Tuesday, January 15, 2008

your views on news

Last night in the UK, ITV's News At Ten returned after a nine-year absence.

Some reviews have been harsh and others more evenhanded, but I don't really care about all that. What I'm curious about is all the interest around its return. It's clearly big business and a flagship programme in the channel wars, but for us - the people with the tv remote and that other thing.. the internet - do we really care?

The purpose of this post isn't for me to try to answer that question (although I will share some thoughts). Rather I'd love to know what you think.

For me, choosing your newspaper is a significant consideration. I read the Guardian, partly because of the choice and style of the 'news', but even more so because of all the other bits: Society; G2; Arts etc. But when it comes to catching the news on the telly, I really can't tell the difference most of the time. I don't care who reads it. I don't have a preference at all. For me, it's pure information, with a dab of laziness preventing me from reading it myself.

The late-night news does carry some nostalgic appeal for me. It both regresses me to childhood at the same time as making me feel like I have actually become my dad. But is the evening news still an "event" in the way it once was? Is it different if you're over 35? Would you ever think: 'I don't like the way this guy pronounces Middle-Eastern names, I'm going to try the other channel? Do you watch the news daily or just catch it when it's on?

Please do share your thoughts on this. I'm curious to know if anyone cares about the battle of the news other than TV stations and advertisers.

Labels: , ,


Anonymous Anonymous said...

i have had a long think and...

I can't think of anything constructive or amusing to say at all about news at 10 at all.

Perhaps you can do a 'Trevor Macdonald: hor not?' or something more like that?..


4:41 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was having quite a heated discussion about this with a friend of mine a week or so ago.

Basically, I hardly keep up with news at all. The only time I ever get wind of breaking stories is if people are talking about it in the studio.

I don't watch TV at all, so can't comment on specific programmes, but for me, there is no benefit in keeping up to date with the minutia (sp?). Hearing about some double-murder in Middlesbrough has nothing but a negative impact on me - it makes me a little more fearful of society, and what possible good can that serve.

I, occasionally, like yourself, buy the Guardian, but that's mainly because it's the only newspaper that feels 'designed' to me. And the supplements are often excellent - this is 'news' that actually has direct relevance to me, and so can be deemed as useful.

Sorry, bit of a rant there :-)

11:00 pm  
Blogger Ki11er said...

Rants welcome!

For the last three years, I've only owned a TV for maybe 3 months. My main exposure to the news is my Firefox homepage, which is set to BBC news. This means I have constant, but shallow contact with what's going on (continuous partial attention*)

And I always feel that physical newspapers are a day behind me anyway, because I get news 'live' online. (The Metro feels like a retrospective). Therefore, I too buy my newspaper primarily for the supplements, which contain 'news' that is far more interesting and less covered elsewhere.

With information the way it is these days, surely "the news" doesn't really exist as the 'event' it used to be presented as. The old 'news' is the wallpaper that we have around us, like a comforting blanket (knowing the world continues to tick along), while we target more niche information. This is a much bigger topic. I'll shut up now.


1:15 pm  

Post a comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home