I sort of take the contrary view. I think 24 hour news coverage is inherently bad and cannot ever be good, because it doesn't give anchors enough time to react and analyse events, or viewers to digest and critically examine what they have watched. There are many examples like this, where the form itself is actually the problem even without any specifically malicious use.
You would say the shape of fast response news is malicious. I disagree. I think speed for accuracy is a tradeoff. There is a benefit to having fast response news. I don't have the patience to learn all of the psychological models necessary to substantiate this claim, but I do know people are more more motivated to take action by events that happen closer in time. Some details in breaking news will be wrong, but you wouldn't want to wait a week to learn about a school shooting or the stopping of all international travel.
Fast response news and 24 hours news are different things. "Fast response" also covers things like Twitter, which, while rife with its own problems, is at least theoretically capable of giving you an immediate, succinct news bulletin and then shutting up.
24 hour news stations can't do this. They have to blather and overanalyze rumors and twist words and sometimes lie because they need people to watch all the time, even when nothing is happening. Plus, since they are so mass-market focused (they have to be because of the revenue demands of the medium), any in-depth analysis is off-limits. Thus, viewers come away with surface-level, emotionally-charged and largely inaccurate ideas--flaws which are inherent to the system.
