sowny.net | The Southern Ontario/WNY Radio-TV Forum


You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?

August 13, 2019 4:34 am  #1


Crying Wolf

Watching the NBC News last evening almost every single item was labelled "BREAKING NEWS", and there were several.  They even branded a week-old news story as Breaking News.  As a retired ND I would suggest that an event should be considered Breaking News when it's occurring just prior to going on-air, not days or even weeks later.  I would also suggest that even three or four hours after the original report, that it's not a Breaking News story as NT1010 often states.  

When the intro Breaking News is unnecessarily repeated, the impact loses its purpose with no effect on the listener.            

 

August 13, 2019 6:49 am  #2


Re: Crying Wolf

This has long been one of my pet peeves. I saw the Nightly News broadcast referred to and the top story was about the FBI raiding Jeffrey Epstein’s private island. It had the Breaking News tag all over the graphics, but in the piece, the reporter admitted that the feds had arrived at 10:30 that morning. Hardly Breaking News at 6:30 PM!
 
CNN is notoriously guilty of this, with "Breaking News" on their supers almost non-stop, no matter how small the development. They seem to feel that if they hammer this, it will drive viewership and keep people watching. Fox does it, too, only with the phrase “Fox News Alert.”
 
In 9 out of 10 cases, it’s not true. (Not exactly fake news, but perhaps fake promotion.)
 
680 News used to do this all the time with their breaking stinger, and half the time it wasn’t anything worthy of the title, just that something relatively unimportant had just happened - like a regularly scheduled press conference that they’d been promoting for half a day.
 
It cheapens the phrase and renders it useless. But it must work, and I can’t see that it will end anytime soon. In fact, by using “Breaking News,” I would argue they’re breaking the news. And at a time when media is already under fire over credibility, that’s one story they shouldn’t be encouraging.

 

August 13, 2019 3:06 pm  #3


Re: Crying Wolf

RadioActive wrote:

680 News used to do this all the time...

Referencing the spirit of Mitch Hedberg...they used to to it. They still do, but they used to, too.
 

 

August 13, 2019 3:59 pm  #4


Re: Crying Wolf

Chrisphen wrote:

RadioActive wrote:

680 News used to do this all the time...

Referencing the spirit of Mitch Hedberg...they used to to it. They still do, but they used to, too.
 

Mitch Hedberg was a genius. Gone way too soon.


 

 

August 13, 2019 6:34 pm  #5


Re: Crying Wolf

laffin wrote:

Watching the NBC News last evening almost every single item was labelled "BREAKING NEWS", and there were several.  They even branded a week-old news story as Breaking News.  As a retired ND I would suggest that an event should be considered Breaking News when it's occurring just prior to going on-air, not days or even weeks later.  I would also suggest that even three or four hours after the original report, that it's not a Breaking News story as NT1010 often states.  

When the intro Breaking News is unnecessarily repeated, the impact loses its purpose with no effect on the listener

If Laffin was worried about NBC’s disturbing tendency to use “Breaking News” on Monday, then it appears that was just a warm-up for what followed 24 hours later.  
 
Lester Holt & Co. may have set a new record for fake “Breaking News” claims on Tuesday, with no than less six stories in a row all claiming to be just breaking. It took up the first 12 minutes of the nightly newscast. And frankly, after awhile, it was almost embarrassing.
 
A quick search and fact check puts the lie to the expression. Consider in the order they aired:
 
-Breaking News: Changes At Jail After Jeffrey Epstein Death (The Lede)
Reuters was reporting this story online at approx. 3 AM Tuesday.
 
-Breaking News: Prince Andrew Caught Up In Jeffrey Epstein Fallout (Sidebar)
Appeared at 3 AM in an online Vanity Fair posting, and other publications early in the morning.
 
-Breaking News: Hong Kong Airport Protests Turn Violent Day 2
I saw this live when it really was breaking at noon on CBC.
 
-Breaking News: Trump Delays Threatened Chinese Tariffs
Appeared at least at 10 AM on an online Reuters story – and I heard it the day before on the radio.
 
-Breaking News: Southern California Shooting Leaves Officer Dead
Posted by the Toronto Star, among others, at 10 AM
 
-Breaking News: 11th Child Killed In St. Louis Shootings
The St. Louis Post Dispatch had a full story on this at 11 AM.
 
Not one of these yarns was anywhere near “breaking.” As you can see, all of them happened as long as seven hours earlier and some even the day before.
 
I fear this may be the start of a trend at NBC as they try to fend off a sometimes surging ABC, cable competitors and general falling viewership. That latter network has a lot to answer for as well. For years, at least 50% of their stories rely solely on viewer video, security camera footage or something posted online.
 
In addition, anchor David Muir endlessly promotes the fact that “the pictures are just coming in,” when clearly they’ve been in and edited for some time. His other phrases include, “What we’ve just learned about story X” or “What authorities have just revealed about the latest shooting.”
 
I get it – they’re trying to sound like everything is brand new. But the fact that none of it “just came in” or that the comments from authorities were made hours ago is extremely deceptive.
 
Shame on the big networks. They used to be better than that. They ought to be putting the brakes on all those fake breaks.

 

August 15, 2019 6:15 pm  #6


Re: Crying Wolf

It now seems this is a deliberate strategy for NBC and it likely won’t do a thing to help their credibility. But it’s far more likely most people won’t know or care.
 
On Wednesday, they ran four top stories with the moniker “Breaking News.” I didn’t get to vet them, but they were there. 

And on Thursday, they did it again. No less than five yarns – the first 12 minutes of the Nightly News - were apparently just happening. In actual fact, only one of them, the lede, could have been considered somewhat “breaking.”
 
Here’s the list:
 
-Dale Earnhardt Jr. plane crash – 2 hours old (Is two hours breaking? Maybe, but it’s stretching it.)
 
-Moscow plane lands in cornfield – 15 hours old
 
-Jeffrey Epstein autopsy – 13 hours old
 
-Philadelphia shooting surrender aftermath - 17 hours
 
-Israel bans congresswomen after Trump tweet - 14 hours.

 
This is a really disturbing trend and – Breaking News! - judging by this week's initial rollout, it appears it’s here to stay. 

 

August 15, 2019 6:21 pm  #7


Re: Crying Wolf

"this just in...we have no breaking news... wait.... wait... it looks like....  it could be...  no, still nothing... this update was brought to you by tom's place."

 

August 16, 2019 8:12 am  #8


Re: Crying Wolf

I can't decide if Newstalk 1010's creative use of their "and now more continuous coverage of breaking news" intro is brilliant, or an oxymoron. Glass half empty, glass half bull me thinks.

I do know that Newstalk using their breaking news intro for an urgent TRAFFIC update, like they did again this morning, is laughable. The people who work there are more than capable of coming up with a clever urgent traffic update intro.

 

August 16, 2019 8:40 am  #9


Re: Crying Wolf

betaylored wrote:

I can't decide if Newstalk 1010's creative use of their "and now more continuous coverage of breaking news" intro is brilliant, or an oxymoron. Glass half empty, glass half bull me thinks.

I do know that Newstalk using their breaking news intro for an urgent TRAFFIC update, like they did again this morning, is laughable. The people who work there are more than capable of coming up with a clever urgent traffic update intro.

I thought I was the only one who hated "Breaking News" when it applies to traffic. True, it's important to people on the road, and it can cause significant tie-ups and it needs to be reported ASAP. But does it fit the true definition of "Breaking News," such as a police shooting or an explosion downtown? 

I don't think so and as a listener when I hear the dramatic music intro and the deep-voiced announcer warning me something urgent is coming and it turns out to be an accident on the 401 - which let's face it, happens all the time - I'm honestly left feeling like I was suckered into turning up radio. And it doesn't help my overall impression of the station. (And to be fair, 680 News does the same thing, so they're no better.) 

 

August 16, 2019 1:27 pm  #10


Re: Crying Wolf

When I worked overnights at CP, AP would send news alerts throughout the wee hours. Say at 3 a.m. AP would move something like "Earthquake hits southern Italy- no injuries or damage reported." Yet 680 News would run this non-story hours later as a "this just in" in morning drive as though it just happened - and never mention it again. Bad news judgment but it got the listeners attention. It's like they were saving these AP news alerts, then spreading them throughout morning drive for shock value.


"The radio craze ... will soon fade." - Thomas Edison, 1922
 

August 16, 2019 6:00 pm  #11


Re: Crying Wolf

Four more "Breaking News-es" that weren't, to lead off NBC Nightly News Friday - including one that happened during the morning rush in New York City! The Peter Fonda obit was actually Breaking and was marked as so. It was the first actual Breaking News worthy of the name that aired in the entire week. 

It's definitely a pattern and in the end, I don't think it will help them in the ratings or in the credibility department.

 

August 16, 2019 6:44 pm  #12


Re: Crying Wolf

RadioActive wrote:

Four more "Breaking News-es" that weren't, to lead off NBC Nightly News Friday - including one that happened during the morning rush in New York City! The Peter Fonda obit was actually Breaking and was marked as so. It was the first actual Breaking News worthy of the name that aired in the entire week. 

It's definitely a pattern and in the end, I don't think it will help them in the ratings or in the credibility department.

Credibility? There\s no crediblilty in network news anymore. And the worst part - nobody cares! Cronkite, Brinkley, Chancellor et al are spinning so hard in their graves they may resurface.
 


"The radio craze ... will soon fade." - Thomas Edison, 1922
 

August 17, 2019 11:06 am  #13


Re: Crying Wolf

Dale Patterson wrote:

RadioActive wrote:

Four more "Breaking News-es" that weren't, to lead off NBC Nightly News Friday - including one that happened during the morning rush in New York City! The Peter Fonda obit was actually Breaking and was marked as so. It was the first actual Breaking News worthy of the name that aired in the entire week. 

It's definitely a pattern and in the end, I don't think it will help them in the ratings or in the credibility department.

Credibility? There\s no crediblilty in network news anymore. And the worst part - nobody cares! Cronkite, Brinkley, Chancellor et al are spinning so hard in their graves they may resurface.
 

In this hypercompetitive media era, it's all about grabbing your attention to hang in with them just a bit longer. Some may say that it's tantamount to crying wolf and eventually listeners will stop being suckered by it but the fact is there are just enough really big stories surfacing to that listeners will perk sit up when the alert is announced. 


 

 

August 17, 2019 12:37 pm  #14


Re: Crying Wolf

If you call it breaking news when it isn't breaking news it's a LIE!

Or as someone else might say, "Fake News."

You can try to sugar-coat it all you want with bromides about keeping people's attention in this era of short attention spans and dwindling audiences, but it's still a lie.

Period.


 

 

August 17, 2019 3:11 pm  #15


Re: Crying Wolf

laffin wrote:

Watching the NBC News last evening almost every single item was labelled "BREAKING NEWS", and there were several.  They even branded a week-old news story as Breaking News.  As a retired ND I would suggest that an event should be considered Breaking News when it's occurring just prior to going on-air, not days or even weeks later.  I would also suggest that even three or four hours after the original report, that it's not a Breaking News story as NT1010 often states.  

When the intro Breaking News is unnecessarily repeated, the impact loses its purpose with no effect on the listener.            

100%.  CNN does that too.  Ticks me off every time.  THAT and teasing an upcoming segment and then not running it for 15-20-30 minutes.  2 ways that their news cred takes a direct boot to the nuts.  Then there's 'fox' 'news'.  0 credibility.  Bunch of morons for hosts.  They cloud the picture with pure, unadulterated BULL SHIT...(liquified bull shit)...and all news outlets suffer the hit.

 

 

August 17, 2019 3:25 pm  #16


Re: Crying Wolf

Lee Marshall wrote:

laffin wrote:

Watching the NBC News last evening almost every single item was labelled "BREAKING NEWS", and there were several.  They even branded a week-old news story as Breaking News.  As a retired ND I would suggest that an event should be considered Breaking News when it's occurring just prior to going on-air, not days or even weeks later.  I would also suggest that even three or four hours after the original report, that it's not a Breaking News story as NT1010 often states.  

When the intro Breaking News is unnecessarily repeated, the impact loses its purpose with no effect on the listener.            

100%.  CNN does that too.  Ticks me off every time.  THAT and teasing an upcoming segment and then not running it for 15-20-30 minutes.  2 ways that their news cred takes a direct boot to the nuts.  Then there's 'fox' 'news'.  0 credibility.  Bunch of morons for hosts.  They cloud the picture with pure, unadulterated BULL SHIT...(liquified bull shit)...and all news outlets suffer the hit.

 

The fact is, it DOES get your attention. If I'm in an establishment and CP24 comes on, I'll definitely look when the red breaking news graohic comes on. Often the story is not of interest to me and I curse myself for getting fooled again. But it's human nature to look, like a car wreck.
 


"The radio craze ... will soon fade." - Thomas Edison, 1922
 

August 17, 2019 5:33 pm  #17


Re: Crying Wolf

potentiometer wrote:

If you call it breaking news when it isn't breaking news it's a LIE!

Or as someone else might say, "Fake News."

You can try to sugar-coat it all you want with bromides about keeping people's attention in this era of short attention spans and dwindling audiences, but it's still a lie.

Period.

Semi-colon - sometimes it's not as cut and dry. If you're stuck on the 410 or about to get onto it, a warning about the situation is of importance. In some instances the truth is in the eye/ear of the beholder.



 

 

 

August 17, 2019 8:05 pm  #18


Re: Crying Wolf

Ir's an era of dwindling audiences because they're serving up crap.  Let's all talk at once!!!  NO...let's not.  Let's put on some nit-wit chirping the opposition/company lie as opposed to the TRUTH!!!  NO...let's AVOID that.  Let's cover the same pure unadulterated b.s. all day [and night] long!!!  Gawd NO.  Please.  Let's keep going with tired old 'journalists who interrupt the person answering the question they asked with another question OR point in the middle of the original effin' answer!!!  That's amateurism at it's worst.  Let's report opinion instead of FACT.  Well NOBODY wants THAT.

Let's lie about the breaking news angle and about what's coming up next...so that people waste their time and lose their trust in us.  NO!  Let's host bogus debates with way too many people and far too little time to make it work or even give the audience an inkling of who is who!!!  That'll ensure eyes and ears depart.  Let's interview liars and let them get away with their shit instead of kicking them the hell outta the studio and off of the air.  What a relief THAT would be.  Guess what?  Folks DON'T love lies.  Let's treat the audience like their average IQ is 60 'cause lowest common denominator shyte like Hee Haw is all people want on their idiot box!!!  Wrong again.

Horrible programming decisions are at fault.  THAT and not having so much as a single ball anywhere in the whole executive process.  That scum bag Roger Ailes...stood by his vision...even if it was entirely flawed.  A bigger pig never ran a network but he had a sense of purpose.  NO ONE else does.  It's all pablum for dummies.  Spooned out by right wing nincompoops and left wing chickens.  It's almost entirely unwatchable.

Last edited by Lee Marshall (August 17, 2019 8:09 pm)

 

August 17, 2019 9:04 pm  #19


Re: Crying Wolf

How much did 680 News pay for the 'SWOOSH'?

 

August 17, 2019 10:17 pm  #20


Re: Crying Wolf

@-kevjo -- seriously?

 

August 18, 2019 9:00 pm  #21


Re: Crying Wolf

Wonder why more listeners don't text 71010 and point out to Newstalk that it's not breaking news when they "Cry Wolf". Maybe some listeners do, it's hardly something the station could/would talk about on-air.

Idea: Start a trend on Twitter, and retweet, and reply to the "Breaking News!" tweets issued by the news outlets mentioned in this thread, and the other guilty parties.

Every time they break the breaking news concept, the Twitterverse calls them on it by flagging the hours/days old news with #NOTBreakingNews and #CryWolf and one more hashtag from the Twitter account of the copy chief at Random House, Benjamin Dreyer which goes #yhgtbfkmwts (the s stands for *hit if you actually want to suss it out)

Last edited by betaylored (August 18, 2019 10:19 pm)