Have the networks broken the term ‘breaking news’ as CNN exec looks to scale back its use?

Speaking of the word “alert,” that’s quickly rising to the same level over misuse as “breaking news” — with at least one cable network using it more as a way to brand stories it feels are important than providing an actual alert that something major is happening. Local station groups are becoming more fond of the term across both weather and news, (many CBS-owned stations are using “First Alert” weather branding alongside “First Alert Weather Days”). 

Even when news or weather alerts are determined by local newsrooms or weather teams, the use of the term can still be tricky because it’s not always necessarily tied to, for example, National Weather Service warnings or watches — and can often be seen as perhaps being overly-alarmist.

Speaking of weather, some local TV stations actually have a mathematical formula of determining whether or not to interrupt programming with weather updates — often defined by the percentage of the station’s viewing area falling under an official NWS severe weather warning or watch. At select times of the day or for when the threat of severe weather is lower or covers a smaller portion of the market, a station may opt to insert a ticker or map overlay instead of interrupting programming outright. 

In a much broader sense, network special reports and breaking news labels can be both a blessing and curse in the evolving TV landscape. With more audiences moving to digital platforms and streaming, instant gratification (and updates) has become expected. 

In some cases, network special reports have also been affected by this shift — with streaming and digital platforms handling “breaking news” and special coverage, including carrying live events such as press conferences, trials and congressional hearings live. After all, these services are often broadcasting 24 hours a day and having a live event to carry live means that original, anchored, harder-to-produce coverage or repeats of other programs that are often used to fill time can be dropped.

Turning over this type of coverage to non-network feeds actually traces its roots back to the advent of cable news, when these channels could carry extended events live while essentially “automatically” producing news coverage — and is something that, thanks to shared ownership, MSNBC and NBC have dabbled with off and on over the years. 

CNN’s attempt to cut down on using its “breaking news” graphic is likely a welcome reprise to many viewers, but still could prove a challenging effort to balance in a world of instant gratification and seemingly always updating newsfeeds. 

Advertisement

That said, TV news loves to come up with names for new things, so CNN’s cutbacks on using the banner as well as if any other networks follow suit could end up creating a whole new jumble of titles as an attempt to “rank” the level of breaking news that could create even more clutter.

The task of defining what breaking news is or is not is has been hotly debated in newsrooms for years. Does new information on an existing story qualify? How recent does the actual event being covered have to have occurred? Isn’t all news “breaking” to at least some viewers? Or, is the term reserved only for major stories?

While that debate is beyond the scope of this analysis, the broader point is really how diluted the use of the phrase is becoming. Yes, we live in a busy and connected world, but at what point does “breaking” news just become “news”?