General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMSNBC's egregious misrepresentation of 'BREAKING NEWS'
MSNBC is one of my favorite shows, typically watch it for hours daily. What I do not care for is their annoying habit of fabricating BREAKING NEWS, emboldened in red at the screen bottom, for ordinary daily events, dated stories, continuances of a status quo, or for what the guest of the hour has to say about something. This is simply fake breaking news.
BREAKING NEWS, properly, is a newsworthy event which is breaking during the day, or broke during the overnight, with leeway for further new developments during the following days. A mass shooting in progress, a notable death, a notable court decision, a bombing these days, a natural disaster, something truly newsworthy and just happening often in the moment, or a continuance of something important which is ongoing, such as taliban takeover in Afghanistan. Usually after a day or two breaking news should be substituted with updates.
BREAKING NEWS is NOT what about half MSNBC news hour hosts generally put up as BREAKING NEWS. Here are some examples Ive seen the past year., in their totality:
1. BREAKING NEWS; Gymnasts go maskless in Miami. Then a short video of ~50 gymnasts riding exercise bikes, most all maskless. This is insulting. No more breaking news than a parking lot fender bender.
2. BREAKING NEWS: Republicans divided on vaccine push. Whee. On Trump as well, but this was well known for months, not BREAKING NEWS.
3. BREAKING NEWS: {Capitol riot] Jan 06 committee may subpoena GOP members. It becomes breaking news when actually subpoenaed, not just that some might be. This gem was on Nicole Wallaces show august 2, as if it wasnt known subpoenas were possible for a couple months.
4. BREAKING NEWS: One on one with state dept spokesperson.. A dozen issues breaking NOW! On our show! From a govt official whose name you would not recognize!
I have seen simply the names of guests as BREAKING NEWS, as in BREAKING NEWS: Bernie Sanders. I waited 30 seconds to see what the breaking news from good man Bernie was, when they cut to commercial. Came back on, did not change for 10 seconds when they dropped it. This is sensationalism. It is annoying, deceptive, and MSNBC is doing it for self serving reasons. Maybe MSNBC saw a nielson or gallup survey which noted that when BREAKING NEWS appeared on screen, it attracted viewers and retained viewers and made ratings spike. So some genius said why dont we put up BREAKING NEWS, ALL THE TIME? We will attract viewers, retain viewers, and our ratings will spike! Sorry chaps, not supposed to work that way.
Some hosts, or their producers, evidently forbid fake breaking news. I rarely see it on Morning Joe/Mika or Rachel Maddow, tho on occasion is not a stigma. I have seen it to varying annoying degrees from 9am Stephanie to 11pm Brian Wms, including Todd, Melber, Mohedin, Joy, ODonnell, plus Nicole Wallace who seems to be the biggest offender. A typical Nicole show, not counting commercials or actual breaking news, is 75% or more fake breaking news. Shes a fine lady and announcer, but she really should stop and apologize. Whoever thought up this fake policy should be fired or demoted. Hosts must condone and know this is ongoing, how could they not? Nicole Wallace substituted for Rachel Maddow august 3rd & 5th, and not a fake breaking news did I see on Rachels 9pm hour, tho it abounds on Nicoles 4 - 6 pm show.
One way to determine if a headline is truly BREAKING NEWS is to corroborate it with another major reputable TV station, my favorite is CNN. CNN is good with it, generally reserves BREAKING NEWS for truly breaking news. Often MSNBC calls it BREAKING NEWS while CNN calls it a New Development, or Update etc. This does not corroborate BREAKING NEWS, at least two reputable stations must specifically call it breaking news. Even FOX would do (tho FOX too often stands for Full Of X-crement). CNN does not employ fake breaking news, tho sometimes it inadvertently lists some I would call fake, but that is understandable and excusable if not done on a regular basis. If I see fake breaking news on MSNBC I will change the channel quickly, unless the issue is of particular interest.
A continuance of status quo is generally not breaking news. A common MSNBC ploy is to refer to old dated stories and use the word continue in some form, to segue into their next discussion topic and to present to viewers a constant barrage of new breaking news. Such as:
1. BREAKING NEWS: Arizona GOP vote audit continues. (tweaking a 4 month old story, yawn)
2. BREAKING NEWS: McConnell continues to oppose Jan 06 committee.
3. BREAKING NEWS: The fight to protect voting rights continues.
4. BREAKING NEWS: Jan 06 defendants continue to appear in court.
5. BREAKING NEWS: Trump and allies continue push to
..
Some others:
BREAKING NEWS: Congress has yet to make headway on other major issues - No News can be good news, but is rarely breaking news.
BREAKING NEWS: Republicans refuse to listen to hearings. - DItto. Exploitation of the hearings.
BREAKING NEWS: Cohen says he {weisselburg] will flip. - Conjecture, is Cohen psychic? You could win the lottery, but it's not breaking news. PS- so far cohen is wrong.
BREAKING NEWS: Millions of Americans refusing to be vaccinated - aug 05. Duh, we know, Joy.
BREAKING NEWS: aug 05: Only 4.1% of Jamacains are vaccinated - Now do Borneo. Joy had a Jamaican guest on.
BREAKING NEWS: Tokyo Olympics to hold closing ceremonies sunday - Nicole. Oooh, you mean theyre not going to last forever?
The half hour evening news shows 6:30 pm, CBS, ABC, and NBC, all engage fake breaking news but to a smaller extent and usually constrained to the first 15 minutes. They thereby corroborate 'fake breaking news' frequently. This does not qualify to make it truly breaking news. Recent example august 2021:
1 NBC: BREAKING NEWS: What's next for US women superstars? - you asking us or telling us, Lester? Obvious this is not breaking news, but just a story line with flashing red lights Look here! Look here!
Ordinary events, tweaked stale news, mundane quotes from interviewed guests, even concoctions, just about anything to break up a boring news day by sensationalizing, is all par for the course on a typical day on MSNBC.
Please stop it.
hlthe2b
(102,676 posts)jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)No, I do not see much fake breaking news on CNN, and certainly not to the extent as by MSNBC, offenses which are an order of magnitude higher than CNN (about 10 times higher).
MSNBC has been doing this for a couple years I have observed. I even wrote a similar critique as above and sent to a few MSNBC hosts to make 'constructive criticism', but my efforts were in vain, nothing changed. But, they do get thousands of emails daily etcetra, so what you do?
hlthe2b
(102,676 posts)I DON'T KNOW WHAT "cnn" you are watching, but maybe there is one show during one of 24 hours that has less. Watch Wolf Blitzer or any of the morning through evening shows and it is BREAKING NEWS one right after the other.
Dislike MSNBC all your want, but CNN is no better in that specific regard.
BlueLucy
(1,609 posts)I stopped watching save for Rachell then decided not to give msnbc any of my time at all. I found it to be way too much exaggerated opinion. I think CNN is far more accurate.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)I know what you are saying Lucy, I have noticed the same thing, but overall MSNBC is a good network, while some of the hosts are better with it than others. Yes Rachel Maddow when she is good is really good. I rarely watch interviews however, from her or any others, prefer actual news reports or investigations or rebuttals rather than what someone wants to pontificate about for a half hour.
Morning Joe I like, halfway I guess. Mika Brzezinski presents a good show, while ex republican Scarborough (her husband) gets a bit too annoying when he starts bloviating, and he keeps interrupting guests. Willie Geist is a good host on morning joe, as well.
A few years back I would listen to CNN and MSNBC about equally, but since I detected fake breaking news I have switched to CNN about 2/3 to MSNBC 1/3.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)I repeat, I like MSNBC, it is one of my favorite TV channels. Generally watch it for hours daily. Favorite hosts are Rachel and Mika (excepting rachel's prodigious over gesticulation, a rampant annoying habit amongst ~80% of talking heads. Fodder for another thread perhaps).
I do not watch Wolf Blitzer much, not my cup of tea, so I cannot comment on that, maybe you are right regarding his show. Briannon (sp?) in the morning - I really like her presentations & rebuttals of right wing idiocy. She recently transferred to the morning job from her afternoon show.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)BannonsLiver
(16,563 posts)I dont get it either. Too much.
BlueLucy
(1,609 posts)True Blue American
(18,004 posts)My kids gave me good advice,Turn Off The NEWS!
I check to see of anything important happened! Other wise I leave it on local, or maybe a Sow I like. All of them are gossip shows repeated endlessly.
My IPAD gives me breaking news and my IPAD is a cell phone.
JohnSJ
(92,612 posts)Treefrog
(4,170 posts)Ive learned to ignore it, but its annoying.
PatSeg
(47,876 posts)Both CNN and MSNBC do it. It is excessive and ridiculous. I noticed with MSNBC that when there is a REAL "Breaking News" story, they have to play loud dramatic news with bolder, in-your-face graphics to get our attention.
This whole "Breaking News" banner habit started back in the 9/11 days when there were literally breaking stories several times a day. People had their televisions on most of the day, as it was difficult keeping up with the stories. It must have been hard holding on to such a large audience during more quiet news cycles, so it appears they started to employ the "Breaking News" banner for almost every other story they reported in the hope that viewers wouldn't change channels or turn off their sets. Some habits die hard.
Many people became conditioned to the "Breaking News" tactic for awhile, but now we barely notice it anymore. A better way to hold one's audience is with interesting content, good reporting, and enticing teasers at the end of each segment - "Coming up after the break ______". The banners just don't work and are insulting to the people holding the remote.
Tribetime
(4,766 posts)BannonsLiver
(16,563 posts)JohnSJ
(92,612 posts)USALiberal
(10,877 posts)Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)Turn off the cable infotainment drama tv and never turn it back on. You will be better informed and have lowered your blood pressure.
hlthe2b
(102,676 posts)It is times like this that reading from good online newspaper sites to keep up and tuning out the pundit-driven hysteria is the better course. IF only more DUers would go back to excerpting from good, thoughtful articles while including a bit of their own impressions/discussion--rather than simply posting some link to an outrageous or disturbing video segment, sans any context nor discussion...which seems to be the way that DU is going.
So, yes. Keep up via other means and limit the nonstop hysteria-driven shows.
JohnSJ
(92,612 posts)If someone is really interested in more news then commentary, there are plenty of avenues to obtain that
Mike Nelson
(10,010 posts)... and the others know BREAKING NEWS gets people to keep their eyes on the screen. It used to mean a President was shot... now every newscast begins every hour with BREAKING NEWS. The expression will lose its impact. They will have to come up with a new one... maybe DIRE NEWS! They want to SHOCK readers... shows like "Morning Joe" want you to get off FACEBOOK and watch MSNBC. What about TWITTER? Well, Mika has enough followers on TWITTER and she uses that one a lot... MSNBC is on the correct political side, more or less, which is nice... but they are in it for the money.
carpetbagger
(4,398 posts)I find that cbs news (the smart tv app) is a reasonable alternative, it cycles all day and night like cnn headline news used to do before it became crime porn in the 90s. Basic network news, some brief talk, interviews, and analysis.
gab13by13
(21,628 posts)Liberal In Texas
(13,655 posts)doomsday music effects are way overused. I suppose it's thought that this is a way to keep viewers tuned in and not reach for the remote.
I will say, after my career in broadcast news, that the anchors aren't the ones making the decisions about what is BREAKING NEWS. Sitting in a dark control room and watching in executive offices producers and executive producers are plugging in the BREAKING NEWS animation as the show progresses and the use and overuse is all up to them.
True Blue American
(18,004 posts)The Fear Factor!
After all the hysteria over the weekend we now find. People being moved out. The Taliban causing no problems.
I heard shouting on CNN. Eisenhower is laying Jeffrey Toobin out. Saying we should not prosecute Trump! Jeffrey needs to go back to what he does best. Sorry bout that!
spanone
(136,032 posts)it's show business.
bucolic_frolic
(43,678 posts)In their heyday, Cronkite, Rather, Brinkley, Jennings, even Brokaw had stature and integrity. It wasn't just cover everything with reporters everywhere, there were moral underpinnings, truth, public trust to the news. Even our best today are a watered-down product, in part because they're all competing, and in order to compete with Lying News Channel, you have to stretch resources. I suppose the whole world has changed. It's like in the day the tone was set by the top hierarchies in public life and politics, now we have a multitude of competing interests and financial interests clamoring for their weekly moment in the sunlight. I remain unconvinced the world can be built around the sum total of private interests of the masses fed by the capitalists. We have a debased outcome already.
joetheman
(1,450 posts)as uncaring? His latest report from there sickened me. Sure it was a botched evacuation but not because we didn't care, not concerned.
mwooldri
(10,311 posts)I'm usually saying in my head "This is CNN Breaking Wind..."
mwooldri
(10,311 posts)"Breaking News" was known as a News Flash.
Benny Hill had an interesting take on this...
milestogo
(16,829 posts)JohnSJ
(92,612 posts)malaise
(269,637 posts)IronLionZion
(45,735 posts)malaise
(269,637 posts)mobeau69
(11,179 posts)know its the top of the hour. Otherwise its worthless.
In 1963 when they broke into As The World Turns with This is a bulletin from CBS News that was breaking news.
malaise
(269,637 posts)on a speech that hasn't yet been delivered. It really is bullshit on steroids
Response to jimmy the one (Original post)
mobeau69 This message was self-deleted by its author.
IronLionZion
(45,735 posts)it's like crying wolf so people miss actual breaking news in the rare cases when it happens.
milestogo
(16,829 posts)NewHendoLib
(60,044 posts)Sympthsical
(9,221 posts)One of the odder things I experience with DU is how people will just discuss what's going on with cable news all day long.
The vast, vast overwhelming majority of Americans do not watch cable news. Only 16% of Americans get their news from these networks. If you look at prime time ratings for the biggest shows on these channels, they don't get the same ratings as mediocre sitcoms no one's really watching.
The only reason we hear about it all day is because journalists who need a job, politicians who need exposure, and pundits who couldn't get an actual job doing actual work need them. It's about money for them. Now they're all hanging out on Twitter all day, which is even worse. And because journalists like it for exposure and access (and they're lazy), it gets written about endlessly.
We haven't had cable in quite awhile. We use Locast for local channels, then an array of streaming services. But I will see clips of things online. Let me ask this:
Why are people watching this?
They talk around shit, because they need to fill time. They present the most facile explanation humanly possible. If there actually is a major story, it's already on the Internet. I can spend one minute reading and skimming through a detailed article and come away with three times more information and understanding than I can from 10 minutes of these people on TV rambling on and on in an attempt to seem interesting and relevant.
It's just not a good source of information. "Random pundit, what do you think about Jimmy getting gum in his hair?" "Well, you know, I think Jimmy has few options here, but it's clear he'll use peanut butter." "This just in, Jimmy cut it out of his hair."
Seriously, no matter how wrong these commenters are - which seems like constantly - they are never fired. They rarely know what they're talking about. Have you ever watched one of these cable news people discuss a topic that you yourself are really knowledgeable in? They have no idea what they're talking about. And if they don't know what they're talking about with topics I know, why do I think they know anything about topics I do not?
I seriously don't get the appeal.
I get leaving things on in the background. I work from home. I like distracting noise all day, too.
Podcasts. Just get podcasts. Or shit on YouTube. Find good, informative channels. Leave it on in the background. You will learn a hell of lot more in the same amount of time. I had a ton of paperwork to do last week, and I ended up going through Last Podcast on the Left's series on the Black Death. Informative, funny, learned things I didn't know.
Cable news rots brains. We're dumber as a country for having invented it.
JI7
(89,322 posts)this is not good
lostnfound
(16,211 posts)Youre correct.