A lot of what is said will be redundant because each report needs to repeat the basics to be able to stand on its own. For a returning viewer, that's not new information, ergo noise.
The journalists and experts may spend time speculating about what happens next. This information will be outdated the next day as new developments take place, so it's noise for me unless the speculation provides value for me between the broadcast and the next day.
I stopped watching TV news on a regular basis, and switched to reading a weekly newspaper for precisely this reason. With a few days of distance from the original event, everyone can catch their breath and take a step back to put the story into the bigger picture.
Now after 6 years, I've cancelled my newspaper subscription in order to read more books, so I'm deliberately zooming out even more.
The point was expressed badly, but it's about the way that the average quality of new-stuff is a lot lower than the average quality of a curated set of high-quality stuff from a time period.
It's like how you'll see better movies picking out the best movies from all of movie history versus picking even the best of whatever happens to be the newest.
Anyway, it's like the difference between checking the top voted stuff here at HN versus the newest stuff.
There's also a strange social dilemma here. In order for the curated stuff to have more value and lower SNR, responsible people need to be looking at the newest submissions. So, it wouldn't work if everyone rejected the neophilism, all of us wanting someone else to do the curation while we wait.
A better argument would be that the people who do the curation (the journalists, book authors, voters on submissions etc.) should aim for a higher SNR and stop publishing or promoting low-value stuff. Unfortunately, there's a conflict of interest. It's more profitable to play up whatever random latest story than to cancel or shorten the news report on a slow-news-day…