-
You are defining newsworthy thus:
"...a person, thing, or event considered as a choice subject for journalistic treatment; newsworthy material."
I am guessing you are a journalist (my apologies if you made that obvious somewhere along the line) but there's a difference between being 'newsworthy' and 'commercially viable', to which I am sure you will agree. Just because loads of people want to see pictures of members of the Royal Family sitting on a bench doesn't make it any more newsworthy than an austerity march, in the sense that many of us would perceive the term 'newsworthy'. I don't agree that just because there have been loads of these marches they become less newsworthy. Surely the sheer number suggests that the matter is being taken very seriously and continues to be newsworthy. And the sight of two chumps sitting on a bench really shouldn't be worthy of news at all (although I understand why it is).
Interesting that you use the word 'clients' to describe the subscribers to news....
The_Kindness_of_Trees-
Unless Internet traffic suggests people are not reading about it/don't care or maybe don't trust you as a source so go elsewhere.
-
Not a journalist but work for a very large news organisation and spend a lot of time explaining how the news works to people so it's something I've had some practice at :)
Absolutely agree and the output of news organisations is driven by both client demand and newsworthiness.
Putting aside the commercial factors though, I would still argue that given the history and who was sitting on the bench that Taj Mahal MkII was a more newsworthy event than yet another austerity march with no influential/powerful people involved which wasn't going to affect anything. Also like it or not Will and his wife sitting on a bench is a global story - a relatively inconsequential anti-austerity march in London isn't.
It's quite depressing really isn't it? This is why nearly all seasoned hacks are miserable sods ;)
Ramsaye
Fox
It's not actually. There have been hundreds - probably thousands - of anti-austerity marches all over the world since the global financial crisis to the extent that they are essentially no longer newsworthy or notable. The difference can be the context they happen in: we covered the big Greek one in November because Tsipras had only been re-elected in September on a platform of cushioning economic hardship, plus the thing was huge. Flights were grounded, hospitals operated with skeleton staff, ships remained at port and public offices shut down. Also Greece's foreign lenders were meeting in Athens to review compliance with (what was at the time) the latest bailout to rescue the country (again), so there couldn't have been a much more fitting backdrop.
The image of Diana sitting on that bench was genuinely iconic. Martin Keene's picture wasn't unprecedented - it wasn't unusual for celebrities to be photographed on the bench, alone - but when Diana was it spoke of loneliness and isolation and became more iconic a few months later when Charles and Di split. Seeing her son with his wife, years later, sat on the same bench was something nobody expected to see, the first time it had happened (news = new stuff) and said more about the changing nature of the British Monarchy than most journalists could in the proverbial one thousand words.
We didn't cover the London austerity march in mid-April as far as I can see and I'm absolutely confident that this was because we didn't think it was notable enough to cover. There weren't lots of influential people there, it was going to make sod all difference to the political reality inside Westminster and there was no context which elevated it to any greater meaning or importance.
As I've said in this thread before, news organisations cover what they think their clients want to see. I suspect the BBC thinks that most of their viewers don't have that much interest in yet another austerity protest and I suspect they are right. It's important not to confuse something being newsworthy with wanting something to be newsworthy.
Please don't confuse any of this with my personal opinions. I'm paid not to have them but I'm actually anti-austerity, anti-monarchy and pro-defenestration.