quote:
"...with daily local and national news."
The problem with local news is that TV is either too costly to produce locally exclusive news, or that there's not enough news to justify spending the money.
Face it, the Internet is the best way to produce news. It's quicker, cheaper and more ubiquitous.
Folks can get headlines IM'd or e-mailed, text-messaged to their phones or mobile devices.
Then, they can get the same news served up on the Internet, complete with video.
They can get it sent to their iPods, iTunes and read it when they want, and when it's convenient for them.
Why should someone want to sit in front of a boob-tube and have someone "preach" the news to 'em when they can read it for themselves?
The days of the "big voice" announcer whom pretends to be the voice of authority are over.
If you still feel like you need "daily local and national news," why don't you assemble the local media type folk, form a corporation, and get to doing it?
Just as you wrote, it's not as if there's not enough people in the area to justify not doing it.
However, one thing that we don't know is the cost:return ratio.
Would it be worth it?
There's a public radio station translator from WUAL/WQPR in Tuscaloosa in the area, and I know Pat whom runs the operation at UNA. Talk to her! I know Mark A. Pyle (WFIX owner), talk to him! Talk to Paul Slatton! Talk to the Self family, talk to the (dirtball) Darby's (on second thought, forget the Darby's)... there's an entire host of people with whom one could consult individually and corporately.
Form a not-for-profit, 501(c)3 media consortium and involve all media types (not just "big wheels") in the area.
Spearhead the thing yourself!
Involve UNA's Business School to do a viability study... if it could be done profitably, use the profits to feed the hungry, house the homeless, clothe the naked, school the uneducated, etc.
Creative thinking, you know...