My argument is that this is short-term-ism at its worst and is ultimately destructive in multiple ways.
In my view, the root of the problem is that; like many industries affected by unpredictable world events, broadcasters are trying to return to doing business the same way that was successful before the 2008 recession, social media advances, and more recently, the pandemic. So, let's see if we can cut employee costs further by allowing what amount to interns as reporters. Let's see if we can get them in as part-timers so we don't have to pay them benefits. If that doesn't work, then let's pay them minimum wage, or slightly above. Hopefully, there are enough gullible, young people who want to get on TV that we get a long-running supply. Will any of that improve, let alone maintain the overall quality of our news product? As long as it's good enough to keep the number of news blocks alive, it's good enough.
Moreover, news still brings in money. It doesn't make sense to stint on the quality of the product. (I bet Boeing wished they had paid more attention to those door plugs. Same principle.)
You're right. It doesn't matter whether we're building airplanes, cars, or TV news, once the quality of the product suffers and word gets out (after all, it's right there on TV), then your audience flees and so do your customers/advertisers. With all the competition for eyes and ears these days, I wouldn't assume you'll ever get that audience back.
Not that this discussion is going to change anything. This is a message board, after all.
Of course not, but it is an interesting, perhaps depressing, view into the mindset of some people working in the broadcast biz.
Fox is a propaganda channel that occasionally uses news as window dressing.
Even back in the day, Roger Ailes said Fox News was less about news and more about entertainers talking about the news.
