There's only the briefest mention in the OP of NBC Universal being an investor, but it's worth mentioning than NBCU (a part of Comcast) is one of Snapchat's biggest investors, with a $500M stake: http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/03/nbc-invests-500-million-in-sn...
This feels like a natural extension of stories, where previously it was a sequence of short videos shot by your friends, now it's a sequence of slightly longer videos shot by a professional news organization. So in the short term I'm sure it will draw in more eyeballs to watch more ads, but long term it seems like it does nothing to bridge the gap between the traditional "social" functions of Snapchat with the news content delivery aspect; they almost feel like two separate apps.
As for the show itself, it's ok. It's a really quick flyover of the daily headlines; reminded me a lot of a radio news headline briefing you might hear on NPR or similar, just with video added. I think it's unfair to hate on it because it's "too short, too high-level, too vapid, etc.". Of course it's not hard-hitting original in-depth journalism but it's a convenient way to get the headlines quickly, on-demand, anywhere, without waiting for a dedicated TV or radio program. Especially in these days of heightened political interest, it's hard to argue that it's better for someone to remain completely ignorant of U.S. and world affairs rather than consume news in a format that may not be the most detailed or the most interesting to you personally.
Side rant: I can't help but feel personally offended whenever I read an article or comment that assumes I have a "low attention span" just because I'm a Snapchatting millennial. The variety of social backgrounds encompassed by the term "millennial" is so broad that blanket insults like "low attention span" border on outright ageism.
You make a good point. Low attention spans aren't a millennial thing--it's a human nature thing. Snapchat and facebook may benefit from this phenomenon the most, but HN does too.
Anyone with young kids up to their teens will know that Facebook is gone and snapchat is the new hot. Also instagram which is owned by Facebook but the point is that the next generation don't want to hang out on a social media network with their parents. Always looking for new things.
While also looking at features like the snaps.
So introducing grown up news into snapchat might not actually be a good long term choice for the platform.
This is smart on NBC's behalf, and Comcast. Personally, this is more of the merging between "News" and Entertainment that I find disturbing. Fortunately, I don't use snap, and never would consider using it.
Don't know, man. Every time part of the establishment (i.e. everything that's already out there and have already made a name for themselves) tries to reach out for the younger crowd it makes itself more démodé, not less so.
I've never used Snapchat, though. So I don't know whether this is cool or uncool by their community's standards.
That's not true, you just notice it when it goes poorly. PayPal bought Venmo and it's still doing great with the "younger crowd". The Washington Post seems to be doing well with young people after moving their focus to digital and mobile distribution. For Snapchat specifically, people love DJ Khaled and Arnold Schwarzenegger on there, and they were already plenty established before Snapchat.
This move by NBC is not intrinsically cool or uncool, it just depends how they execute it.
I use Snapchat, there are many stories from natgeo, vice, mashable, etc. So this seems like quite a natural progression for some other news sites. At least they’re trying to stay relevant.
Edit:
Just watched it: there’s a new section in Snapchat called shows, and it seems to be differentiated from stories. The show is extremely short and vapid, but still entertaining. What more can you expect from the low attention span of Snapchat users themselves?
I think there's probably a right way to do it and a wrong way. You may be right in that if there's a wrong way to do it, old-timers like NBC would find it.
The NYTimes has absolutely been able to adapt to the digital age successfully, so why can't any other news organization. The trick is to remove any executives who are afraid of change rather than embracing it.
You can watch snapchat stories from the NYTimes, The Economist, WSJ, in addition to a whole bunch of other sophisticated serious media organizations. Often times the articles they publish on their stories, are just more interactive versions of the articles they published on their website with the text being the same.
The thing is, tabloids are just more popular than sophisticated news. People are more interested in buzzfeed or mashable or people magazine than they are with politics.
We can try to argue about the definition of "substantial" if you want, but in the end, the fact is that I can find you ten thousand young teens that don't give a fuck about politics and do give many fucks about a Kardashian booty transplant.
I think its pretty clear and universal what "news of substance" means in the context of news journalism. In fact most newspapers have a separate section for entertainment for this reason.
Your comment and diction seem be the very definition of "insubstantial."
Getting deeper into this is a waste of both of our times, but for the record, the reason I felt it was a personal attack was challenging my "diction" seems to challenge my very ability to string together words. I took it as being told "you talk like a dumb dumb and therefore your argument holds no weight."
If that's not what you meant, well, that's fine, maybe I'm being over sensitive, but that is how your words were received.
I'm not defending the White House's off-camera briefing policy by any means but how would NBC being barred from the briefings completely for breaking the rules help them as a news organization? How does that make them cowardly?
Cowardly, would be the administration forbidding cameras at the briefings.
No they fear losing access to the briefings entirely. Read my previous link. The ramifications are pretty well known.
This white house would like nothing more than to ban the media and do away with the daily briefings altogether. First they banned cameras, then they banned audio. It's important for the press to be there period now.
A cowboy stunt would solve nothing, in fact it would give the administration the justification they need for dispensing with White House press corp completely.
People lose sight of any perspective until it's late enough to do anything then it's just history. When it all blows up they just look like clowns but they enjoy being puppet clowns anyhow, keeps their tummies round. People still wonder how dystopian scenarios ever do set in? Making a stand in society seems like a thing of the past.
