It's entirely possible for free markets to get into "local minima", where everybody fights over share of one segment instead of trying different segments. Far from being "unlikely", there are in fact quite a few reasons for this to happen - each player is guaranteed some safety for at least attempting a tried-and-true approach, versus an unproven approach. 24 hour news was itself a very risky idea at one time. Basically, there's a lurking assumption of equal probability, which is just not true.

I use TV news to watch actual video of events and to listen to the various commentators. Fox is what I watch.

The internet is a much better source for detailed news. I just read papers from all over the place, and of course the blogs are doing a good job of covering things like the events in Spain.

Here's a point you'll love, which I implicitly made at Walter's blog: the PBS Newshour has the best international coverage of any US tv operation in the US.

Seth,

That's a good point; it is certainly possible that the three networks have all assumed away the market for hard news. If that's the case, all it takes is one entrepreneur to get a station going that provides that service and we should see it take off. Sadly, my current financial state makes it impossible for me to take that risk. ;)

John,

I tend to be the same way. Given the massive disparity in traffic between TV news and internet news, I'd argue that there really isn't that big a market for hard news.

Gary,

I refuse to watch PBS so that I won't be accused of hypocracy when I argue that the government shouldn't be funding television stations.

I actually don't see that there'd be any hypocrisy in arguing against its existence, but watching it while it exists, when you choose. Not that you have to agree; I'm just saying. Your argument, the standard argument, is that the Federal government shouldn't fund various things, regardless of whether they are good or bad things. That argument therefore doesn't fall whether they are, in at least part, good things, or whether you take advantage of them meanwhile.

Many hardcore libertarians oppose federal highways; I'd be curious to know how many boycott them, but I wouldn't criticize those who don't (not seriously, anyway).

I agree with Gary about PBS. I don't think government funds (ie our money) should go to PBS or NPR, but the fact is that they do. Why should I not use what I am already paying for? It would be hypocritical to make libertarian arguments but then exclude things like NPR which you might enjoy. I enjoy listening to NPR, but I would be happy to see it off the airwaves.

And to mirror Gary's point, there are plenty of people who oppose spending on the military, but they don't mind basking in the freedom that it provides.

That was intended to be facetious, actually. That's what I get for leaving off an emoticon. While it is true that I rarely watch PBS, that's more a factor of the limited amount of television I watch rather than some desperate need to avoid anything that might be taken as approval of a government program of which I disapprove.

Actually, I'm glad someone mentioned PBS. I am usually here working at my desk at 6PM and I could watch it (instead of the disgusting O'Reilly - at least until daylight savings time, which shifts the world an hour relative to Arizona). I forget to switch to it, and it is quite good, and as far as I can tell, less biased than the major networks.

Frontline, on the other hand... is biased as all getout.

I don't watch much of the news channels for that very reason. Honestly, how many times can you bring me up to the moment on Martha and Kobe. I wish someone would just ask me if I cared. I take the time to call in for a poll about the fact that I could not care any less about 3/4 of the news they air at any given time.

Chalk it up to the general public's "don't care about much of anything if it happens outside of the good old USA" attitude (or at least the perception of that attitude by the media).

I'd watch Enron execs being hung and tortured.

Or better yet. George Bush being boiled in oil. I bet 50 percent of Americans would tune in to watch that.

whether you approve of PBS or not, watch the British news reports and you at least get another viewpoint of the news of the day. They aren't completely hung up on Martha Stewart.
Mom

If there was a market for hard news over fluff, I think there would be a news channel for it would exist.

You'd think that, wouldn't you? However, I think there's another explanation for the content of television news coverage: product placement. A lot of what passes for news coverage these days is actually product placement. It's a lot harder to find products to hawk associated with hard international news than Martha Stewart or Kobe Bryant.

Of course, why Greta van Susteren is obsessed with the Laci Peterson murder defies explanation.

Your mom brings up a good point. BBC News is run on Denver area PBS, and despite all the caviling in the blogosphere about its "bias" (is there an "objective" news source somewhere?), it's excellent world coverage; I also recommend it highly as tv news goes. Not, of course, to be taken as gospel (no news source is), but as a valuable source of world news with moving pictures and sound that doesn't take time to download.