NetworkTV Demise cont.

Now for NewsTV.
The TV news is a format for delivery of info product that has not changed much since its inception.
Generally it has the depth of an oil slick.
Irene Adler, a character in Sherlock, the brilliant British production, said " Smart is the new sexy."
So true. NewsTV has not exactly jumped on that 
"smarting up" bandwagon. They certainly have established their credibility in the dumbing down department, however that style is now passe.

What is NewsTV doing wrong, then. From what I can observe... nearly everything. We must think of information as data bits. If you read a data bit on the internet you do not go over it 4, 5, or 6 times. You already read it once, that usually is enough.
NewsTV editors and writers have not quite grasped 
this concept. 

As an internet user one clicks on a link, reads that, then goes on to the next thing. If we want more info bits aka data we shove key words into Google and research more, as is our wish.
NewsTV cannot provide this level of service. Is that their fault? Certainly not! They are old media.... snail news.
This level of user ease is not embedded in their structure.

The list of news stories on Google or BBC is a page long or longer. The user chooses what product they want to consume-- not the TV editor's or writer's choice.
This is called "the empowerment of the user". 
When telephone answering machines were introduced we had "the empowerment of the called". So there are precedents in regard to socio-technological changes.

How is NewsTV different from the internet? Well, when the news is about to come on, after any other program, there is often a network shill ad for the upcoming news broadcast. 
In the previous hour time slot. 
The three top stories of the day are teased.
That's once you have heard, read or seen them. 
Keep track.
Next the actual news program comes on and guess what?
These three are mentioned again. 
"Our top stories today! "
Then they are often mentioned again when the anchor, however personable and charming [and they are!] starts talking to introduce each of the three stories. 
That's three times we have been party to three info bits repeated three times. Boring!

Now the video often will go from the anchor to a reporter
inexplicably standing by at the scene of the crime, disaster or whatever, where in most cases the action has completely evaporated, then the reporter repeats exactly what the viewer has heard, or seen three times already
by the intros. May I repeat: Age of the Internet!
That is four times now, boring boring I'm just snoring.
It seems as if the NewsTV staff are saying; " You, my dear viewer, are an imbecile."

What next? Well, we will often go to a "real person" who will more or less repeat what has already been said. Or to an "expert" who will also confirm the info bit being stated.
The expert is an interesting addition. The video editor will accompany her report with video of the expert walking down the hall outside his office, walking along the street towards her office or working on a laptop in the office.
This "video" is completely staged and rather embarrassing. It is there to give the voice over time to introduce them. Completely fake. I call it dead video,
or in other words radio.
The Internet does not find it necessary to infuse dead time into the users experience. Consequently our time is used more efficiently on Google news et al.
Our time is running out, as you are well aware. Ticking of the clock. Time passes. What I am referring to here is
we are mortal, and the most judicious use of our time is an imperative, don't you think? 
That is if you actually value life.
These are, as I declare in my philosophy, only my observations, you will have to tell if they resonate with you.
I grew up on TV, but young people today have the Internet. They simply will not waste their time on NewsTV.

Putting it another way....would a young girl raised on the Internet go back and read the identical information 5 or 6 times? What would be the profit in that?
As Camille Paglia says we are some kind of an ADD society now-- on to the next thing fast.
Rather than wasting our time with endless repetition we could be on to Japan wood block prints: the pictures of the floating world, Expressionist German Art, Hubble and Keppler's new galactic photographs, car design, or you name it.

Can I have been the only person to notice these critiques?
Of course not. When a person gets bad customer service in a store they usually do not tell the owner they never go back.
Why is there so little of these critiques expressed on the TV medium itself?
The television media would not willingly air information
that exposed its own diminishment.

Falling viewership means less justification for high salaries
of anchors, producers, directors, editors, sound crew, and all the other essential TV crew.
It must be no comfort to these individuals to have participated in their own employment's demise by their reluctance to amend program structure in response to technological advancements.
It is another case of you have seen the enemy and it is you.
In fact, one might observe, that there is a distinct unconfirmed possibility that the reason NewsTV/SnailTV is so superficial is that being the primary, [now ex-primary] news source makes one lazy. I, for one, could not say.

Chopper One? Don't bother if is just an expensive 
excuse to insert an in program add.

I've heard news reporting is quite expensive, but that is no reason to let a dearth of info product occur on NewsTV.
I refer to the "coming ups". A great deal of the news program is telling what will come up after what they euphemistically call " the break", which you know means ads. The "what we're working ons".
Forget them, already.
I wish all workers well. Does Snail TV/NewsTV think we are blockheads? Oh. Perhaps they do.

What if the user went to Yahoo news and they said the item you want will be coming up in 20 minutes time 
watch these ads and other unrelated info until that time?
Er....no. No. The user in the internet age would be on to another site or story....immediately!
They should be or else they are wasting their time.
Few people are going to wait to hear news for instance in the latter part of the program or more deviously after many many commercials. These comings up are time killers, so another few minutes of the broadcast is cheap. Do the editors and writers think they are cheap? Cheaper than providing hard news? That is: they take up time and cost nothing but the graphic work? The sub textual message: news is about wasting time?
I am asking. These are my observations, I make no claim to them being hard reality. You will have to make you own mind up about this.
More on this subject next post. Cheers.