Why is there so much "breaking news" on TV? The label "breaking news" is an overused marketing message used to increase audience size or hold an audience longer. Viewers suffer from viewer fatigue from a constant blitz of "breaking news" messages and in-show graphics. News producers want more "breaking news" promotion, on-air and multi-channel promotion, to increase the size of viewership.
supporting links
1. Take a break from Breaking News [BeMoreWithLess]
2. Is watching the News bad for mental health? [VeryWellMind]
3. Coronavirus: How much news is too much? [BBC]
research/surveys information
1. State of the News Media methodology [Pew Research Center]
2. America's news fatigue [Pew Research Center]
3. Breaking News [Pew Research Center]
Hi, I’m Rick Barron, your host, and welcome to That’s Life, I Swear
This just in, its breaking news! Really, again?!
Let’s jump into this
After days of speculation and intrigue following reports that Tampa Bay Buccaneers QB Tom Brady was retiring, it became official. However, it was Tom who broke the news on his Instagram account. It was over and it was time for him to address more important things in his life like his family.
His words on his Instagram account said it best:
"This is difficult for me to write, but here it goes: I am not going to make that competitive commitment anymore. I have loved my NFL career, and now it is time to focus my time and energy on other things that require my attention.
I call Brady's announcement as an entry point to the topic for this podcast. Breaking News.
Brady posted a lengthy statement on Instagram that morning outlining his retirement. About thirty minutes later, I saw the same headline on the cable news outlets as, you guessed it, breaking news. But seriously, was there any surprise Mr. Brady was going to retire? I wish him well but come on people, life happens.
Currently, it feels like all news is breaking news. There is such a fine line between being informed and becoming completely overwhelmed. We all want to be in the know. What do they call it today, the fear of missing out?
What is 'breaking news'? Thought I'd jump over to Wikipedia for an official definition and here's what I found: Breaking news, also termed late-breaking news and also known as a special report or special coverage or news flash. It’s news that broadcasters feel warrants the interruption of scheduled programming or current news in order to report its details. Its use is also assigned to the most significant story of the moment or a story that is being covered live.
Today Social Media networks have changed everything. With the launching of Facebook, Twitter, chat rooms, TikTok and others, social media has taken over the tv channels domain of news. Should any of this be a surprise?
If you have a smartphone, laptop, or other electronic devices and are plugged into the online landscape, anyone can learn news, 24x7, before national news channels report it.
Surveys shows that people respond to the term 'breaking news'. It’s almost like an addiction that forces one to tune into the story. Now, I find the phrase has been so over-used that I question whether the story labeled as ‘breaking news’ is really worthy of that title. With so much news data being fed to us on an hourly and daily basis, the human psyche has a case of breaking news fatigue
Now, we can't give all the credit to social media for abusing the 'breaking news' tagline. We need to go back a little bit further to the early 1980's, when CNN came into the picture. It was launched in June1980 by Ted Turner as a 24-hour cable news channel. CNN took the news gavel and quickly became the hub of dramatic live coverage and dare I say it, 'breaking news'. Other CNN type news outlets soon popped up and well, you know the rest.
"Breaking news" has been overused ad nauseam. News stories branded with that tagline are so badly used today that it's true purpose is beginning to lose its meaning if not already. Today, what isn't breaking news? Couldn’t we mix it up now and then and use terms such as Flash bulletin, alert, or 'this just in'? Not dramatic enough, I guess.
I'm intrigued by the graphics used by our media outlets. You know, it's that vibrant red background with the colossal capital letters spelling out BREAKING NEWS, which creates a sense of seriousness in the mind of the viewer. It's all about visuals today.
Of course, what would breaking news be without the in-your-face dramatic music. The tone and beat registers pending danger, look out, here it comes. Some of the music almost sounds like the theme to an upcoming dramatic movie.
The breaking news of the day continues to get rehashed not only daily but for days on end. There was a time when the news of the day was delivered, unvarnished, and that was it. Today, one can go to a cable news channel at 6:00 am and the key topics are presented, only to be represented an hour later on the same cable channel, but via a different reporter, sometimes with a different tone in delivery. I mean, do we need to hear the same breaking news for the next 12 hours?!
I know I'm dating myself here, but I look back at the days when Walter Cronkite would present the evening news. It was to the point, not varnished, not enamored with dramatic music to enhance the message. The news then was just news. It was left to the viewer to mull over its significance.
Trying to remember when I first started hearing the phrase' breaking news' and how it took off as announcing the news. I think back to when the Gulf War started during President George H. W. Bush, 41st President of the United States. In its simplest terms Mr. Brush came to the rescue of Kuwait, invaded by the forces of Saddam Hussein.
Prior to the start of the US coming to Kuwait's aid, during and after, the cable news reporters were all over the unfolding of the Gulf War. Every day and evening, we were fed 'breaking news' of our troops landing and making quick work of Saddam's army. It was continuous cable networks plastering the airwaves with news that changed minute-to-minute.
A few years later we had Sept 11th, and the "breaking" news alerts intensified. Would guess such news alerts made sense considering the circumstances.
Fast forward to today and we have the cable news networks and social media mixed not only with 'breaking news' but now mixed with news one has to determine if it really is believable or fake.
With cable companies fighting over each other to be 'the' center for stories, they sometimes stumble over themselves and end up taking a step back after discovering the 'breaking news' reporting was in error.
Case in point. During a campaign stop in January of 2011, Representative Gabrielle Giffords was standing outside a Safeway grocery store, giving a speech. Before anyone knew what was happening, a man ran from the crowd and starting firing a pistol, striking 19 people, along with Gifford's, who was seriously wounded. Some of the nation's most respected news outlets, including some major newspapers, wrongly reported ‘breaking news’ that Gifford's had died.
Coupled with the digital age, bad information spreads fast when reporters post erroneous updates on Twitter or social media. With the Gifford's story, one major news outlet sent out
an e-mail alert saying the congresswoman had died, and the same outlet social media editor tweeted the same thing to millions of Twitter followers.
Fortunately, the story of Gifford's death turned out to be in error. So much for being first with the news story.
I imagine the various media networks have all gravitated to the phrase 'breaking news' because the data bears out that the phrase gathers much more viewers than 'normal' news, whatever normal means today. But seriously, not everything on this earth is breaking news.
With media channels climbing over one another for ratings boost, they find themselves taking what are normal news events and inflating them to be bigger stories than they need to be. I'd love to see a news channel take a different approach and say "this just in" instead of "breaking news" (as it should be) to avoid the confusion between the two situations.
I would think that for a news outlet to clearly call it breaking news, your staff would at least be the first to report story. Even with that notion, it appears that all news outlets take such liberty with the term that one gets confused as to who really brought the story to light.
With social media like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, newsmakers and reporters can instantly send messages to the public. Being the first to report on an event or having an original story is becoming blurrier. Guess maybe this where the term 'fake news' comes into play?
There was a time when a critical new event came about, the media stations would interrupt a regular television or radio broadcast with the call, "We interrupt this program for an important announcement." The words "breaking news" was never used. Just hearing 'we interrupt this program' was enough of a suspense attention getting to stop you in your tracks.
There are those moments when the breaking news helps draw a sense of excitement only to have a big letdown. You know the scene. The reporter starts off with a major news event just happening to then be followed with "we don't have a lot of details at the moment, but we're hoping [hoping?] to have more details as they come in." So, you interrupt my program, get me hyped up, and then you tell me you're hoping more details will arrive soon? Ok, back to my football game.
It's not like we can control all that takes place in the world. We want news and we want the breaking news 24x7. With regards to breaking news, it would be cool if we could tell the news media outlets that if your team finds the story first, you get to lay claim to 'breaking news'.
Perhaps make it a rule that for the day, no more than one breaking news story and no more than three in one week. Yep, that's not going to happen but one can dream.
So, what's the lesson learnt here? What's the takeaway from this story I just discussed with you?
With everything available in an instant in our ever-rapid technological world, our obsession with the news, what's trending, and what's breaking, is our digital fix for the day.
Our attention span for 'breaking news' shifts from one trend to the other. If it's not COVID-19, to individuals taking their frustration attacking the US Capitol, or conspiracy theories, we want our daily feed of breaking news.
Even some of the reports out in the field today, now want to ensure themselves and their news outlet that they are the first to report the most intriguing and sensational story for ratings.
Events that drew some sense of significance would take place on occasion back in the day.
Now, all of a sudden if it bleeds, any and all events happening twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, qualifies for ‘breaking news’. This makes for big business, particularly for the all-news networks.
With so much upheaval for many people in this world it’s no surprise that they try to avoid the 'breaking news' carousel.
I think we should all take a pause and measure what we see come across the various news media channels as 'breaking news'. Ask yourself if you feel you're being manipulated with what is a worthy news event or an event that has been turned upside down if only for manufactured sensationalism.
Today, news media outlets know how to feed our appetite to what's breaking and what will happen next. We all have the means to change the channel or turn off the tv, but why should we have to make that decision?
Our society, have been conditioned that something wicked is happening out there in the world. It's happening every day and believe it or not, it’s taking place twenty-four hours a day. When we hear the dramatizing music and the flashing red billboard with the gigantic white capital letters, we know we better stay clued to our seats, regardless if details are sketchy at the moment.
Our society now has been pulled into a rabbit hole thinking that we expect there to be another catastrophic happening. We've become numb to seeing the breaking news billboard flash across our screens, for everything that occurs on this planet.
In part some media networks thrive on what such happenings bring. High ratings, gain from advertisers wanting to get on board with that particular network that brings the big stories, justified or not if the story is worthy of it be breaking. And of course, news outlets love being recognized by their peers for the best coverage.
Journalists are said to take advantage on our negative bias to capture our attention. What's worrisome, the constant breaking news stories that come across the airwaves tends to make our world worse than it truly is.
So how can we take control of this ongoing nonsense of breaking news?
First, it's important to be aware that your news consumption can look very different via different sources. Traditional media tends to focus on the facts, whereas stories, rumors, and human-interest pieces are amplified on social media.
Know that as human beings, we are subject to bias, which the news outlets know and are ready to jump on it. When we see the constant flash of breaking news across our tv screen or electronic devices, take it with a grain of salt. Take a deep breath before jumping into that rabbit hole.
But wait! Here’s more breaking news, Tom Brady is back from retirement after only 40 days. Got ya!
Well, there you go. That’s life, I swear.
For further information regarding the material covered in this episode, I invite you to visit my website that you can find on either Apple Podcasts or Google Podcasts, for show notes calling out key pieces of content mentioned, and the episode transcript.
As always, I thank you for listening.
Be sure to subscribe here or wherever you get your podcast so you don't miss an episode. See you soon.