It's true that TV news shows tend to speak to a 'lowest common denominator' sort of audience. From their perspective, the more people there are who can understand what they say, the more people will watch their news show. I would think that the loss of viewers at the high end of the scale (i.e., people insulted by the low content level) is probably far outweighed by the gain of viewers in the lower levels.
In a similar vein, I think that news shows are becoming more and more entertainment-oriented and less informational. Shows like "Hard Copy" have already crossed the line; I hardly count them as 'news shows'. Again, it seems to be a ploy by the networks to attract more viewers, by presenting what they think will be a more enjoyable broadcast. This is also responsible for the high number of 'local interest' news stories, like "Child Athlete of the Week" or somesuch.
Is this because more people are turning to other sources for their news? Possibly. Personally I find 20 minutes of NPR on the way to work in the morning to be significantly more informative than watching the morning news. Otherwise, if I want headlines, I can find the wire services on several web sites which will also offer basic (or sometimes detailed) analysis. If I want sports news, I can turn to ESPN or their web site. NWS weather is available on many different web sites, usually in more detail than a 20-second weather forecast. It seems that perhaps network television (and newspapers) is becoming outdated as a source of 'hard' news. The only interesting information left for local news shows to cover is local news, which is only of interest to the community.
Alas, television is still the most commonly available source of information that can be updated instantly, and therefore it remains important. However, we are rapidly reaching the point where as many people have televisions as have Internet connections. I suggest that once we reach that point -- or even before! -- the need for news shows on television drops to near zero.
As I think I've made clear here, anything that you can get from a television news broadcast, you can get on the web, and usually in a more timely fashion. Network television needs to stop trying to do everything, because they do it all, but they do it all poorly. Stop broadcasting news, because there are plenty of other, better sources. Instead, let's try paying network executives to come up with some actual entertainment.
It was probably when he left CMU and realized that getting press in mainstream media was a lot harder than getting your name in the school newspaper.
Declan seems to have the knack for finding the pulse of the majority and writing (or speaking) in such a way that attracts attention, but still says "Hey! I'm one of you and I agree with you! And I'm important, too!"
I'm suprised that, after being Student Body President for so long, he didn't try harder to break into politics.
- Yet Another SlashDot Reader Who Went To CMU With Declan
Slashdot Mirror
It's true that TV news shows tend to speak to a 'lowest common denominator' sort of audience. From their perspective, the more people there are who can understand what they say, the more people will watch their news show. I would think that the loss of viewers at the high end of the scale (i.e., people insulted by the low content level) is probably far outweighed by the gain of viewers in the lower levels.
In a similar vein, I think that news shows are becoming more and more entertainment-oriented and less informational. Shows like "Hard Copy" have already crossed the line; I hardly count them as 'news shows'. Again, it seems to be a ploy by the networks to attract more viewers, by presenting what they think will be a more enjoyable broadcast. This is also responsible for the high number of 'local interest' news stories, like "Child Athlete of the Week" or somesuch.
Is this because more people are turning to other sources for their news? Possibly. Personally I find 20 minutes of NPR on the way to work in the morning to be significantly more informative than watching the morning news. Otherwise, if I want headlines, I can find the wire services on several web sites which will also offer basic (or sometimes detailed) analysis. If I want sports news, I can turn to ESPN or their web site. NWS weather is available on many different web sites, usually in more detail than a 20-second weather forecast. It seems that perhaps network television (and newspapers) is becoming outdated as a source of 'hard' news. The only interesting information left for local news shows to cover is local news, which is only of interest to the community.
Alas, television is still the most commonly available source of information that can be updated instantly, and therefore it remains important. However, we are rapidly reaching the point where as many people have televisions as have Internet connections. I suggest that once we reach that point -- or even before! -- the need for news shows on television drops to near zero.
As I think I've made clear here, anything that you can get from a television news broadcast, you can get on the web, and usually in a more timely fashion. Network television needs to stop trying to do everything, because they do it all, but they do it all poorly. Stop broadcasting news, because there are plenty of other, better sources. Instead, let's try paying network executives to come up with some actual entertainment.
It was probably when he left CMU and realized that getting press in mainstream media was a lot harder than getting your name in the school newspaper.
Declan seems to have the knack for finding the pulse of the majority and writing (or speaking) in such a way that attracts attention, but still says "Hey! I'm one of you and I agree with you! And I'm important, too!"
I'm suprised that, after being Student Body President for so long, he didn't try harder to break into politics.
- Yet Another SlashDot Reader Who Went To CMU With Declan
If Alpha has zero development budget, then who's paying my salary?