The future for TV news channels

Cardiff University’s Richard Sambrook and Sean McGuire of Oliver Ohlbaum argue here that the 24 hour TV news channel has had its day.

Why, they ask, pay for studios, presenters, crews and reporters to hang around waiting for news when audiences can get it instantly online? TV news can’t beat digital, so why not get rid of some of that costly infrastructure and rethink broadcast news as an on-demand service?

At first sight it’s a compelling argument. TV news is locked into formats developed decades ago, change has been slow to show on-screen as disruption has happened all around it. In my own experience I know that between 2006 and 2012, when I worked predominantly in digital news, it felt like there was wave after wave of disruption and innovation – podcasts, web video, social media, broadband uptake, personalisation – each one forcing us to reexamine our assumptions.

When I returned to television in 2013 it felt like nothing had changed. That’s not quite true – the ability to use broadband in newsgathering had reduced the reliance on satellites, but aside from that, I got straight back on the bike.

But….

The trouble with this kind of argument is that it presupposes an active viewer. Someone who wants to take the time to create their own personalised bulletins, that’s interested in watching a raw feed of video of an event, that has no interest in the context and analysis added by reporters and guests – but still wants the high quality newsgathering that Sambrook and McGuire think they’ve freed their reporters to conduct.

Some people are like that. But I’d suggest most are not.

Sometimes people just want to watch the news. Yes, that needs to be made easier to consume when I want to consume it – but that seems to me to suggest more infrastructure built around a TV news channel not the abolition of the channel itself. Yes, live news needs to cover better stories, to reduce its reliance on balcony two-ways with journalists far from the story. In my opinion, Al Jazeera English has a good track record in this. But I can’t see that a reduction in competition is likely to improve the quality of coverage for the viewer.

And, yes, people make mistakes. But I think viewers can forgive that. Just as they can also forgive the mistakes that happen online in the wake of disasters. 

TV news needs to change to keep itself relevant. It needs to lose its complacency, to embrace online and the digital revolution, but the idea of an output spine which keeps newsgathering motoring 24-hours a day is still relevant, and long may it continue to be so.

ITV’s special pleading to parliament

Interesting story on The Guardian about ITV calling for top slicing of the licence fee.

ITV wants a fund set up, allowing broadcasters to bid for funds to support their news operations.

It’s an interesting argument – the actual submission to parliament is very interesting.

ITV points out it spends £100 million a year on news. Sounds like a lot, but it’s trifling compared to the BBC.

As anyone who’s looked into this knows, there’s very little publicly available information about how much the BBC spends on news. The £45 million figure is often quoted – but that’s merely the operational costs of the BBC News Channel. You also need to add in newsgathering, BBC World, and Nations and Regions plus the costs of the bulletins, Newsnight and BBC Breakfast. And that’s just TV – what about radio new, 5 Live and the World Service?

The actual figure for news could easily be ten times what’s spent on the news channel.

But the really stand out stat for me was the BARB quote:

each adult watched an average of around 114 hours of national or international news on television in 2012, of which around 80% was on the BBC. The next closest is ITV with 13% share of viewing, with Sky News in third place with 6%.

 

That is a disaster for ITV.

Forget the comparison with the BBC for a moment, ITV is only recording twice as much news viewing as Sky News.  Sky News is a brilliant product – but it doesn’t deliver mass audiences and the viewership is notoriously fickle. It may well be that there’s more to that stat than meets the eye, and I’m going to have a look into it. But on first reading, it’s hard to under-estimate how badly it suggests ITV has mismanaged its news brand.

Perhaps it shouldn’t have canned the ITV News Channel.