[ad_1]
The heartbreaking scenes of suffering in Kabul are the kind of “difficult news” that many Americans find compelling. But most of the time, many Americans cannot find “difficult news” a fascinating thing to watch. People generally prefer to be entertained.
A new Media Research Center study of cable news coverage on CNN, MSNBC and Fox is a bit depressing. Only 22.3% of the hours of cable news studied can be defined as “difficult news.”
It’s even worse if you compare it to advertisements. On average, the “new” the networks have nine minutes of information in an hour… and 18 minutes of advertising.
CNN leads the pack with 28.2% hard news, compared to 20.3% on MSNBC and 18.4% on Fox. Overall, 70% of cables “blanket” are hosts who talk to guests.
More than half of the news – 54% – is discussion and analysis by presenters, correspondents and commentators.
There is a pessimistic assumption that most people have seen the headlines on their cell phones before; that reporting the news may seem repetitive. But that assumes that it is not repetitive to hear the same views shared over and over again.
It hasn’t always been that way. In 2013, the Pew Research Center found in a 2012 newscast study that “Factual reporting” accounted for 54% of CNN’s content, compared to 45% for Fox News and just 15% for MSNBC.
For this we should blame ourselves. The assessments and focus groups have probably shown that this is what we want as “new” consumers. Republicans and Democrats – conservatives and liberals – seek information that confirms a worldview.
To accompany the cable numbers, the MRC also reviewed a sample of morning and evening news shows on ABC, CBS and NBC. Overall, 50.1% of those shows were hard news. Evening news broadcasts had the hardest news (71.7%), followed by the 7 a.m. time of morning broadcasts (60.9%).
All this partisan division on partisan channels underscores why the country feels more divided and confidence in the media continues to decline. Both sides wage their battles on social media sites, where both sides can expect the worst; that the other side wants to destroy democracy or abolish capitalism.
There is nothing wrong with having a vigorous debate, but it should take a step back from premises such that your opponent is part of a “cult of death” or not so secretly root the Taliban, unless they say these crazy things out loud.
It would appear that the answer to building greater confidence in the “new” is to report more current news. But with instinctively checking numbers like these, is that overly optimistic an assumption?
[ad_2]
Source link