Opinion - News Analysis   

Do we really need 24/7 rolling news?

Hasan Suroor

Not only is 24/7 news unnecessary, it has made journalism more sensational.

THOSE WHO make a living out of it will, of course, say "yes," but it is still worth asking whether we really need the 24/7 rolling TV news. No doubt, it is a great technological feat but is the amount of time, resources and manpower that is needed to keep people abreast of minute-to-minute developments across the world 24 hours a day, seven days a week worth it?

On an average day, when London, Madrid and New York are quiet and, mercifully, there is no major natural or man-made disaster how many people really want to get a blow-by-blow account of events whether they are happening in their neighbourhood or any other part of the world?

Surveys have shown that on most days, rolling TV news has the lowest viewership, only slightly better than niche programmes meant for specialist audiences.

The reason is simple: a majority of people, especially in Britain, get their morning news from radio and, then, on their way to work they pick up a newspaper to read in the train. Only the evening TV news has a significant audience — and, even then, some of the most widely-watched prime-time bulletins are not part of the rolling news channels.

In a city like London, the pace of life is so hectic that people simply do not have time to drop everything and watch the "breaking news" about the latest court ruling on designer babies or the dramatic police breakthrough in a long-running murder investigation. They know they can always catch up with it later.

Even in pubs, hotels and restaurants where there is a captive audience, it is not the news channels but "live" sports and entertainment that attract more attention. Ditto with people who stay home.

So, barring journalists and politicians, who watches the endless cycle of news on BBC News 24 and Sky News?

In India, where the daily struggle for survival is even more demanding and exhausting there must be even fewer takers for round-the-clock news. I cannot imagine very many people even in big metros dying to know about the latest twist in the Advani-Jinnah row or who said what to whom at the United Progressive Alliance's coordination committee meeting which "has just got over."

Because of the amount of time that rolling news channels must fill, TV reporters have started to sound like cricket commentators who — when nothing is happening on the field — are reduced to discussing the hats worn by the ladies in the members' stall at Lord's.

Waffling is the new art of broadcasting, and some of Britain's highest-paid TV journalists are most in demand when there is nothing to be said and yet viewers (if any are out there) must be given the impression that something significant is happening or going to happen.

Senior TV reporters have publicly admitted how farcical the whole "live" news business becomes when there is nothing new to report but they are expected to pretend that if you miss the moment you would miss a great new development.

At 11.55 a.m. (or is it 11.50?) every Wednesday, Sky TV's political editor Adam Boulton (reputed to be the country's best-paid TV correspondent) is at Westminster trying to second-guess the questions that Tony Blair might face at the Prime Minister's Question time in the House of Commons a few minutes later.

Nobody watching him can envy him struggling (so what if he earns a rumoured £400,000 a year?) to fill in the time until it strikes 12 and the Prime Minister walks into the House.

The worst of waffling takes place outside 10 Downing Street (read 10, Janpath and Ashoka Road for its Indian version) as TV journalists explain the "significance" of what Mr. Blair is expected to say or has already said or left unsaid.

One can see them reeling under pressure to say something, anything ("Andrew, keep on waffling ... please! Another 30 seconds, for God's sake!"), to keep the "live" show going until Mr. Blair comes to their rescue.

Somehow the very idea of a "live" telecast has come to be invested with significance and even the most mundane of events — from a Prime Minister's routine visit to a new hospital ward to a local police press conference — is seen to become important if it is telecast live.

But how many events are really so important that people need to know about immediately?

Even in the days of terrestrial broadcast, TV channels routinely interrupted their programmes or hourly news bulletins to break important news. And now that technology for "live" broadcast is in place, breaking news can be disseminated even more easily — and if something as important as 9/11 or 7/7 happens the rolling news can always take over.

Not only is 24/7 news unnecessary, it has made journalism more sensational. In their bid to be the first with the news competing news channels end up hyping stories which are, then, picked up by newspapers resulting in a media-feeding frenzy especially when there is a big story such as 7/7.

And such is the power of the visual media that what you see or hear on television has greater impact — and is more easily believed (even by hardboiled news desks!) — than what is reported by newspapers. "But they are saying something else on television," is a commonly-heard comment and the subtext is: "I'd rather believe what they are saying on the telly."

This is not meant to be a discussion on the relative merits of the electronic and print media and, clearly, like everything else 24/7 has its uses — but for how many people? And, is anybody going to miss them if BBC News 24 or Star News were to be rolled back? How about it?

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

The trade route to peace
A new deal for accident victims
A persistent irritant goes with a grand bargain
Do we really need 24/7 rolling news?
Egypt must tolerate open debate
U.K. should abandon its nuclear weapons
A great shock for conservationists
Salaam Mumbai
Out of proportion
Gill conviction

Copyright © 2005, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu