The ‘not news’ Industry
On a typical night you’ll find over 60% of television news viewers will have their eyes on private broadcasting networks 7, 9 and 10 versus a dismal 25% viewership of public broadcasting networks.
When you scroll through Channel 9’s news feed to view the stories they’ve aired in previous days and current trending ‘news’ appearing in the evening bulletin a pattern becomes clear with 3 main ideas dominating the stories they deliver. There’s either a Queensland government story about a political issue or policy reform, or a crime related story, whether it’s actual crime or a police warning, and finally some feel good/emotionally charged stories to provoke public conversation. Many would argue these stories should be classified ‘not news’. The oxford definition of ‘news’ is — ‘Newly received or noteworthy information, especially about recent events’. While some Channel 9 stories may be newly received information, on the whole the stories aired could be classified not noteworthy and in many cases do not relate to recent events.
In contrast the ABC News feed, that again represents past television-aired stories and promotes what will appear in the evening, reflects a far more worldly perspective on the news. The headlining story will likely be the latest world news to come available and a range of other Australian government, Australian industry and world stories will follow.
This comparison is not to say public broadcast networks are the be all and end all of television news, however it contextualises and cements the idea that private networks air ‘not news’. Watching the news on Tuesday 18th August, the day a Bangkok shrine had been blown up and there were presumed terror links as to the reasoning behind the attack, Channel 7 was airing a lengthy ‘dodgy parking tickets’ segment. Certainly this to me solidified the idea that these news programs are ‘not news.’
The question this raises is, why do the vast majority of television viewers still invest time in ‘not news’? Why is that with all the choices available I still switched on to Channel 7 to get my daily dose of news? Is it because consumers are getting their real news elsewhere, given the technological age we live in, and we are looking to these programs simply as entertainment? Or are private news networks assuming audiences are progressively less interested in keeping up to date with world events and are simply catering to this shift?
Stephen Harrington suggests the demise of real news and rise of ‘not news’ could be due to the perception consumers are capable of deciphering what news is important to them, thus presenting news as an entertainment device caters to and speaks for a wider public. This suggestion aligns with the idea that consumers find their own news. Airing ‘not news’ allows viewers to remain emotionally uninvested from story to story and eliminates the seriousness of what people see, in essence ‘not news’ is a bold new form of entertainment.
The reason news networks are able to enter into the entertainment sphere is because of the cultural globalisation we experience today. Global media is available at the click of a button, therefore whatever news a consumer is interested in they will find without having to wait for the 6pm bulletin to deliver it.
As a student, waiting for the 6pm news bulletin to catch up with what’s happening is an outrageous concept. In a world of constant communications at the touch of a button my preferred method of engaging with news is through Facebook and online news sites whenever I want an update.
Television news on a weekday has roughly 7 million live Australian viewers. Understanding this, we can assume most consumers are seeking out their own news sources, as I do. If not, there are 16 million uninformed Australian’s not contributing value to the public debate.
So, what does the shift to entertainment news mean for that 7 million still reaching out to traditional means to inform their public discourse? There’s been as established trust with the evening television news to bring public information to the forefront and make us aware of issues. Thus, when this changes, without public notification, how do we know we should alter our behaviour? Does it really matter that the discourse this mass is exposed to will focus on local ‘not news?’ Or does this simply provide an important juxtaposition to the 16 million other Australian’s with a different discourse.
Today the public sphere no longer extends only to your country, rather globalisation has ensured the public sphere is trans-national. Considering the public sphere is about citizens contributing to the public debate, having some Australian’s informed about every white male who’s been attacked by a shark and some Australian’s informed about suspected witch bashing in India means our global debate will be extensive and varied.
‘Not news’ may not be news to academics, journalists or media students, but to the masses that sit down and consume it each night to catch up on the latest crime spree and become entrenched in an emotional koala story it is real news. Perception of the value to the global debate is the only differentiator to what consumers classify as news, however stepping back allows you to recognise that all news is news to someone.
