I’ve always felt the media is generally reading from the same script. The News, locally or national, is more of a theatrical production than actual information.
There's a difference from everyone quoting from an AP or Reuters new service. It's an entirely different thing when one media company forces it's stations to literally read from the exact same script, or worse, force a must-run segment produced externally from the local station.
But it's not that much different. The main difference is who is doing the scripting. The reality is that local TV never did anything by themselves, they're repeating messages that have been fed by someone else.
>But it's not that much different. The main difference is who is doing the scripting.
That's just being totaly unrealistic. The news agencies like AP report news where forced must-run scripts from agenda pushing corporate owners cannot even be considered the same ballpark as "not much different"
>The reality is that local TV never did anything by themselves
If you are referring to local news reporting on anything outside the local area, then of course they don't do much themselves. If they had first party reporters outside of their local area, they'd no longer be a local news. This is why local news have partners in other markets, or other agencies like AP.
The classic Onion News Network videos are proof of your point. They're hilarious because while the content is ridiculous, the rhythm and theatrics are so clearly shared with every other newscast.
Tangent, but to my American ear, the British English sense of "presenter" -- someone who reads the news -- seems to acknowledge the theatrical aspect of the role. More so than our "anchorperson" which seems to come from a game show.