WDRB promises to stop using "Breaking News"

[MidwestTV 1232]

I find this interesting and actually commend them on the effor and also for FINALLY being someone to mention something about it. In my city it's almost all about breaking news...although ironically enough...my market, where a station brands itself as "Kansas City's Breaking News Leader," hardly ever uses the phrase "Breaking News" itself either...instead they opt for saying "Right Now." That could be because some of the stations, especially one, will call something as little as a traffic jam "breaking news."

 

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvspy/louisville-station-stops-using-breaking-news_b92526#disqus_thread

[CircleSeven 1955]

I second that. It appear many have used Breaking News to report on just anything. They'll take new information which may not be all that alertive and make that breaking news. The first station I remember a station that used a breaking news graphic was of course KABC, but when they do their breaking news, its means something is truly breaking, like a fire or a car chase or etc. Some have use it to the extreme like if they get new info on a well know person passing away or some new law is being passed. They used the Breaking News thing to the extreme. Before last year WLS would only have the anchor saying breaking news and it would use an over-the-shoulder graphic. But now its a sound effect & full-screen graphic with Breaking News in big letters.

 

The years when HD launches happened 2006 onward, I would complain that some have used the HD thing left and right, KABC was the first I think to use the HD thing left and right. Now almost every station have a breaking news stinger. And sometimes they are overexaggerating.

[MorningNews 1455]

My real complaint is the fact that every single local station here in Houston feels the need to bring us the latest on any and every fire that happens in Houston and the surrounding areas. Each station labels it breaking news. I understand that sometimes it's warranted (such as the recent huge fire that killed four firefighters), but an abandoned home going up in smokes is not something that needs to be reported on the news or labeled as Breaking News.

[CircleSeven 1955]

TVNewsCheck states today about WDRB stance about the use of "Breaking News". I tend to agree with them because, like I stated above, the use of it is getting used for all the wrong reasons. It's more of alertness, and then when we finally know what a breaking story is, its nothing more than something that happened hours prior to, instead of brand new information, that proves to be breaking and alert. For instance, a fire at a burning building or a standoff at a bank. But reporting on breaking news for something that happened hours prior, is just abusing it. And because of that, folks now think that that "Breaking News" means nothing now.

[Jess 1115]

I also agree with their stance.

 

WCAU was the first station to use "Breaking News" here (Steve Doerr instituted that around 96-97), and they're definitely the poster child for its abuse. In fact, my term for not-breaking non-news is "Car Hits Pole" stories. Because they actually ran that as breaking news one night. This was at least a decade ago, but it's so hilariously stupid that I still remember the lower thirds.

 

They still run probably the highest amount of breaking news in the market - it's definitely increased since the new regime took over. However, most of it is actually relevant. There are still Car Hitting Pole stories (mostly to show off SkyForce 10), but more often than not it means something, and is usually backed up by substantial reporting.

[MidwestTV 1232]

 

I also agree with their stance.

 

WCAU was the first station to use "Breaking News" here (Steve Doerr instituted that around 96-97), and they're definitely the poster child for its abuse. In fact, my term for not-breaking non-news is "Car Hits Pole" stories. Because they actually ran that as breaking news one night. This was at least a decade ago, but it's so hilariously stupid that I still remember the lower thirds.

 

They still run probably the highest amount of breaking news in the market - it's definitely increased since the new regime took over. However, most of it is actually relevant. There are still Car Hitting Pole stories (mostly to show off SkyForce 10), but more often than not it means something, and is usually backed up by substantial reporting.

 

KMBC apparently tossed their "breaking news" coverage up to their helicopter pilot who was reporting a whole bunch of stuff from the scanners then said at the end "none of this is confirmed," yet still reported it as fact.

 

But this is also the same station that will report 3-hour old events that finished being breaking an hour ago as "breaking news."

[Rusty Muck 4378]

I will never forget when MSNBC billed coverage of Anna Nicole Smith's death - ONE WEEK AFTER THE FACT - as "Breaking News."

 

To me, that was when the term lost all meaning.

[sanewsguy 511]

Worst station for "breaking news": KTLA. I stayed in LA one time circa 2010, and was watching their 8AM news. They had their chopper over a suburban home and their breaking news (no joke) was: "Cat Stuck in Tree". I LMAOed at that one. It's ridiculous. The LA stations don't really try though (except KNBC, they were my turn-to station for the most part except they had Olympics so I was forced to sit through KTLA...).