Whether you're a homophobic conservative, a doobie-smoking liberal, or a spineless pantywaist moderate, chances are you probably occasionally tune into CNN, FOX News, or that channel with the helmet-haired loudmouth drag queen who's always looking for missing sluts or lost babies (I'm referring to Nancy Grace, not Keith Olbermann). Also, chances are at any given time you'll glance at the screen and see: BREAKING NEWS! which will undoubtedly be followed by a description of a news item which is about as interesting as a Tyler Perry movie. (Spoiler Alert: In his next film, Tyler Perry will play the role of an sassy black grandma!)
Normally I view these "breaking stories" as a mild irritation, much like a bout of diarrhea, Fran Drescher's voice, female stand-up comics, jock itch, or Rachel Maddow's snarkiness (what, you're a lesbian and you hate Rush Limbaugh? No way!)
However, after recently flipping through the channels and seeing: BREAKING NEWS! SNOOKI IS PREGNANT! I knew I had to say something about the sad state of television journalism. Walter Cronkite, Edward R. Murrow, and Barbara Walters are probably spinning in their graves. If a gutter hussy from Jersey getting knocked up is breaking news, then my next bowel movement should land me on the front page of the New York Times. Both of these things happen every single day and both are events which no one really cares about, unless you have a fascination with the mating habits of the orange-skinned troll (or Guidetteus Oompus Loompus, if you prefer Latin).
Which begs the question, what makes a news story "breaking"?
Decades ago, back when Larry King was a fresh-faced eighty-year-old kid married to wife number six, the words "breaking news" were reserved for something significant and important, usually involving things like mass casualties and exotic bacteria which causes people to bleed from the eyeballs. Earthquakes, tornadoes, and hurricanes are worthy of being labeled as breaking news. A windy day in Poughkeepsie? Not so much. The label of "breaking news" was also reserved for events which had just happened or were in the process of happening. That's what puts the "breaking" in breaking news.
Nowadays, news channels will play out an event for weeks and still label it as breaking news. I'm sure if you flipped through the news channels at this very moment, at least one channel will still be covering Whitney Houston's premature departure from the realm of the living. The screen will probably read something like: Breaking News! Whitney Houston's Hairdresser Speaks Out: "Whitney Preferred Hairspray Over Mousse".
If you ask me, labeling a story as breaking news is nothing more than a gimmick to catch the attention of television viewers. Unfortunately, the average television viewer has the attention span of a flea, and since the average attention span is getting shorter by the year, news channels are constantly struggling to find new ways to reel people in. That's why they replaced real journalists (or men, as I like to call them) with Botox-injected babes with exotic-sounding first names and ordinary-sounding last names, like Soledad O'Brien, Contessa Brewer, and Campbell Brown. Unfortunately for CNN and other networks, these ladies aren't getting any younger. The only men who find Campbell Brown attractive are the ones who receive AARP brochures in the mail. High definition television hasn't helped, either. Heck, look at Katie Couric. Once upon the time she was sexy, but now she looks like Bruce Jenner:
At this rate, a few years from now our attention spans will be so short that CNN will have to replace eye-candy like Nicole Lapin with bikini-clad midgets who perform cartwheels just to get our attention. CNBC will replace Erin Burnett with a juggling monkey, and MSNBC will replace Rachel Maddow with an actual female. Yet there is no doubt in my mind that, when this days comes, TV news networks will still label meaningless and trivial stories as "breaking news".
Comments
Post a Comment