On the Future of TV News

With reports of journalism jobs being hard(er) to find and discussions at conferences like the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communications's annual convention, people in the news industry can't help but wonder about the future. Not just their individual futures but their industry's future.

It's a discussion we've had before, on various platforms and from various points of view. The conclusion remains that we don't know what the future will look like. We just know that it will be different.

I'd like to take a look at what is commonly referred to as journalism's main enemy: the Internet. Why does it work? Because it's customizable. It's targeted. Similarly, which TV stations/networks/coverage tend to make the most cash (and therefore survive longer)? Specialised stations and shows. Things like live sports, or channels dedicated to a single interest, like home design and renovations or fashion. These networks survive because they've found a niche market and they're feeding off of it, both in terms of ratings and ads - it's a targeted "sure thing" investment opportunity.

How does this apply to TV news? Journalists usually agree that all consumers should have access to a source of news that will educate and inform them as well-rounded citizens. In other words, just because your main interest is the stock market doesn't mean you shouldn't know what's going on in Parliament. But let's be honest. After the first five minutes or so of political news, you'll probably switch channels. A good news network will try to keep you watching despite your lack of interest, by using teases, for example. But that's not a commercially viable long-term strategy to retain your attention.

The only way TV news is going to survive in a future overtaken by the Internet, PVRs and "On Demand" is to give consumers what they want, and now. That, for lack of a better word, is what they want. So why not give it to them?

It's not just sports or specialised channels that draw audiences in. News events do the same. Remember #Obamawa? What about the #H1N1 scare or #Haiti aid or, the latest big issue, the BP oil spill? What do these things have in common?

People want to know. They want to know everything and they want to know it now. They just can't get enough coverage and they'll watch several news cycles on several news networks to get their fix. This effectively creates a niche market for information on this issue. But after a day or so, most of the viewers think enough is enough.

What is the future of TV news? Feed the monster. But only if it's hungry.

Every time an event or issue temporarily overtakes the news market, create a specialised "On Demand" stream that will broadcast anything and everything that has to do with the subject. Whether it's NASA's latest space mission or Canada Day, a natural disaster or a political faux-pas, create an individualised stream and feed the monster.

Most of the networks already do it online. Those who know about it and have access to the Internet at the peak of their interest will routinely stream press conference feeds or sporting event coverage. Currently, the networks offer these services for free, mostly because consumers won't pay for a service they're already paying for, whether they consider that to be their cable TV or Internet. Also, most people aren't comfortable paying for any kind of information on the Internet because they're certain they can get it somewhere for free.

But can anyone guarantee a high-quality, uninterrupted, 24h specialised stream? Not on the Internet. Not yet, anyway. But on TV? They've pretty much got it down.

My suggestion - and I want to note that I haven't crunched the numbers on this since broadcast finances are not something I'm familiar with - is to provide that specialised stream on cable TV. Users with a digital box can simply call up their provider (or use self-serve menus) and add CBC News Network 2 or 3 or 4 (for example), depending on which major news story they would like to follow non-stop. The subscription would automatically expire once the story and coverage dies down, or the user could call and cancel it at any time. Set a one-time subscription fee of under $5 per story/stream - my suggestion is somewhere around $3 plus any applicable taxes - and a minimum subscription period of 48 hours, and I'm sure people will pick up on it. I would.

The network would have to broadcast several signals, but since we're switching to digital anyway, it probably wouldn't put too much of a dent in the budget. Getting CRTC clearance is another story.

And what kind of coverage would our reduced newsrooms offer to their new avid customers? Live streams of any of the gazillions of press conferences going on about the topic, interspersed with airport-style "breaking news" segments recorded in a centralised studio, potentially by anchors assigned only to that specific developing news topic or perhaps by the anchor on shift recording for all the specialised channels. You could also throw in live hits from the network reporters on location assigned to the story, interviews with experts and people affected by the story, and related pre-packaged reports - which you're producing anyway. Add in re-packed news conference highlights - longer than the ones played in the main network's news cycle - and boards showing upcoming events related to story, and you've got a nice loop-able mix of non-stop coverage on the news event du jour for the modern news junkie.

In terms of staff, the only extra hires would be technicians to monitor the various streams and editors to package and produce the stream's content. Current online editors would be perfect candidates for this position since they already understand the technology and short attention span of today's news audience. Most of the content is already coming in for the 24h news stations and the live press conference feeds are usually provided as in-house service for a minimal fee.

That way, when a major news story or event takes over the news industry, we won't be overwhelmed by endless reports on an issue, meanwhile getting less than satisfactory coverage of all the other going-ons in the world. And we won't be saturated by a constant flow of information that will make us stop caring about a potentially important issue, or worse, make us actually care about a non-important issue. Like Lindsay Lohan being sentenced to jail.

I don't know about you, but if I could buy non-stop quality coverage of the next shuttle launch, I would. Even if I know I could watch it for free online at NASA TV. Why? Because I can get everything I need to know about that one topic in one spot. And because I'm a space geek. And a political geek would buy coverage to Obama's visit to Canada, and a TV geek would purchase a CRTC telecommunications panel package. In this case, the repetition of the news cycle wouldn't be such a bore because you would choose to watch it.

What do you think? Could dedicated temporary cable streams be the future of TV news?

I guess there's only one way to find out... Stay tuned!

Something new...

Lets try something new! When I can, I usually live blog the post-game comments off RIS Info's live locker room and press conference coverage. This usually gets posted for a few friends, sometimes on Mike Boone's blog on HabsInsideOut.com, and I figured, why not share it with the rest of the world!

So here are tonight's clip from the locker room and the press conference. Ignore the typos and quick formatting... Live typing is kinda tough. I now understand the closed captioners.

Lats on his winning goal: "I actually thought Max was going to dump it so I was going behind the net."
Carbo'd planned gui and max in OT before, it just never happened
on the second: we were missing a lot of chances, breakaways, but we're happy about the victory

Koivu:
"You learn from the guys and you're gonna get better.We have a quite young centerman and he's a really good faceoff man. It's one of the things we're practicing and wanna improve but we're not as bad as people think."

"You try to make them comfy and push at the same time, teach them to do the little things right"
Saku thinks his wingers are comfortable, but says they all need to pay attention defensively.
on home: "3 out of 4 is not bad," but not satisfied with the way they played.

Huey: "We would have liked to have a better second but after we reacted well, esp in the third, we deserved the win. It was a sign of maturity to be able to come back, earlier in the season, we weren't able to come back from our mistakes."

Locke: "It's a great feeling, I've wanted to play in the NHL and with the habs since I was a kid. It was an honour. It was great, a great experience, I'm glad I got in the game, and I'm glad we won in OT, it's nice to get the win."
Surprised: How quick it is and you have to pay attention all the time no standing around

Max: on the winning goal
"When I saw him (Gui) at the center and saw he was giving me space, so I just tried to give him the puck and he scored.
He says he was trying to dump it behind, like Gui thought, but it turned into a pass and Gui scored. plus they have fun off the ice, so it's always fun to win, but because it's Gui it's even better.

Carbo:
3/4 is good. We would have liked 6/6 but after the Washington game, we talked about it, and I'm happy. It was a weird game, but a good one. It's always been a good rivalry, so it was fun to prepare this game, esp. against a team we don't always face.

We liked the way we were playing before Xmas, and we still have a bit of a letdown in the second, but I think it went really well.

Sometimes, you make decisions and it works. It had been a couple of games I hadn't used them (Max and Gui), but I had a feeling, and so I put them on the ice. Max had already been there for 20 seconds, and it turned out well!

More in English: I thought they had a good game. Max has been really good for us since he'd been called up, and Gui had a really good game with a lot of chances around the net. Last game in overtime, I didn't use them, but like I said, sometimes, you just have a feeling.

We've been working with him since he's been up last year. Especially in the power play when we need him in front. He has 12 goals, and last year he scored a few, and they're not 10 feet away, they're from in front of the net.

Laughs and complains at the Price and Chip question.

It was about the time we were thinking about it. If you look at Carey, we knew January would be an easier schedule, and that we wanted to give Price more ice time. Finally, the schedule was favourable to make a change, and we talked about it even before the Washington game.
Kyle had a very good beginning of the season, he was excited and was playing hard. But then I think he stabilized and the league kept getting better. It's something that always happens, and it's tougher when you're young. Kyle is an instinct player, and when you don't have confidence, it's harder to play. So he can go to Hamilton for the next four games... Hamilton's playing 4 games in 7 nights.

... Yeah, maybe, it's supposed to be temporary. They told us they'd be there for the next four games.

Yeah, I've been watching Corey for a while, and he's always been the best wherever he played. He's always found the way to score, in all his leagues, so it was important for me to give him a chance.

We want Kyle to come back strong. It's not just for the guys who are here. I think we're gonna have some players coming back in the next couple games, and I can't dress 20 players, so some of them are going to have to sit down, and they have to prove they want to be in the lineup.

Stay tuned...