Arguing That Streaming and Published Media Isn't News

In this post I'd like to elaborate on a point in my previous (first) post about news - that I don't consider television and printed publications to be news sources according to the criteria I use to define news. From among my chosen metrics (relevance, importance, and timeliness), these media are deficient with respect to all these metrics but especially timeliness.

Relevance and importance are subjective. As a consumer of news I determine these factors, as do you. When I consume television and published media I must delegate those factors to an editor. That editor caters to a large audience, not to me specifically though perhaps to a self-selected market niche such as precious metals markets. The better the fit between my wants and the editor's objectives, the more that source resembles my sort of news. The mass market, which most of the television and published media target, is unlikely to match my criteria for relevance and importance for more than a fraction of news material.

Consider a typical TV news program or a daily newspaper. Over the previous day, and up to the deadline which is earlier (or much earlier) than publication time, material flows in to the news department from numerous sources, some of which is distributed to all media publishers and some is from the station's or publisher's own journalists. One or more editors sort and select from this flood of information to choose a small subset of material to be published. They typically have a variety of segments which must be filled (local, technology, global politics, business, sports, markets, etc.), and within these segments stories are selected and edited to meet editorial objectives, to fit between advertising, and, perhaps most importantly, to retain and grow their base of subscribers or viewers by, at a minimum, being inoffensive and attractive. Editing is most severe for television and radio news programs (less so for 24-hour news stations).

The typical end product is news that is bland (mustn't offend any segment of the market), repetitive (most people like what they like, and consume that most readily), late (can be over a day late, so if you consider important news to be actionable, you're out of luck), and presented with a pleasing aesthetic (photogenic reporters, lots of colour, action footage, exaggerated effects and messaging). This is entertainment, not news. Entertainment is a wonderful thing, but right now I'm looking for news.

What about specialty news channels? You know the ones: CNN, CNBC, CBC Newsworld and all the rest. Again, I find the focus there to be aesthetics, blandness and, especially, repetitive. The repetition may seem perplexing since there is ample news out there waiting to get on, until you understand there is a cost in acquiring, editing and producing this material, and the revenue available does not justify the additional costs (reduced profits) - you are getting what they can afford to deliver despite the capabilities of the medium. There may also be 'breaking news' on these channels, but do you really want to keep one eye on the tube all day (amazing how many people do this!) waiting for it, and for them to decide to present it? No thanks.

When I do choose streaming media I prefer radio. At least I can keep my eyes where they can be more productively employed (typing blog posts?), which permits better multitasking. Television is entertainment almost without exception, and not even very entertaining entertainment where news is the primary objective.

The occasional times I buy a newspaper it is not for news; I read newspapers to be surprised and seduced by subjects that I would not have otherwise sought out on my own initiative. The Saturday Ottawa Citizen I sometimes buy may take me two weeks to read. Remember that newspapers are not timely news sources so speed reading is unnecessary. Newspaper publishers for the most part understand this and so use some of their space for in-depth and oddball stories. If I read a detailed history of the Afghanistan conflict (as one example), I get just as much out of the article if I read it a week later. The comics are also still funny - they don't go stale, not even the political cartoons. I also get an odd perspective on the news where an item looks forward to a forthcoming event and discusses what the outcome might be and why (G8 summit, an election, or sports event), and, knowing the outcome, compare the two. That can be very educational.

That's enough time to spend on streaming and published media. From here on in I'll focus on the internet, which is where I get what I really consider to be news. Some is good, some is bad, but it's all very interesting and rapidly evolving.