This is not a commentary about false news, fake news, misinformation, or disinformation. That’s for another day. This is about how television news alerts have changed over the years—mostly thanks to cable TV—even if the content is accurate.

A Google search for “TV breaking news definition” yields the Wikipedia result first, which reads, in part: “a current issue that broadcasters feel warrants the interruption of scheduled programming or current news in order to report its details.” In other words, these news alerts (e.g., newsflashes or special reports) are of sufficient magnitude that they justify interrupting current programming. Big news items. Really big. And that’s the standard established decades ago, before cable TV, when the “big three” network television outlets (NBC, ABC, CBS) were the staple of the airwaves. That high standard is mostly still intact for the big three. For one of the networks to air a breaking news story about Britney Spears—unrelated to a life-or-death situation—is unimaginable.

Prominent cable television news outlets—CNN, MSNBC, and FOX, for example—have changed or even watered down breaking news to such a degree that it’s hard to take it seriously anymore unless it matches the magnitude of such alerts from yesteryear. Speaking of which, some historical examples of justifiable breaking news from the big three networks decades ago include the President Kennedy assassination, the Apollo 11 moon landing, and the killing of Martin Luther King Jr. People would literally stop what they were doing, gather around the television, and fully focus on the breaking story because of its magnitude—clearly worthy of interrupting programming. Occurrences of such gravity are indelibly tattooed in the deepest recesses of peoples’ memories (for those who were around for them). Psychologists term these “flashbulb memories.”

There is no doubt that cable TV overuses breaking news to increase viewership in the hopes of gaining a competitive edge—and no doubt political agendas often influence news alerts. That said, here are some of the properties of big three, network breaking news from decades past and how things have changed, especially concerning contemporary cable television:

• Sufficient Magnitude: Previously discussed regarding the big three networks from the old days. Cable TV, however, has watered this down so much that it is sometimes unrecognizable as breaking news. For example, an hour or so before an event (I don’t recall the specific event it was leading up to, but it was likely a significant speech such as a State of the Union address—which is clearly of sufficient magnitude), the CNN breaking news banner read, “PRESIDENT TRUMP IS IN THE BUILDING.” This is not breaking news; it’s barely news at all. Who cares if he’s in the building? And this example has nothing to do with a political bias on the part of this author. The reason it resonated is because it happened years prior when the same network’s breaking news banner read “PRESIDENT OBAMA IS IN THE BUILDING.” Exactly the same. Insufficient magnitude. And it’s not just CNN. Cable TV networks regularly contort mundane facts into breaking news stories.
• Event-Based: Examples in the opening paragraph, such as the Apollo moon landing, were about specific events. Today, we see breaking news regarding comments as well. Sure, the comments (although not events in and of themselves) are likely related to events, but comments should rarely warrant breaking news; however, it happens regularly on cable television. For example, CNN opened the December 2, 2021, 8 p.m. CST broadcast with breaking news about an Alec Baldwin comment regarding the deadly movie set shooting, “I DIDN’T PULL THE TRIGGER.” Of course this is an important story, but it’s not true breaking news. Rather, it’s one important comment from a lengthy interview that was morphed into breaking news.
• Simultaneous Network Alerts: Both now and in the past, if there were a special report on a big three network, understandably all three had it—and concurrently. If a television viewer encountered breaking news on CBS, then ABC and NBC would have it as well at the same time—evidence that it justified the term “breaking news.” But with cable TV these days, one network can have a breaking story but not the others. On November 29, 2021, MSNBC opened the 5 p.m. CST newscast with a breaking story “S. BARS TRAVELERS FROM 8 COUNTRIES WITH NEW VARIANT.” But there was no breaking story for FOX or CNN opening their broadcast that day in the same time slot, although they no doubt considered it an important story. In fact, we sometimes see different breaking stories on different cable networks at the same time. On December 2 at 8 p.m. CST, while CNN was airing the Alec Baldwin “breaking” comment, FOX opened with the breaking news that “BIDEN FALSELY CLAIMS HE MET ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER GOLDA MEIR DURING THE SIX-DAY WAR.” Frankly, neither seems like a genuine breaking news story, but we have to keep in mind that many primetime (evening) cable news broadcasts are classified as “commentary” rather than “news.”
• Broadcast Interruption: Before cable television, breaking news would interrupt regular programming or a commercial. But we rarely, if ever, see a cable news network interrupting a commercial for breaking news like the big three did (and still do). It’s become so watered down that cable anchors often announce there will be breaking news after the commercial. If the story justifies “breaking news,” doesn’t it justify delaying the commercial?

Breaking news is often so watered down and has so diminishing an effect that the viewer is faced with judging its worthiness. We do see legitimate breaking news on FOX, MSNBC, and CNN, concurrently, such as the Omicron COVID-19 variant alert on these networks (opening their respective 10 a.m. CST broadcasts of November 26, 2021). But the degree to which “breaking news” is overused or watered down makes it difficult to take seriously. It’s almost not worth watching if the TV screen doesn’t include the breaking news banner. “Breaking news,” my foot!