4 ms·
Even a short paragraph (which ESPN/WSJ had before them) would be nice. It demonstrates a level of due diligence. The term "breaking news" doesn't mean anything
by fallentimes 18y ago
Even a short paragraph (which ESPN/WSJ had before them) would be nice. It demonstrates a level of due diligence.
The term "breaking news" doesn't mean anything any more because it's so overused. It's like the word unique or the word special.
- jorgeortiz85 18y agoI'm a bit puzzled. "Breaking" doesn't mean "important". In this context, "to break" means: 14. (v. tr.) To make known, as news: break a story. 15. (v. intr.) To become known or noticed: The big story broke on Friday. (http://www.answers.com/topic/break) So a "breaking news" story is one that is being made known or becoming known. In the morning when the story was becoming known, I think the label was perfectly appropriate.
- fallentimes 18y agoAnother definition (and the one I was thinking of): Breaking news is a current event that broadcasters feel warrants the interruption of scheduled programming in order to report its details
- jorgeortiz85 18y agoDid cnn.com really "interrupt" any "scheduled" programming with the Cuban story? They usually just have that red bar over the top with the "breaking" headline.
- fallentimes 18y agoObviously the definition doesn't transfer perfectly to the internet. Traditionally breaking news is reserved for news deemed important (see previous definition). The problem is, everyone uses it too much, and if too many things are deemed important, nothing is. And we're back to where we started :).