When the jury reaching a verdict in the Depp/Heard trial is "breaking news" like it plastered across my TV screen the other day...then all hope is lost.
The problem is that it is breaking news. It is news about an event that is happening as they speak. The fact that it is frivolous news has no bearing on whether or not it is breaking.
But the whole concept is from a time when communication was slow. The news that traveled the fastest was the most important. So when something was denoted as "breaking news", you'd know that it was important enough to be told right now.
But today? We practically know of events before they're covered by news organizations. And communication is so quick and cheap that even the most banal information can be bandied about without care. So we can be notified of everything. All news we hear is "breaking". So the term has lost its cachet. We don't need it anymore.
I'd say it's breaking information...but far from newsworthy. Breaking news is an update on the war in Ukraine, a school shooting or other major impact. A defamation trial between two celebrities is not and should not be news.
News is recent information. That's the only qualifier. What's happening in Ukraine is just as much news as the fact I'm drinking another cup of coffee.
And while I agree that a defamation trial between two celebrities is not noteworthy, I treat it as such by not reading news about it. If I see an article about it, I just scroll past it. But it is news by the very definition of the term. Not all news needs to be of grave import.
Considering it's been a top story for weeks I think "breaking news" is fitting when the verdict is reached and available. What isn't fitting, is "breaking news: the jury has gone to deliberate".
The fact that its been a top story for weeks is exactly the problem with modern news. There are big serious problems both locally and in the world, then there are these gladiator performances they put on for us to watch instead.
