[smt88]

That's true of 24-hour news, sure. Theu have to fill air time. But most people don't consider that format to be real journalism.

Is there an example of a story on mainstream news sites that was covered without new info? I'm curious to see an example or two, which should be easy to find if it's really happening with most subjects.

[WarOnPrivacy]

> Is there an example of a story on mainstream news sites that was covered without new info?

In this thread, you and I have brought up a couple of points. I highlighted the tendency of prominent news orgs to choose their headline articles from one small stack of stories. That should be self-evident unless you rarely see different news sites with related headlines - which would be really odd.

You asked about news stories that don't add any content, which is a somewhat different issue. For that I offer news orgs parroting biz/gov/LEO press releases - without vetting for accuracy or without supplying relevant historical context. Though that's a particularly pervasive problem in local & state news, major news orgs tend to do it whenever they get in front of federal LEO/IC officials (eg: James Comey + "Going Dark").

One final example that fits both points is news sites republishing Reuters/AP/UPI articles verbatim.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

I don't think there can be much debate that there's a lot of bad journalism out there, of a variety of different types and for a variety of different reasons.

But the TFA was an attempt to use information theory to explain why (and how) one should seek out multiple journalistic sources, rather than an observation about the problems with journalism itself.