On the morning of Raj Thackeray's arrest, most households switched their
television sets early in the morning,to gear themselves with the news of riots, deaths,and pretty much anything.
However,much to everyone's suprise, no Indian English news channel was carrying anything about the arrest that early in the morning .
It was the regional channels that were flashing images of burnt buses,rioters and of course, 'beybus log '. Television screens were divided into three and four sections with the same information being repeated,over and over again. In their defence-At least there was information!
It was only after about half an hour to forty minutes that our English channels got on board the Thackeray coverage wagon.Up until then,there were horoscopes for the day, cooking shows and even business related stories.
This might be a pretty normal occurence, but it sure got me thinking.
In the age of competitive information, how fast should the news be out?What exactly are reporters scrambling for these days?Quick content or actual content?
Is it better to have the news out faster? Or with more accuracy?
How are these decisions taken?When I posed this question to a friend working in the finance sector, pat came the reply: "It's but obvious. The faster the information, the better."
Could that friend be true?Have news agencies started to operate on the principles
of profit and wealth maximization?If yes, then how viable is that?Wouldn't that work only in the short run?
I guess I'll know soon enough.Until then, the questions continue..
