For decades, the working assumption of American broadcasting was simple enough to embroider on a throw pillow: the bigger the tent, the bigger the money. Pack enough warm bodies under that tent and then sell enough thirty-second spots to soap companies and auto dealers to reach those inside, and you had yourself a business.

That assumption has gone the way of the traveling circus under the big top.

Broadcast television’s audience erosion is no longer news — it has become background noise, the kind of slow bleed that industry veterans cite with the weary detachment of men reading their own obituaries. Morning television, once the medium’s most reliable franchise, now draws roughly half the viewers it commanded fifteen years ago. Prime-time numbers tell a similar story. Ad revenues have followed the audience south, and the broadcast networks — those cathedral institutions of mid-twentieth-century American life — are left standing in a sanctuary that keeps getting emptier.

The industry’s response, for most of that period, has been to try to "out-broad" the broadest. To program louder, bigger, and more aggressively to the middle-of-the-road. In other words, to build a still bigger tent over a still shrinking crowd. It has not worked.

Last week, a must-read article from The Hollywood Reporter’s Andrew Zucker got our attention about what is called “niche-casting."

Zucker’s piece traces the rise of a new class of livestreamed talk programs that have dispensed entirely with the mass-audience fantasy. These are not shows that want to be CNBC or CNN. They are shows that want to be the only thing a freight executive, or a car dealership owner, or a tech industry insider, watches over morning coffee. TBPN — the Technology Business Programming Network, pitched more or less explicitly as Silicon Valley’s answer to Squawk Box — runs three hours a day and monetizes through advertising that, as the show’s president Dylan Abruscato put it, constitutes a “truly unskippable ad read.” When your audience is four thousand passionate obsessives rather than four million indifferent scrollers, the advertiser’s calculus changes entirely.

The quantity of viewers for these hyper-focused programs is not the measure of success. The quality of the viewers is the whole point.

This is not, if we are being honest, a new idea. Trade journalism figured it out long ago. The narrower the vertical, the more captive the reader, the more a quarter-page ad in that vertical was worth to the company selling to that reader. Broadcasting convinced itself it was exempt from this logic. It wasn’t. It was merely insulated from the consequences — for a while.

What the niche-casters have understood is that the internet did not kill appointment viewing. Appointment viewing for someone — for a specific, identifiable, reachable someone — is not only alive but thriving, on YouTube, on X, on LinkedIn, on all the platforms that the broadcast establishment spent years dismissing as vanity exercises. Warner Bailey, whose forthcoming Hollywood-focused morning show grows out of his Assistants vs. Agents social media franchise, told Zucker that audiences are now chasing authenticity.

And live programming, no matter how unpolished it can appear to be, is definitely authentic — and that is the feature, not the bug.

We would gently suggest that broadcast television’s problem is not just that it became too polished. But rather, it became too polished for no one in particular.

Local TV broadcasters sit in an interesting position. A local TV news operation already possesses what the niche-casters are laboriously constructing from scratch: community, specificity, a defined audience with knowable interests. The question is whether those newsroom assets get deployed in the direction of narrower, more targeted, and more genuinely useful content — or whether the answer remains, as it has been for a generation, adding yet another hour of local news with the same ingredients: Some local headlines, interspersed with a story or two from overworked and underpaid journalists, chasing multiple stories each shift, while doing double duty as both reporter and photographer.

At the top of each news hour, follow the directions printed on every shampoo bottle: Lather, rinse, and repeat.

Some local stations have pursued strategies to remix the formula. They range from promising to cover the “news where you live” to “holding the powerful accountable.” Others have pushed all their chips on “super-serving” the weather audience with a forecast of some kind every ten minutes. Sports has become a fifty-fifty bet, with some stations going all in on sports coverage, while others have stopped covering sports altogether. The industry’s consultants, who declared that any sports coverage was likely a waste of time, instead pushed stations to adopt “franchise positions” like investigative or advocacy journalism to differentiate one station from another in each of the nation’s 210 local markets.

And while this has been playing out, someone figured out that there was an audience for shows “micro-targeted” to the groups of people who might really be interested in watching. Maybe what their careers or pastimes were about. Or perhaps what their lives were focused on. And so, the freight executives found their show. The tech founders found theirs. Apparently, the car dealers have found one too.

Then the algorithm on whatever platform they are watching serves up even more of the same topic. The so-called “flywheel effect” takes over, keeping these “niche-casters” powering what, for many, is today’s version of “Must See TV.”

At some point, broadcasting has to ask itself whether it should keep trying to be something to everyone — or focus on getting a smaller, more loyal audience into the tent.

That act might be what saves this circus.

-30-