It's considered common knowledge among many broadcast journalists that consultants have ruined television news. And consultants, they say, continue to lead news directors down the path of fluff and nonsense, at the expense of substantive journalism.

But that's the funny thing about conventional wisdom -- it can sometimes be very wrong.

That's not to say that TV news has suddenly become engaging, with regular reports on significant issues, especially those involving the environment. But the explanations for that lack of important news appears to be changing, according to a number of media observers.

They say pressures from consultant-driven audience research have largely been replaced by pressures involving overnight ratings.

Al Primo was a pioneer in news research. He is credited with being among the first to introduce such research into the newsroom while working for ABC in the 1970s. He says news doctors, as consultants are often called, "get more credit than they deserve" for the demise of TV news. But he says that doesn't mean they are blameless.

TV: 90 percent talent ... 10 percent content

When TV news was first introduced to the public, it was long on substance, with little attention paid to the overall look of the newscast. But as news became a profit center, pressure to increase news ratings grew. And programmers turned to the newscast's look in an effort to get an edge over the competition. Research became a useful tool to help with cosmetic issues -- the appearance of the anchor, likeability, and set design, for instance.

"In television land, it's all about the personalities," Primo says. "Ninety percent of the impact a television program makes is a result of the talent. The other 10 percent is content." That's why so much time was spent on the look of the newscast. But eventually, Primo and his colleagues also used research to look at the content.

The primary tool they came up with, according to Professor Bob Papper of Ball State University, is called "top of mind" research. Respondents are not given specific questions to answer. Rather, they are simply asked what important issues they can think of. Papper says the top five have been consistent over the years -- weather, crime, money, jobs, and health. Rarely, he says, does concern for the environment enter that group. And that, he says, means the environment rarely makes it onto the local news. "If there is no environmental threat that is perceived [and mentioned in top of mind research], then environmental issues are not covered."

Such methods dominated news research for at least two decades. And while not every news director paid attention to the consultants when they came, many others did, so this research played a major role in driving the types of stories local and national newscasts covered.

Now that's drastically changing. Wally Dean, a former news assignment manager for the CBS Washington bureau, says that with the growth in technology, news research as it has existed is quickly becoming passé. In its place is what's called "next day household ratings data."

This data is obtained by electronic boxes attached to televisions in sampled homes. Viewing habits are gathered, collated and sent to TV stations by the next day. And in a few top markets, news directors can actually watch viewership ebb and flow in real time, while their newscast is on the air. This approach uses something called "people meters." Currently, 56 markets from New York City to Naples, Florida, use standard metering, and several of the nation's top markets use people meters.

'Fringe Topics' (Like Environment) Left Out

Dean is now a Senior Associate with the Project for Excellence in Journalism in Washington, D.C. He says that because of the meters, news consultants now exercise a different kind of influence. "I think that the metered markets have changed the name of the game. Before sophisticated metering came along, consultants would predict interest in topics. Now, interest in topics is being gauged by minute-to-minute meter ratings, so consultant influence has declined."

Dean's colleague Tom Rosenstiel, also of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, agrees. He says that while there are a number of factors, "consultants aren't irrelevant, but I think their influence is lower than it was a few years ago."

This doesn't mean, though, that we can expect more and better environmental coverage on local TV. The reason, Dean says, is that the data gathered from meters tells news directors and consultants what topics currently being covered are the most engaging to viewers. But he says the data won't tell them how the public will react to topics not being covered. In other words, Dean says, "They fear dealing with new topics they haven't covered because they don't have research covering those topics."

This affects what Dean calls "fringe topics," including the environment.

So while conventional wisdom may be wrong about the news doctors and their influence on TV news, the result of new technology replacing the old seems to be the same.

Or as Wally Dean puts it, "The devil has changed, but the stories haven't."