: who, what and where. We inverted that formula, treating day‑one stories as day two: the why, the context, the root causes, the ripple effects. Did a shooting on an Allentown street corner keep children home from school the next day? Did reassigning police to one traumatized neighborhood make another one more vulnerable?
So, did it work? Did we turn away viewers conditioned to expect “if it bleeds, it leads”? I can’t give you a definitive yes or no, but I will say this: going head‑to‑head against stations with anchors and splashier coverage, we became the #1 late news in our core market.
To me, that wasn’t just proof of an ethical point, it was strategic proof that the old rule is wrong. Audiences rewarded our efforts with their loyalty, and not just because we beat the anchors. Audiences rewarded us when we bet on depth, not sensationalism; on context, not crime‑scene video; on solutions‑oriented, solution‑focused reporting, not fear‑based coverage.
We didn’t ask viewers to make a choice between engaging television and responsible journalism. We gave them better television. Stories that explained instead of alarming, segments that trusted viewers with context instead of condescending to them, coverage that helped people understand their community instead of fear it.
But we weren’t alone. Around the country, other newsrooms have been experimenting with smarter crime coverage:
Solutions journalism: Cover the crime, sure. But also cover what’s working to fight it, elsewhere. “This neighborhood saw a 40% drop in violent crime after implementing X program.”
Community asset framing: Covering a crime is not synonymous with covering a neighborhood. Crime coverage can—and should—elevate the leaders, businesses and residents working to make a neighborhood safer.
Policy context reporting: Tie individual incidents to broader community challenges and policy issues. A domestic violence case becomes a story about local shelter funding. A drug‑related shooting becomes reporting on availability of treatment and options for criminal justice reform.
Constructive engagement: Ask “What happened?” Yes, but also “What would someone need to know to help solve this problem?”
Data‑driven coverage: Go beyond episodic incidents with regular reporting on data trends and analysis of root causes.
These are not ivory‑tower theories. They’re tested, practical approaches that actually keep audiences engaged, even served.
My colleagues over at Magid, the consulting powerhouse that wields so much influence over so much of the industry, might object to this on ratings grounds: if you don’t give viewers what they want, they’ll find it somewhere else. But we found that the opposite was true: respect your audience with more context and less spectacle, and they don’t tune out. They lean in.
And here’s the bigger truth: The practice of chasing eyeballs with crime tape and flashing lights might fill your ratings for one night, but it bleeds out credibility, community connection, and the trust that local newsrooms can’t afford to lose.
“If it bleeds, it leads” isn’t just ethically questionable anymore. It’s strategically reckless.
So the next time you watch a local newscast and shake your head at the crime coverage, remember this: every minute you keep watching, you’re voting for more of the same. The question is whether newsrooms—and audiences—are ready to start voting for something better.
If this resonates with you, I’d love to hear your perspective. How should local newsrooms cover crime in a way that informs without inflaming? Share your thoughts in the comments—or pass this along to someone who cares about the future of local journalism.
PS - If you found this post helpful, would you please consider restacking it and sharing it with your audience?
This spreads the word and keeps me writing the types of content that you have enjoyed.
I applaud you for this article and insight. I shared this post, something I rarely ever do because broadcast and social media is the most powerful estate in the world, definitely in the US, and possibly more powerful than the government, therefore it should be held accountable, and it should serve, rather than sensationalize. I'd like to see this paradigm transported to local news throughout the nation.