A factor I don't see addressed enough about "news stations" is this:
Frequently, the headline and snippet for a news story is all I need.
*** "Trumps Wins New Hampshire Primary" with a snippet telling you his winning percentage.
*** "Israel, Hezbollah Trade Rockets in Northern Israel."
*** "US, Allies Strike Houthis"
How much more do I need? And these headlines will be everywhere.
Google et al might disingenuously claim "but hey! we're providing a link, so we're driving traffic to the real site!" But how many people even follow that link?
In the before times, you might watch Cronkite just to see what the news WAS. Now you see the facts everywhere. If you want the videos, they're always on YouTube.
Yeah, one of the hottest takes I ever shared on social media is that in 90% of cases, you just need the headline in order to understand the gist of the news. People did not like that take.
Great read. The only moat cable news had was centralized distribution, which is now becoming decentralized. I would posit that the rapid exodus from cable news has a large part to do with trust, which has eroded over the years due to political posturing. Thus their competitive advantage going forward is to shock and distort and sensationalize things and creates a sort of psychological moat of consumers who want to consume that sort of thing. But in any event good riddance! Let’s get our news directly from the source or through as few layers of channel as possible.
Glad you liked it! Yes, CNN benefited from the centralization of the cable bundle. It allowed it to become what I call "ambient television" -- something you can turn on and leave running the background while you're waiting for a show to start.
A factor I don't see addressed enough about "news stations" is this:
Frequently, the headline and snippet for a news story is all I need.
*** "Trumps Wins New Hampshire Primary" with a snippet telling you his winning percentage.
*** "Israel, Hezbollah Trade Rockets in Northern Israel."
*** "US, Allies Strike Houthis"
How much more do I need? And these headlines will be everywhere.
Google et al might disingenuously claim "but hey! we're providing a link, so we're driving traffic to the real site!" But how many people even follow that link?
In the before times, you might watch Cronkite just to see what the news WAS. Now you see the facts everywhere. If you want the videos, they're always on YouTube.
Yeah, one of the hottest takes I ever shared on social media is that in 90% of cases, you just need the headline in order to understand the gist of the news. People did not like that take.
Great read. The only moat cable news had was centralized distribution, which is now becoming decentralized. I would posit that the rapid exodus from cable news has a large part to do with trust, which has eroded over the years due to political posturing. Thus their competitive advantage going forward is to shock and distort and sensationalize things and creates a sort of psychological moat of consumers who want to consume that sort of thing. But in any event good riddance! Let’s get our news directly from the source or through as few layers of channel as possible.
Glad you liked it! Yes, CNN benefited from the centralization of the cable bundle. It allowed it to become what I call "ambient television" -- something you can turn on and leave running the background while you're waiting for a show to start.