That is always the problem with data: it is reactive. Sure the average watcher is 65, and wants easy to understand stuff: that is what the data shows (I'll assume for discussion that is what the data shows, but I have no insight into if it is true or not). What the data doesn't show is if content would draw in day 25 year olds, they need several years of trying those other shows to see if it makes a difference - a very risky best that could run them out of business even if true (that is the older crowd stops watching faster than the younger crowd figured out it is worth watching meaning advertisers don't pay enough to keep producing content).
Of course TV in the US has figured out that the 65+ crowd is very valuable to customers (the advertisers, not viewers!), so even though they could get more viewers by not showing the nightly news, the nightly news is what they show.
This the same problem as interviewing people for a job nd collecting data about which “features” from interviews correlate with job performance… Without tracking the performance of any of the candidates who weren’t offered jobs—or turned down an offer.
Something, something, a diagram of a plane showing where the damage was on those that returned from missions.
> Something, something, a diagram of a plane showing where the damage was on those that returned from missions.
Ahahahah I love this dogwhistle. You always know you're in good company when someone waves their hands around and says "put the armor where there AREN'T bullet holes" and gives you a significant look. XD
In the US there's actually an FCC requirement that television channels air news.
From https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public-and-broadcasting: "virtually every station has an obligation to provide news, public affairs, and other programming that specifically treats the important issues facing its community." The details are specific to the license, but almost every station is required to air at least an hour of news a day.
It's unclear, because the exact details are specific to the license and therefore may vary from station to station. My local television stations usually air the news at 11, which is after primetime.
Reminds me of a thread a while ago pointing out that a single show dominates the MTV programming lineup almost every day [1]. It's as if there is some algorithm running without human intervention that feeds on itself by reacting only to current viewing habits:
foreach (show s in lineup)
if (s.viewers > THRESHOLD)
lineup.replace_with_more (s)
Obviously resulting in this weird local maxima where no other shows get broadcast.
I don't have MTV so I had to look up what "Ridiculousness" is. Apparently they play Youtube/Tiktok/etc... clips? Sounds like it must be incredibly cheap to produce. This is what it looks like when you let a race to the bottom continue on indefinitely.
And the cable industry can't understand why people keep cutting the cord. Can you imagine shelling out $120/month to have some producers pick out Youtube clips for you?
I went to a big box bar/restaurant a couple years ago, and they had a big screen TV playing basically what you describe. I wonder if that is the audience, subscribers using is as essentially something in the background? It's hard to believe there are enough that want this to make it economically viable...
This is precisely why the internet wins. It can both show the nightly news and a million other things at the same time, catering to a 60-year-old housewife, a 40-year-old car enthusiast, a 30-year old gardener, a 20-year-old fan of obscure Linux distributions and a Taiwanese 10-year-old kid living in Ireland, all at the same time. Youtube regularly recommends videos that I personally like, but that onlyhave a couple thousand views.
Of course TV in the US has figured out that the 65+ crowd is very valuable to customers (the advertisers, not viewers!), so even though they could get more viewers by not showing the nightly news, the nightly news is what they show.