Liveticker, properly timed?

If you couldn't watch the game on TV, for example if you were driving, you almost certainly had a radio station within earshot that told you what was going on - not as dramatically and vividly as Jean-Pierre Gerwig on Radio Beromünster in his day, but still. So who should really use the chopped-up online match reports? The very fanatical fans, perhaps, to immediately post their comments on Twitter and Whats App? That won't be enough for advertisers in the long run.

For me, live streaming means lots of trees, but not enough forest. The medium, not the demand, has created this form of delivery. Push, not pull! The speed and practically free changeability of the Internet every minute are technical possibilities that are exploited, whether they are really useful or not. It's like always at the beginning of new achievements: What is possible is done once. Later, reality, which is usually dictated by economics, mercilessly sorts out the tempting options. The economy of attention, which is based on the fact that each person only has 24 × 60 minutes a day, is probably the deciding factor here. Media use is still at the top of the list when it comes to the third of time that the average person spends on relaxation and entertainment - in addition to sleep and work. But the time slots reserved for media are no longer getting any bigger. Everyone is challenged to create stronger stimuli, to get to the point more precisely and to create more and more benefits in the same unit of time.
 
At the other end of the news perception spectrum, at the greatest possible distance from the live stream, is the demand for a summary, in-depth information and background - and not just among older people, as I suspect. Assuming I don't have the nerves and time to follow the developments in Gaza and Ukraine all day, I would at least like to receive the day's update in the evening. What is needed is the opposite of the live ticker: the digest, the condensation.
 
For other, less dramatic chains of events and developments - such as the wrangling over highway tolls in Germany - even an old news junkie like me is satisfied with the weekly update (which I've been getting from Der Spiegel almost as long as I've been able to read.) When I try to classify complex ongoing issues such as Switzerland's relationship with the EU, I appreciate the sometimes clever and sometimes annoying counter-positions of Weltwoche, tired of the boring consonance in the Tagi, NZZ and SRG media. And why have titles such as Bilanz or Beobachter been around for years, which are as topical as the "Limping Messenger" and yet maintain their positions with their background reports and analyses? In addition to news and in-depth information, the third key dimension of media consumption is entertainment, the joy of the unexpected. I notice this in myself every time I am in Berlin and "read" the NZZ and Tagi on the screen early in the morning, which, to my own amazement, takes me less than 20 minutes each. But how often have I picked up the Tagesspiegel at the newsstand (hoping for a Martenstein) and the Süddeutsche (because of the Streiflicht and page 3) and the Taz anyway, because it has the most intelligent and subtle titles. Every time I spend money in the hope of something surprising.
 
Media consumption used to be a menu. You ate whatever was on the table: the NZZ or the Freiburger Nachrichten or whatever, and you ate your way from the front to the back. Today, media consumption means a buffet for guests who have already had their fill online and in the electronic media.
 
Those who know how to fill their buffet with irresistible appetizers and decorate them attractively, or who offer the most beautiful desserts far and wide, will not have to look for their audience in the future. The only problem is that buffet guests have become quicker and moodier, more "snappy", impatient and less loyal than ever.
 
Karl Lüönd is a freelance publicist and book author.