Why is TV news so snooze?

The news. Who even watches it these days?

The ten o’clock news, which was once my basis for understanding the world, now seems tired, distant and formulaic to the point of farce.

It lacks the atmosphere and urgency of Sky’s rolling news, the courage of in-depth reports like Alex Crawford’s and the expansive analysis of the BBC world service, to which I become hopelessly addicted when abroad.

Compared to the intimate, capsule storytelling found in the best of online video journalism, its attempts to cram an entire conflict into two minute segments seem hopelessly unenlightening. And why watch in the morning, to hear some talking head summary of the Chancellor’s actions, when I can hear him combatively interviewed on Radio 4′s Today programme?

The more I watch the news these days, the more it seems like this Charlie Brooker parody:

So come on, broadcast wannabes, tell me why I’m wrong. Or if you agree that the broadcast news formula is tired and irrelevant, how would you shake things up? Bill Bailey’s got an idea…

davidjmclare

There is still a strong place for TV news. It is available through your TV, online (iPlayer), as podcasts... all of which offer a more visual way to consume the news than Twitter or blogs. The problem you may be finding is watching the 10 o'clock news - I am not surprised this is not interesting because it is simply a recap of the day, adding little value to that which you have already read/seen/shared.

As with RedHeadFashion's comment, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on what is needed to correct this. Or does it even need to be corrected? Surely the 10 o'clock news is for those of us who remained disconnected for most of the day. So is it about knowing your audience?

lcorcoran

TV news does face a lot of problems recently. Twitter and social media can jump the gun a lot quicker and only has to provide short sentences. TV news, unless major, has to wait till broadcast time and fill 1.30-2.00. By then, a lot of people would have heard the news and it will be out of date.Another problem is that TV has to source everything where as Twitter can be speculation - sometimes being right, other times wrong. With TV news having to have interviews and sound clips, it can sometimes take longer to produce, again, meaning it is late in breaking news.

A lot of what rolling news does, and can be extremely boring, is fill time and just speculate. I don't want an empty press room while people wait for a speech, and I don't want news readers saying what might happen. Present the facts, don't fill. But as 24 hours news is exactly that, 24 hours, it has to fill, making it long winded at times.

Finally, should TV news even be that exciting? This is the news, not an action film. It should provide the facts and what we need to know, not what will draw in viewers, boast ratings and advertisers. Journalism should be the most obtainable version of the truth as Carl Bernstein said. This is what news should be, the truth, not action shots.

RedHeadFashion

A few questions...

1) 'The ten o'clock' news - do you mean ITV, the BBC?

2) Can you yourselves offer some ways for the nightly news to 'shake things up' and try and undercut the monolopy of Twitter for immediacy and Sky/the BBC's rolling coverage for much the same thing? Are you after new research, better analysis, unique footage? I'm sure a group of such bright-minded journo wannabes like you have SOME ideas to offer your readers?

3) 'Who watches the news?' - that's rather like saying 'who reads the papers?' Aside from the confusing generalisation, are you commenting on the inadequacy of certain outlets or the instution in general? Two very different kettles of fish there.

Look forward to your responses!

3 comments