Breaking this out into its own thread.
Have they? I’m conflicted.
When a network broke in for rolling coverage years ago it used to mean something significant happened that was worthy of dropping regular programming for an extended period of time where news was changing regularly or a period of international significance (9/11, terror attacks etc). What did anyone gain out of today that couldn’t have been served by a 5 minute newsbreak post sentencing? We knew the crimes, the interest level of today was how long he’d be behind bars for - a fact we found out after an hour. I can point to other incidents where rolling coverage has seemingly been done for the sake of it because news is one of the remaining sure-raters left, or gone on too long etc.
On the other hand, clearly the interest levels of the public show people do want it. And technology has made it easier for rolling coverage to happen. Plus the shows they’re replacing are usually low rating filler.
Today’s (Pell) story was hugely significant, don’t get me wrong but as I say, it could have been covered tighter and better by an extended news break.
I just think sometimes it turns into a dick-swinging contest between the networks and because one is doing it, the other decides it has to as well.
Perhaps I’m gonna be talking to the wrong crowd, given we love a Breaking News story but the proliferation of the extended coverage can be rather exhausting.