The ideas discussed in my previous post that “more isn’t always better” extends further to the ideas of news and how we receive it. Some people might argue that the more news the better because it means we are more connected and in the know of the world around us. I disagree. With the overflow and rapid access of news articles, news outlets have recently switched from being an informative industry to a competitive one. With that competition comes useless news aimed for shock factor and a flood of millions of news reports coming at us at once to keep up with competitors, with less of what we “really” need and want to know. We end up with news fatigue- too much information comes at us that we don’t understand or cant process so we tend to purposely avoid news all together.
Article #12 in the Mass Media book discussed briefly about the “BBC”, a British website which lists links on top of their articles to help their readers better understand backstory and facts so they can better understand the articles as a whole.
Personally, I feel if US articles followed the structure of the BBC, the would have a much more successful business and more satisfied informed consumers. For example, many times I see a news report about riots in a country or something similar. Without understanding the history behind it, the countries culture and why the riots are happening in the 1st place, I feel misinformed and confused by the article rather than educated and satisfied.
Therefore, more news does not mean better news. In order to not fall apart companies should look into different structures to improve and fight the competition such as news that is easier to understand and contains substance and relevance to its consumers.