"Can we have a meeting involving all media outlets to set standards for what we consider "breaking"? Please? #stopit #broken"
That was a tweet of mine from yesterday. It's been a bit of a crusade I've been on in recent years. Remember when "breaking news" actually meant something? And now it seems to be attached to everything. The stock market closes down? BREAKING NEWS! Severe thunderstorm watch? BREAKING NEWS! "Rappers bare it all in support of #NickiMinaj"? BREAKING NEWS!
The last one actually had a #BreakingNews hashtag beside it. I wish I was kidding.
"Breaking news" is used so often now that I'm starting to wonder if it actually catches the attention of the average reader/listener/viewer anymore. All you needed to do was watch CNN during the Malaysian Airlines flight disappearance a few months back and they were attaching "Breaking News" to virtually every slight change in coverage. I've seen "breaking news" attached to a story that is HOURS old. How is that "breaking". Is that not "broken"? I'm curious if that's drawing more people in to watch or if it's forcing people to flip the channel. Have we become desensitized to the idea of breaking news?
I can say that our newsroom tries to really control how much we use those two words in the same sentence. If something is happening right now (for example: yesterday's surprise guilty plea from the man accused of killing three RCMP officers in Moncton), then that's breaking news. We went on-air to say it was breaking news, then told everyone to listen for more details through the rest of the afternoon. We didn't attach "breaking news" to the story for the rest of the afternoon. I'll use "this just in" when something is just coming into the newsroom (much like breaking news but can be a little later than breaking). We'll throw in a "developing" if it's continuing coverage from a previously reported story or if it's something new with not a lot of details.
A little over a year ago, I made fun of the idea that there's a "consensus media". The idea makes me giggle because it's like some people actually believe that news organizations sit around a table together with our giant wads of money, deciding which stories we will and won't be covering. Laughable at best. But as I said back then, there might be some merit to having a "bat phone" of sorts to be able to chat with other outlets to come to a consensus on how certain things should be done, so that we don't paint our industry with a horrible brush. Having a meeting to set out parameters for what constitutes "breaking news" wouldn't be a bad idea to me.
I do understand that we're all trying to brand ourselves as "the place to go when breaking news is happening". It is about where you stand in the market. This could easily get me into the discussion about whether you'd rather be "second and right than first and wrong". I won't dive into that one. But in our race to be first to everything and branding it as "breaking", we have almost forgotten the entire spirit of what breaking news really is.
I'm waiting for the day that we start each newscast with "BREAKING NEWS: The sun rose this morning. More at 11..."
