4 ms·
24-hour cable news? Probably not. The fact that they have to be saying something for 24 hours a day, without repeating themselves too frequently, is virtually i
by austenallred 12y ago
24-hour cable news? Probably not. The fact that they have to be saying something for 24 hours a day, without repeating themselves too frequently, is virtually impossible. There's simply not that much news. Not to mention the fact that young people don't watch the news (the State of the Media report in 2014 said that the average age of the evening news watcher was 53) [1]. Honestly it's painful to watch when I'm at the airport.
You could get all of the news that matters in thirty seconds if someone went through the work to organize it that way.
Print news will die even sooner.
Internet/app news (or print resurrected in Internet form) is also in serious trouble. It's a money problem at the end of the day. News agencies are literally making pennies when they used to make dollars [2]. Turns out if you're making 1/10 of what you used to make it's hard to keep people on staff. Those people on staff were the writers and fact-checkers, so now instead of being able to spend a long time thoughtfully reporting there's a lot of "I need three stories on my desk by the end of the day" going on. Combine that with the fact that now your local newspaper competes with every other newspaper, and most of the industry is pretty much screwed.
Yet, I say that as someone who is starting a news company (https://grasswire.com https://grasswire.com). I think at the end of the day citizen journalism and fact-checking (allowing more participation from non-paid parties) can not only produce higher quality journalism, but can actually save the news from its monetization woes. (In other words, our thesis is that instead of trying to squeeze more out of the monetization end as a result of increase in supply, we should just let that increase in supply decrease the value of each printed word). Basically we're trying to create an open Wikipedia-like newsroom where anyone can curate and fact-check in real-time. It has been working beautifully in private beta, so we'll see.
[1] http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2012/network-news-the-pace-of-change-accelerates/network-by-the-numbers/ http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2012/network-news-the-pace-of...
[2] http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2012/newspapers-building-digital-revenues-proves-painfully-slow/ http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2012/newspapers-building-digi...
- yodsanklai 12y ago> The fact that they have to be saying something for 24 hours a day, without repeating themselves too frequently, is virtually impossible. If they were trying to put things in context as expected from journalists, they would have a lot more to say.
- dingaling 12y ago> There's simply not that much news. Of course there is, this is a planet of six billion people. I'm sure from your endeavours you are familiar with BBC Monitoring which summarises news from thousands of global media sources. 50%+ of those stories never reach the western mainstream news. And that's just one possible source.
- iopq 12y agoAnd your viewership doesn't care about most of them. There's only so much news that the general public cares about.
- prawn 12y agoI'd suggest that the viewership will generally care about whatever the media companies want them to care about. They don't care about far away lands because it's easier and cheaper to rile people up over local non-issues. Typical 24 hour news has its market. Younger markets will always have some equivalent format.