Select whichever words best describe the challenge of getting a million people to watch cable news --- or, really, any news show for more than 30 minutes. That's how much time Walter Cronkite had, and he had roughly 30 million viewers.
Walter Cronkite only had to keep viewers interested for a 1 hour news show each day, not 24/7. The network his show ran on spent most of its time airing things that were not news. CNN is trying to run news 24/7, and of course it's failing to keep people interested given that.
Also, Walter Cronkite had only two other major networks to compete with. CNN has to compete with however many cable channels there are plus the entire Internet. I'm not sure even Cronkite could have kept 30 million viewers in today's environment.
The CBS Evening News was only 30 minutes long when Cronkite anchored it. :) We basically agree, though.
> The CBS Evening News was only 30 minutes long when Cronkite anchored it.
Hm, yes, I'd forgotten that.
Re:The Meltdown at CNN
by JumpCrisscross on Monday June 05, 2023 @12:37PM
(#36198911)
> isn't enough sensationlist news, you mean. There are plenty of, arguably bordering on the infinite, interesting goings-on in the world around us
I don’t think unsensational is a fit for TV news. Maybe I’m wrong. But as someone who likes that stuff, I tend to get my news through text.
Re:The Meltdown at CNN
by kitsunesoba on Monday June 05, 2023 @12:56PM
(#36199247)
> The problem for journalism and why it was replaced with "journalism" has always been that journalism costs money, you need customers to make money
That's part of it certainly, but it's also driven by the need for neverending growth. It's not enough to just be making enough to be solidly in the black, the networks are pressured to always being pulling record profits.
It's completely unrealistic, but that's the expectation regardless.
Re:The Meltdown at CNN
by robertlagrant on Monday June 05, 2023 @01:28PM
(#36199745)
That seems a secondary or tertiary issue. If they can't even break even then there's no point blaming profit targets.
There isn't enough sensationlist news, you mean. There are plenty of, arguably bordering on the infinite, interesting goings-on in the world around us.
The problem for journalism and why it was replaced with "journalism" has always been that journalism costs money, you need customers to make money (or else rely on the state, a la BBC, NHK, etc.), and the most effective way to get customers has always been to sensationalize.
Merely being interesting doesn't make enough money for journalism to pay for itself, let alone return a profit, thus we have "journalism" and its endless spewing of sensationalism.