Time is but a construct.
The very definition of “news stopping for no-one” makes no sense. By its very nature, it stops and starts and also is a continuous cycle depending on how it is consumed and produced.
The 6pm news is really a historical landmark as the best time to broadcast the day’s events to a mass market - the news isn’t any more or less important or relevant when it starts a short time after, we are just historically tuned to it being at that time. Also you never seem to come out with this argument when the late news is delayed for sport or there’s no 4:30pm news due to sport over summer.
I feel like this argument is held EVERY time there is a game that delays the news. Let’s face it, no network is going to shove the game on a multichannel come 6pm so that they can do the news. And why would they? It would just disrupt the flow and piss viewers off.
Anyone who wants to watch the game can watch the game, and for anyone who wants the news instead… well, there’s always Channel 7. I’m sure the (probably tiny) number of viewers 9 loses because the news isn’t on at 6 are made up for tenfold by those watching the game instead.
Exactly. There’s 7 News, The Project (or 10 News+ in a couple weeks) or ABC News to tune to for news.
Those affected have remotes, and - assuming they know how to channel change - will channel change to news if they feel
It did get to a point where it was just everyone making jokes about how the argument is coming (but it didn’t happen), then it briefly became a debate about people making jokes that the argument is coming, then there was nothing for a bit, now we’ve come full circle.
The others are nationally broadcast programs, Nine has just got their Sydney anchor nominated and been done with it. It’s like they didn’t care. They also got Tara Brown from 60 Minutes nominated, so there’s that.
