As a multimedia journalism student I should hope for the success of cable news.
After a steady decline in average viewership, the 2016 election cycle seems to have brought prime-time and overall viewership back into an upward swing.
Both revenue and newsroom spending for cable news has also steadily increased, a good sign for my personal post-graduation job prospects.
Local affiliate stations offer hyper-local news programs that provide information I’d be hard-pressed to find anywhere besides my local newspaper.
But I’m most likely to get my news online, just like 50% of my fellow millennials.
As someone who has friends and former co-workers in the cable news business, I wouldn’t wish for their stations and programs to be shut down.
But regardless of the statistics, advantages of the format and my friends in the industry, I firmly believe we’d be better off without cable news-at least in its current form.
I haven’t watched cable television since the Super Bowl and before that I only watched cable news for election night.
Most of the political coverage and debates were streamed online and I found no reason to stick around to get “expert analysis” from CNN, MSNBC or Fox News commentators.
While President Trump’s rise to power has been entertaining, his hyperbolic comments on the death of the media has fueled him and the industry he has targeted.
Still, the modern cable news program seems to serve no greater purpose than react to whatever crazy statement the Trump administration said that day.
The visual aspect of storytelling cable news used to have over newspapers and magazines has now been eclipsed by internet based news sites.
Cable news is looking as outdated as black and white in today’s world. Photo Credit: John Atherton/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)
Publications like Now This and TheBlaze have risen to prominence across Facebook and Twitter feeds for their easily digestible video content and controversial program hosts like Tomi Lahren.
Even the traditional cable news networks offer convenient links to the same videos and articles they talk about on television through their social media and online websites.
In a world of instant gratification through the internet, there’s simply no reason to watch cable news programs that require you to wade through the muck just to find the content you’re looking for.
One could argue that this new age of news is shortening our attention spans and encouraging the “rush to be first” breaking news mentality that stimulates inaccuracies.
But I would argue that news is headed this direction no matter what format we get our news.
The days of standardized local news “stand-up” stories and CNN pitting a panel of Trump and Clinton supporters against each other has done nothing but push me away.
I’m annoyed and exhausted with news programs that are driven through controversy for the sake of profits and attracting advertisers.
In an ideal world, I see the media being funded on a subscription basis, one that would allow the stories to be told without the outside influence of ads and sponsored products in-between every story.
Platforms like Patreon.com already provide a way for me to directly fund entertainment and programs I enjoy, while also giving me the power to influence the type of stories and content my favorite creators make.
This subscription based funding of media doesn’t facilitate a bright future for cable news, but then again neither does our current path of news digestion.
A 9-year-old with a smartphone and Facebook live can be considered a journalist.
Youtubers and vloggers can accrue larger daily audiences than many cable news programs.
Whether this is good or bad for the industry as a whole is a matter of perspective.
From my perspective, despite recent increases in viewership, cable news is on the way out.
Once the presidency of Donald Trump ends, cable news will become stale and ratings will settle into another plateau before declining again.
The journalism industry as a whole and those who engage in the content produced from it would be better off if the death of cable news was expedited.
RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in the world. You can write for us.
Cover Photo Credit: Steven Depolo/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)
What Do You Think?
-
Is Peyton Manning Just A Backup Quarterback Now?
Full disclosure: I am a diehard Bronco fan.
I grew up in Denver and there are two rules to living in Colorado: go to the mountains as much as possible, and place your emotional wellbeing in the hands of the Denver Broncos.
Denver is a great sports town with four professional teams, but the Broncos have been nearest and dearest to our hearts for the longest. If Coloradans had the option to get rid of the Broncos or to ax the Avalanche, Rockies, and Nuggets, I have no doubt that we’d still be showing up at Mile High on Sundays.
Hell, Tim Tebow is more beloved than nearly every Avalanche, Rockies, and Nuggets player ever. Football is the subtext of our state.
Other than the Carolina Panthers’ run at perfection, the biggest story in the NFL right now surrounds the future of Peyton Manning.
NFL.com reporter Ian Rapoport reported last Sunday that Manning would not be happy as the Broncos’ backup quarterback, which was quickly rebuked by Denver’s Executive Vice President and General Manager, and unofficial Governor of Colorado, John Elway.
Peyton has never told Gary or myself that he doesn’t want to be the backup. Any report or rumor that suggests otherwise is incorrect!!
— John Elway (@johnelway) December 20, 2015
Later that day, the Broncos lost a heart-wrenching game in Pittsburgh where Peyton’s backup, Brock Osweiler, carved up the Steeler defense to the tune of 15/19 for 238 yards, 3 touchdowns and 1 rushing touchdown in the 1st half. In the 2nd half, the Broncos didn’t cross the 50 yard line until 2:58 left in the 4th, running 32 plays that gained only 71 yards.
After the game, Peyton called Rapoport’s report “bullshit” and “insulting.”
Rapoport isn’t some random guy spouting nonsense on the internet; he’s a seasoned sports journalist, having been a beat reporter for Mississippi State, Alabama, and the New England Patriots.
Rapoport has covered the NFL as a whole since 2009, so it’s safe to say that this report was not plucked out of thin air.
The crux of the issue with the 2015 Broncos is that the offense Peyton has come to embody is fundamentally different from the one that new head coach Gary Kubiak wants to install.
Kubiak is a Bill Walsh disciple, and plugged Terrell Davis into his version of the West Coast offense en route to back to back Super Bowl titles as the Broncos offensive coordinator in the late 90’s. The Tom Moore offense that Manning ran in Indianapolis is primarily rooted in the passing game.
This is why the Osweiler vs Manning debate is less about each particular quarterback, and should be more focused on how their talents fit into the greater offense.
The Broncos are built to run the ball.
In short, Peyton wants to play fast and isolate certain matchups over and over again, while Kubiak wants to keep defenses guessing and chew up the clock with short passes and runs to set up a rolling play action that takes shots down field (If you want a terrific and more detailed breakdown of the difference between these offenses, read this piece from Mile High Report).
With Manning’s litany of injuries right now, he simply doesn’t have the mobility to run the kinds of plays that are integral to a Kubiak offense.
No sport is more dependent upon the system that the players play within than football.
For example, Demarcus Ware played outside linebacker in a 3-4 defense in Dallas and tore offensive linemen to shreds for a decade, reserving himself a spot in the Hall of Fame. He played last season as a 4-3 defensive end in Jack del Rio’s defense in Denver and was still good, but not the monster we had come to expect. He finished with 10 sacks, his lowest career output, save for his rookie season and his last injury plagued campaign in Dallas.
This year, until he hurt his back, Ware was arguably the best defensive player in the league, winning his first career defensive player of the month award in October. A big reason for this improvement? New defensive coordinator Wade Phillips replaced del Rio’s 4-3 with his aggressive 3-4 scheme.
This is why the Osweiler vs Manning debate is less about each particular quarterback, and should be more focused on how their talents fit into the greater offense. The Broncos are built to run the ball.
Both CJ Anderson and Ronnie Hillman are good running backs with complimentary skillsets, and their underwhelming offensive line is down to both their 2nd string tackles, which has led to some pretty ugly showings against good pass rushes (Khalil Mack single handedly destroying their offense most comes to mind).
Since Peyton likes to play out of the shotgun, the only way to meld Kubiak’s offense to what Manning is most comfortable with is to run the base formation out of the pistol, where the running back lines up around 7 yards off the line of scrimmage.
Basic logic dictates that the closer you are to the line of scrimmage, the easier it is to run the ball, and the Broncos have looked like a much more dangerous offense with Osweiler under center, executing the scheme Kubiak was hired to install instead of the awkward hybrid that Manning ran earlier this season.
That said, each players’ respective talents still matter quite a bit at the game’s most important position, and even though Osweiler is a demonstrably better fit for the Denver offense than Peyton is, he has not done enough to convince this partisan that he is a better QB than Manning at this moment.
Osweiler just doesn’t make enough big plays, as evidenced by his 6.71 yards per attempt, ranking him 30th in the NFL (to prove how weird this year has been, the three guys ahead of him? Joe Flacco, Peyton Manning, and Aaron Rodgers).
Photo Credit: Jullo Enriquez/Flickr (CC BY 2.0)
Osweiler has done more than enough to secure the starting gig next year, but if Peyton has recovered from his injuries (as much as he can, plantar fascia doesn’t go away quickly), and can run Gary Kubiak’s offense (the biggest question mark in all of this), he should be the starting quarterback.
Of course Peyton Manning wouldn’t be happy as a backup, he’s Peyton Freaking Manning!
But the implication in a report like Rapoport’s is his unhappiness will be disruptive, and given Manning’s reputation as the consummate professional, that isn’t likely to happen. Media-generated hysteria is what’s disruptive.
It’s why Tim Tebow can never be a backup QB.
Where this all seems to be headed is an amicable parting of the ways between Manning and the Broncos in the offseason, with Peyton either retiring or signing with a QB needy win-now team like the Texans or the Jets. If he does return, it will probably be at a dramatically reduced salary.
Denver has three of its most important defensive players entering their first free agency this offseason, and Malik Jackson, Derek Wolfe, and Von Miller won’t come cheap.
There is virtually no scenario where Peyton’s current contract stays on the books and all three of those guys return.
John Elway brought Peyton to Denver in order to win a Super Bowl and end his career much like Elway did, riding off into the sunset baked in blue and orange, but the closest this team has come to reaching that goal is being on the business end of a historic Super Bowl beatdown against the Legion of Boom (which this writer was present for, the Broncos performance forcing him to get drunk off of $14 beers).
RISE NEWS writer Jacob Weindling (L) at Super Bowl XLVIII in New York City in 2014. Photo Credit: Jacob Weindling
This is Peyton’s last shot in Denver, and just because the quarterback of the future has looked adequate to good in his first few starts does not mean that a healthy and able living legend should be sitting on the bench.
Have a news tip? Send it to [email protected]. Like to write? You can become a RISE NEWS contributor.
Cover Photo Credit: Craig Hawkins/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)
What Do You Think?
-
Could Prince Charles Become A Revolutionary King?
Long Live the King?
Queen Elizabeth II has been the longest reigning monarch of the United Kingdom, but what will the monarchy look like when her son, Prince Charles of Wales, ascends to the throne?
While the monarchy is mostly a symbolic institution for the state and the government, the role of the monarchy within the Unites Kingdom is meant to remain political neutral; showing no favorability of one party over another.
The UK is a constitutional monarchy, meaning that the monarchy has some technical state authority; however, it must be in line with the constitution.
The UK gives royal assent to Parliament who then has the power to create and enforce legislation.
Within a Parliamentary system, people vote on a political party who has its own leader.
The leader of the winning political party then becomes the prime minister and is made official by the monarch.
The prime minister meets weekly with the monarch to inform him or her of the current matters of state, but the monarch does not have the ability to set any political policies, at least not officially.
Queen Elizabeth is well known for her lack of public political views.
But her son is something different.
Prince Charles seems to be challenging the political role of the monarchy by showing a large involvement in politics and voicing his opinions.
Some are worried that he may try to be a political force when he eventually takes the throne. (Queen Elizabeth is 90 years old)
Photo Credit: University of Essex ./ Flickr (CC By 2.0)
Prince Charles has been more transparent about his political views after the publishing of his letters to government ministers from 2004-05, also known as the “black spider” memos, about a variety of his political views in 2015.
In the memos, Prince Charles states his political views concerning problems ranging from dairy-farming to the UK’s armed forces in Iraq.
He has also in recent years become a strong supporter of taking aggressive action in combating climate change.
Even though the monarchy is meant to be apolitical, it seems strange that the rulers of a democratic society, where free speech is considered a natural right, are meant to keep opinions concealed.
Monarchs do not even have the ability to vote in this case because of their duty to remain neutral.
Why is this exclusive group meant to remain quiet?
If a monarch were to present opinions regarding matters of state and sway the opinions of citizens to be in favor of one particular political party, the monarch would then have some control within matter of state and forming legislation.
While they are meant to act as figure heads and a symbol of national unity, this could be viewed as undemocratic in the sense that monarchs are not democratically elected by the people, and would be in violation of the constitution.
Geoffrey Wheatcroft, a well-known journalist and strong defender of the monarchy recently launched a campaign to get Charles to step aside and allow his oldest son- Prince William take the throne.
This doesn’t seem to be a real possibility.
However the idea of a King who gets too involved in contemporary politics is a thought that has pierced through the British zeitgeist before.
In 1993, the British version of House of Cards ran a four episode miniseries titled “To Play The King.” In it, Conservative Prime Minister Francis Urquhart has to fend off a popular and strongly liberal King.
(Spoiler alert: Urquhart is able to win in the end because the British public grew uneasy with a King who involved himself so deeply in politics.)
Prince Charles is also considered “revolutionary” in the fact that he was divorced.
While Prince Charles is widely known, his ex-wife, Princess Diana, stole the attention and hearts of millions across the globe acting as an inspirational link between citizens and the monarchy.
Photo Credit: Peter Broster/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)
Previously, it was frowned upon for monarchs to get a divorce, let alone be in a relationship with a divorcee.
This was the main reason Prince Edward VIII abdicated the throne to marry Wallis Simpson, an American divorcee, causing his brother to take the throne and later his daughter the current queen.
Times have changed, but the perception of monarchs getting a divorce is not looked well upon, nonetheless the scandal surrounding the marriage of Charles and Diana.
Charles is also scandalous in the fact that it is rumored he was having an affair with his current wife, Camilla Parker Bowles, now Duchess of Cornwall, while still married to Princess Diana.
Public opinion of a “King Charles” fell after the divorce and sudden death of Princess Diana.
Would the British public abide a King who tried to push a political agenda?
We might get a chance to find out.
RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in the world. You can write for us.
Cover Photo Credit: Steenbergs/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)
What Do You Think?
-
EXCLUSIVE: Senator Tried To Use Connection To FPL Lobbyist To Get Power On For Her Family Post Irma
One day after Hurricane Irma hit South Florida, Sen. Daphne Campbell tried to use her connections to get power turned on for her family. Meanwhile, millions sat in the dark.