Overuse/misuse of the term 'Breaking News'

[Lencoboy]

This has been one of many bugbears of mine for a good while now. Pretty much all the major (non-print) media outlets tend to be at it, in the sense of displaying the 'Breaking News' caption while discussing the topic concerned, even if it's more than 1 hour after the story first broke, which I would regard as an acceptable threshold of tolerance to constitute the term.

Last night I went onto YouTube's homepage and they often have a 'Breaking News' subsection about a fifth or so down the page, and last night for example, it was discussing defective school buildings that first started being discussed elsewhere around Wednesday (30th August). So in that particular case it's hardly 'Breaking News' anymore but more 'Current News'.

Likewise I feel that the word 'crisis' has been vastly overused in on-screen text on news channels over the past 20-odd years or so, which in turn tends to cheapen said term and lessen its true impact to the point where many people just become blase about it (and the aforementioned term 'Breaking News').

All in all, typical cases of hyperbole and 'pushing everything to the max' IMO. What do others on here think?

[Carnation]

I ignore that heading now, along with the news in general.

[Lencoboy]

I ignore that heading now, along with the news in general.

I can't say that I really blame you Carnation.

Said term, along with many other hackneyed to death ones (e.g, the other aforementioned word 'crisis'), has become so ubiquitous over the past 20 years or so to the point of now being virtually meaningless to most people and to the point where they're increasingly alienated from the news media period, and inadvertently avoiding a lot of it like the plague.

I also see the overuse/misuse of certain emotive terms and 'buzzwords' in the media since the early 2000s heavily symbolic of the so-called 'dumbing down' of society in general over the same period.

But then again, the media and the authorities will probably always be in a no-win situation, either too sensationalist/fastidious or too gutless!

[WiredIncorrectly]

I'm with you Lenco. Since the clickbait era everything is breaking news. Another pet peeve of mine is the news channels using up news time for non news related things. I assume a local business can pay to appear on the news channel for doing a charity event as promotion. But I think there's too much non news at important news times.

Regarding the dumbing down, yes this happens. The reason is most tabloid media is for regular folks, and regular folks read at the level of a 15 year old. So newspapers, and websites, write for this audience. You wont see big words, or long paragraphs, in most tabloid media. They've been able to garner a lot of analytics over the years and learn what works best for their readers. Even the BBC does it.

The best headlines that get clicks are things like: "You would not believe what happened to this girl when she ate a McDonalds" ... straight away most people want to click. This is clickbait to an extent, but still allowed. It's just reworded.

I agree it's wrong. From a business POV it's right though, because it garners more clicks which equals more ads being displayed to users and more money being made by Daily Mail, Metro w/e so they continue to survive.

And with the amount of news sites available they're all in competition with each other. Thing is, most of their news all comes from the same source ... the Associated Press. It's just rewritten. Police will submit reports to AP for example and AP will push it out to all people subscribed.

Everything online is based around making money, and with that comes all sorts of shady goings on.

[Lencoboy]

I'm with you Lenco. Since the clickbait era everything is breaking news. Another pet peeve of mine is the news channels using up news time for non news related things. I assume a local business can pay to appear on the news channel for doing a charity event as promotion. But I think there's too much non news at important news times.

Regarding the dumbing down, yes this happens. The reason is most tabloid media is for regular folks, and regular folks read at the level of a 15 year old. So newspapers, and websites, write for this audience. You wont see big words, or long paragraphs, in most tabloid media. They've been able to garner a lot of analytics over the years and learn what works best for their readers. Even the BBC does it.

The best headlines that get clicks are things like: "You would not believe what happened to this girl when she ate a McDonalds" ... straight away most people want to click. This is clickbait to an extent, but still allowed. It's just reworded.

I agree it's wrong. From a business POV it's right though, because it garners more clicks which equals more ads being displayed to users and more money being made by Daily Mail, Metro w/e so they continue to survive.

And with the amount of news sites available they're all in competition with each other. Thing is, most of their news all comes from the same source ... the Associated Press. It's just rewritten. Police will submit reports to AP for example and AP will push it out to all people subscribed.

Everything online is based around making money, and with that comes all sorts of shady goings on.

BIB 1: I actually think the BBC site is less sensationalist now than it used to be, and ironically seemed to start toning things down around the early 2010s.

BIB 2: I agree, it's just 'copy-and-paste' lazy journalism, rather than scrupulous original investigative journalism of true value. Sometimes even so-called 'infotainment' where many actually get some kind of thrill from shocking headlines and proclaiming 'we're going to hell in a handcart', then forgetting about them 2 days later and moving on to the next big hyped-up issues, whatever they may be.

[Carnation]

Everything online is based around making money, and with that comes all sorts of shady goings on.

We need to remember this.

[Lencoboy]

With regards the quote 'Everything online is based around making money, and with that comes all sorts of shady goings on', there were plenty of shady money-making pursuits 'offline' in the pre-Internet era. Though fictitious, I'm sure quite a few of you remember the two infamous characters Delboy and Arthur Daley from 'OFAH' and 'Minder' respectively, both of whose shows' heydays were in the 80s, which heavily reflected such issues.

So on the whole not a new thing, but the Internet is now obviously the foremost medium for such pursuits.

[BlueIris]

Going to put this out there again: Be the change you want to see in the world.

[Carnation]

Good one BlueIris

[BlueIris]

Thanks, Carnation. I think it's important to recognise injustice and ignorance, but it's also our responsibility to bring what good we can to our society.