With his bizarro news network, Aaron Sorkin thinks he is reimagining TV news, though he is usually reminiscing, wishing for a lapse of a fabulous Uncle Walter who’ll tell us all what’s what. Truth is, a routine we saw during work in a premier of The Newsroom — handling though a net of knowledge, ad libbing while staying one step forward of what’s famous — was precisely a medication for what CNN and Fox did usually a few days later, screwing adult a proclamation of a Supreme Court’s Obamacare preference given they knew too tiny and pronounced too many too soon.
Let’s not rest on Sorkin to reinvent TV news. But let’s reinvent it, please. Because TV news does siphon in so many ways: repeating what we already know; station on a stupid orthodoxies (the stand-up “report” in front of a plcae where zero has happened in 12 hours); happy speak and those stupid written fill-ins during handovers that supplement no information or value (“… a unequivocally discouraging news this evening”); continue über alles; flint from flacks; FIRE! and crime; belligerent banality; and many important, probably no strange stating and even reduction investigation.
But we don’t wish to act like a imitation snob, given print’s failing and TV’s not. And we don’t wish to be an Internet snob, given my genuine fear is that Internet news is apropos all too many like TV news, origination easy and apparent use of technologies instead of adding loyal value to a upsurge of information: blog posts that repeat and rewrite when a couple to a source would improved offer a open and reporters who do a genuine reporting; criticism for a consequence of comment; slideshows for a consequence of slideshows (and page-views); glomming onto a latest cold thing (TV has helicopters; we have aggregation, Wordles, Twitter feeds, infographics that spend an hactare to contend what a divide could, exercises in dataviz that all demeanour like a same supernova, and — God assistance us — videos done to impersonate TV news… NO!).
I have been arguing here that we need to reinvent news — a forms, relationships, and business models — given a new opportunities that record provides. But we don’t wish us to tumble into a shiny-thing trap of TV or a ecclesiastics of a broadcaster. we wish to reimagine a possibilities and a value of news. One plea is that we don’t nonetheless know what a Internet is and what all it can and will do. But we do know what TV is and can do. And we know that TV news creates unhappy use of a opportunities. So how do we reinvent it? I’d like your thoughts. Here are some of mine:
* Go ahead: summarize. We know that TV is good during repeating a news, so given not start by doing that improved and some-more efficiently? Don’t rubbish income and journalistic “talent” on stand-ups before long-dormant crime scenes. Don’t assume we need one chairman to review a news and another a sports when it’s all usually reading. One chairman reading in a studio can tell us many all that a stream organisation does. The subsequent doubt is how that one person’s book could supplement value: by summarizing stories cogently and precisely; by adding context; by cramming lots of information into a bustling hour; by holding a bid to find a unequivocally best reports out there and curating and integrating them. Make those 22 mins truly worthwhile. There’s zero to stop one or a few intelligent people from origination this newscast now. But it doesn’t unequivocally pull a peanut down a road, it usually creates improved peanut butter.
* Explain. Open secret: The good strength of open radio in a U.S. isn’t so many stating or review though explanation. Take Adam Davidson Co.’s shining work during Planet Money and on This American Life training us about economics. Now suppose they had visuals in front of them, even usually a whiteboard to blueprint a upsurge of money, a la a Khan Academy. Imagine carrying experts on call with webcams to extricate sold knots. Video is an glorious center for explanation; that’s given it is being used for education. Sadly, open radio has not taken adult a event to emanate a uncover that explains a news. Neither has wire news. Instead of a screwed-up newsflash over a Supreme Court’s ACA ruling, how many improved it would be to have a genuine reason of a impact of a legislation and how it will work (as Reddit did). It’s an event out there for a taking.
* Convene. So prolonged as TV is still a mass medium, many of a energy lies in entertainment and organizing people or action. The Tea Party is a explanation of that. Why not use this energy for good? Oh, we know, that’s advocacy; it violates a Star Trek Prime Directive opposite interfering with a populous. To ruin with that. TV could move people together not to scream during any other though to find common belligerent and action. Jon Stewart, again, attempted to do that with his Rally to Restore Sanity.
Sadly, it didn’t accomplish much; reason has not been restored. Perhaps a thought was usually too ambitious. Could internal TV assemble people to purify adult a park or mentor kids or start a FOIA club? Can we start there?
* Create. CNN and many of mainstream media blew it given they suspicion cameras in a hands of a open were an event to give them giveaway content, rather than to commission that public. Al Gore’s Current blew it (long before it hired Keith Olbermann). It had a possibility to be an open height for a origination and placement of vox vid by millions. we even had this evidence with Gore’s co-founder: open adult and make this a initial loyal network of a net. But they were tradition- and revenue-bound, bearing instead a wire companies and their demands. Current could have been YouTube. It’s now a has-been. Perhaps Cory Booker’s #waywire will see a new opportunity, that we consider is to supplement value to a public’s video by anticipating a best, origination it better, adding context, and so on.
Video will shortly be entrance from everywhere. Imagine a travel stage in which, say, a tenth, even a hundredth of a people are wearing Google Glass, constantly and now means to constraint and share what they see (the other 99 percent will have “phones” means to do a same): thousands, millions of cameras in a city. What would TV news demeanour like then? The pivotal ability is no longer promulgation out a crew; it’s anticipating people nearby news or anticipating news from a people who are pity it — in other words, seeking and listening.
* Discuss. Charlie Rose is smashing though he doesn’t scale. Online comments are in speculation wonderful, though they still tend to move out a worst. TV could find a center ground, opening adult a dialog over a booked-and-flacked guest on a uncover while also giving some form, structure, and politeness to a conversation. See what internal TV news anchor Sarah Hill is doing using Google+ Hangouts to open adult TV. A decade ago, we envisioned a uncover or network that would rest on a then-new network of webcams flourishing to move new imagination and new voices to TV. Now it exists. Use it.
Imagine, too, how TV could make improved use of a back-channel contention that is already occurring around it on Twitter, on Facebook, and on Google+. Reading a pointless chatter on atmosphere doesn’t cut it. How could TV use these feeds to surprise questions and answer them, to sign reaction, to fact-check, and more?
Note that these notions — origination TV a device for origination and review — renovate TV from a one-way center into a two-way platform. That’s where it should head, given it finally can.
* Joke. There’s a lot to be schooled from a success of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. we wish to learn a broadcasting march in amusement and truth. Humor is a ideal approach to call bullshit, that should be a goal of each news classification there is (instead, it’s a sign of Howard Stern’s Howard 100 News: “No some-more bullshit!”). Humor punctures pomposity. It engages a public. It adds perspective. TV does amusement well.
* Fact-check. Want to supplement value to a upsurge of news? Fact-check it. Add annotations to video from sources.
* Share. It has been argued that a BBC and other state-owned TV networks should make all a video they fire accessible for remixing by a open since, after all, a open already paid for it. It’s a good idea. Take all that a network shoots and all that C-SPAN captures and emanate collection to let a open make their possess shows around it, anticipating a gems that wouldn’t fit in 1:30 on a air, origination TV from a mass center into a distant some-more targeted venue.
* Report. Oh, yes, there’s no improved approach to supplement value than to report. There’s zero interlude TV from reporting. Yes, sometimes, cameras get in a way, though infrequently they also make it probable to get some-more information given they can uncover instead of usually tell and because, as The Daily Show proves regularly, people will do anything to be on TV, even make fools of themselves. Besides, cameras are removing so tiny we’re wearing them. They’re losing their energy of intimidation.
I’ll be a initial to contend (so we don’t need to) that that’s a crappy, deficient list, not scarcely talented enough. So kick me. Inspire us. Reimagine a possibilities. Remake TV. Just greatfully don’t make it this:
Books by this author
Follow Jeff Jarvis on Twitter: