Is there too much news? (1 Viewer)

[DeathStar1]

This was a side thought from an article I found about Peggy Charren 'killing' Saturday Morning TV.

When I first started my animation website, I was surprised at how many people had their toons on the weekend replaced by local news broadcasts or infomercials, as early as 1994, while the rest of us where watching Garfield and Friends....

This brought up the question, is there too much news on TV, and does anyone try to watch it at all?

I mean, we've got at least 12, dedicated 24 hour news channels. Anyone who really wants to see them has probably already subscribed to cable and satellite. We've got news shows on all 3 major networks, and now on Fox, from 5-6 PM, some till 7 PM. Then, they have all of their newsbroadcasts in the morning from 5-9 AM, usually, leaving no room for syndicated shows.

Is there such a thing as news overload, or is alotto news, good news?

 

[Paul_Medenwaldt]

Great Topic!

I'm a news junkie, so I enjoy the over abundance of news networks. The all seem to keep themselves in check with reporting news and the accuracy of the news itself.

As for you concern Neil, I noticed in the early 90s that the local big 3 networks were switching to a live format news programs instead of the regular Saturday morning cartoons. IMO thats a loss for the kids that are growing up today, granted I don't think highly of the over-hyped Japanese cartoons that are being aired these days, but it't something the kids should be able to look back on when there adults.

The reason these local channels are switching from cartoons to news programs is because of cost. Its cheaper to put together 2 hours of a news programs then purchase 2 hours of syndication programs.

Paul

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Paul Medenwaldt wrote:

Hmmm. That may be part of it, but I think the more cogent reason from the broadcasters' point of view is to draw advertisers for the "coveted demographic age group 18-49", which is where the "real money" is considered to be nowadays.

You see the "upscaling" effect everywhere. It's happening throughout the society. Virtually nowhere is untouched, including children's tv programming.

Remember what J.C. Penny was like before it become "nouveau yuppie"?

 

[Jason Seaver]

I don't know as there's too much news, but I do think that too much bandwidth is being used to relay the same information. The three major networks' stations basically play local news from 5:00pm-6:30pm, but it's the same surface-level stuff repeated three times, with different "lifestyle" segments. So, basically, you're looking at the same program being run 9 times in a very short period - not the best use of resources, methinks.

I understand the rationale - a newscast is relatively cheap to produce, especially if you can re-use everything multiple times, and there is demand to have them at different times of the day. I don't know what kind of quality we're getting from this practice, though - it barely seems worth watching.

 

[Jack Briggs]

The problem in the Los Angeles market is a dearth of local newscasts that are worth the time it takes to manipulate the remote.

The "local news" as proffered by KABC, KNBC, KCBS, and other affiliates and independent channels is nothing more than Entertainment Tonight with the weather and sports thrown in. If you want the latest celebrity gossip or "reports" on lurid sex crimes (anything to do with sex is used), you're in luck. But if you're interested in City Hall or even state-related news coming out of Sacramento, forget it. Not a single local station even has a correspondent in Sacramento. Yet these same clowns sent remote crews to "cover" the trapped miners in Pennsylvania and, of all things, the death of Princess Di.

But real, genuine news related to California or Los Angeles? One's only broadcast source for that is one of the local PBS affiliates.

My problem, therefore, is that I don't get enough news. Fortunately, I read the Los Angeles Times as well as our two alternative weeklies.

 

[Jason Seaver]

Well, we don't get enough news here in New England, either. Too many newscasts, not enough news. :frowning:
And that's before you even get into the "Stormwatch" stuff that will be starting in December. People must like it, but good lord, it's like the stations think that none of us who live in Maine, New Hampshire or Massachusetts either expect or know how to deal with harsh weather...

 

[Roberto Carlo]

The problem in the Los Angeles market is a dearth of local newscasts that are worth the time it takes to manipulate the remote.

One of the great things about HTF is that it makes me feel pretty fortunate. Here in DC, the local news is pretty good, especially when you consider that you have the equivalent of three states to cover. There are correspondents in Annapolis and Richmond, so we get a feel for what is going on state-wide. Then of course, as you might expect, our local news has a way of overlapping with "national" news.
Having said that, I find the cable news networks to be shallow and superfluous. I wouldn't call their coverage of the kidnapping stories "responsible." OTC, there's very little sense of perspective or proportion. My ex is scared s**tless over the prospect of our kid being kidnapped, something that is only remotely possible, never mind likely, if I decide to take him on vacation to northern Colombia.
Like Jack, I get most of my news from print or web version of newspapers. As the title of one of my favorite books of recent vintage puts it, "the news makes you dumb."

 

[Lew Crippen]

I almost never watch news on TV. Morning Edition, All Things Considered and Weekend Edition do very well at keeping me informed. Besides I have a crush on Susan Stamberg.