usmbguest5318
Gold Member
Okay, yes, this is probably just me griping, but I've had it with news stations/networks that overuse, IMO, the "breaking news" label.
I know, based on what I observe is the way they use the label, that to news networks, "breaking news" means "information they'd not previously shared." Okay, fine, I get that, and I see the validity of that construal of the phrase. All the same, I think "breaking news" should be reserved for information that is just slightly below or at the level of what the Emergency Broadcasting System would deem worthy of sharing with the public.
In my opinion, "breaking news" should be reserved for content that is (1) indeed new, thus news and (2) important enough that everyone needs to know and ponder, if not act upon, now, or at least sooner rather than later.
For example, CNN just interrupted its regular content with a "breaking news" announcement. What is the breaking news? VP Pence is landing "right now" in the Korean DMZ. Wonderful. We already knew he was in South Korea and that he intends to be there for a couple days into the week. We already know he's not having any official events with S. Korean officials.
I don't see what's so critical about his "landing right now by helicopter in the DMZ" that it warrants the "breaking news" label, other, of course, than the mere fact that event had not occurred, thus one could not have previously said it. My point, then, is that couldn't the fact of Pence's appearance in the DMZ been as sufficiently reported as part of a regularly scheduled program?
Too often I find news programs placing excess temporal importance on the events that occur during the day. That observation and judgment on my part is the point of my beef. Sadly, I don't know what course to purse or encourage to get news programs to make better judgment calls about using the "breaking news" label.
I know, based on what I observe is the way they use the label, that to news networks, "breaking news" means "information they'd not previously shared." Okay, fine, I get that, and I see the validity of that construal of the phrase. All the same, I think "breaking news" should be reserved for information that is just slightly below or at the level of what the Emergency Broadcasting System would deem worthy of sharing with the public.
In my opinion, "breaking news" should be reserved for content that is (1) indeed new, thus news and (2) important enough that everyone needs to know and ponder, if not act upon, now, or at least sooner rather than later.
For example, CNN just interrupted its regular content with a "breaking news" announcement. What is the breaking news? VP Pence is landing "right now" in the Korean DMZ. Wonderful. We already knew he was in South Korea and that he intends to be there for a couple days into the week. We already know he's not having any official events with S. Korean officials.
I don't see what's so critical about his "landing right now by helicopter in the DMZ" that it warrants the "breaking news" label, other, of course, than the mere fact that event had not occurred, thus one could not have previously said it. My point, then, is that couldn't the fact of Pence's appearance in the DMZ been as sufficiently reported as part of a regularly scheduled program?
Too often I find news programs placing excess temporal importance on the events that occur during the day. That observation and judgment on my part is the point of my beef. Sadly, I don't know what course to purse or encourage to get news programs to make better judgment calls about using the "breaking news" label.
