>The problem isn't the news organization, it's the media consumers.
I've always been somewhat disheartened by comments like this. People will blame consumers for how media is but then say this about technology:
"If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses."
At some point someone sold the idea of sound bite consumable news to customers and convinced them that it was good. the way that we know that is because news had never looked that way until cnn and networks like it started.
consumers either know what they want or they don't know what they want... but I hardly think that issue is cut and dry
>At some point someone sold the idea of sound bite consumable news to customers and convinced them that it was good.
What makes you say this? This seems pretty false in my opinion.
It seems much more likely that sound bite consumables are the outcome of testing/feedback and iteration. It seems entirely possible to me(if not probable) that consumers(for the most part) don't know what they truly 'want' in terms of news.
We live in a world of(largely) instant gratification; the fact that 'news' would have to adapt to fit that lifestyle makes perfect sense to me.
> People will blame consumers for how media is but then say this about technology: "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses."
What point are you trying to make here? I'm having difficulty parsing your meaning. Humans, when they aren't versed in the underlying operations of a system, WILL make broad assumptions(about said operations) and WILL have irrational expectations and 'wants' based on those assumptions.
What would my grandmother(or even mother for that matter) ask me to improve about her spyware-ridden current-gen laptop? "Make it faster." If I asked her how to improve the news on the other hand I guarantee "make it faster" would not enter the conversation.
Soooo, what's your point here? That consumers do want 'faster' news? And why would a consumer's desire for more succinct news imply that they are okay with less accurate news...?
Obviously the issue isn't cut and dry, everyone is a consumer of the news and we all have our own opinions. That said, I have a hard time disagreeing with the parent comment. Have you watched the news recently? 'News' stories are NOT given time based on their importance to the world as a whole; and for good reason. When a media company(whose purpose is to provide fiscal return) is met with positive feedback for stories pertaining to popular culture, or pandering to popular opinion, they will invariably continue to publish in that vertical. The result is a 'news' which consists mainly of stories which are either racially/politically charged or major events(read: actual news) which are strung along for weeks(natural disasters, terrorists actions, etc...)
I guess I just don't like the way people talk about consumers as single decidable entity. It ends up being a wiping boy to distract from core problems. Example:
"Our technology succeeded that's because consumers are idiots, but we sure showed them a better way!"
or
"Our technology produced an offensive cultural phenomenon, that's because consumers are vultures who force us to bend to their will"
One of these statements can true but not the other... but frankly both of them are false as markets are infinitely more complex than boiling down to a mass generalization about consumption...
I've always been somewhat disheartened by comments like this. People will blame consumers for how media is but then say this about technology:
"If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses."
At some point someone sold the idea of sound bite consumable news to customers and convinced them that it was good. the way that we know that is because news had never looked that way until cnn and networks like it started.
consumers either know what they want or they don't know what they want... but I hardly think that issue is cut and dry