SPECIAL BULLETIN!
THIS JUST IN!
NEWS FLASH!
Using “Breaking” in a story title shows the world that you have no idea how to use that word correctly.
Okay, sure, there are instances where “breaking” refers to acts of damage or dissolution, such as “Leader X breaking off peace talks with Leader Y.” It is fine to use the word in that context.
But using it as a synonym for “Red alert!” in a title is just wrong. Period.
The third most important reason for not using it is that literally all news is “breaking news” in the sense that it is … well … new. That’s why it’s called “news” in the first place, because it is new information about new events. Just because you saw something new on TV or in a print outlet and you think it is important, that doesn’t magically transform it into some special category of news called “breaking.”
The second most important reason is that it almost immediately makes your headline look dated, irrelevant, and foolish. In an hour or two, someone else will probably have written a more thorough story with updated information and there will be your sad, awkward story hanging forlornly in the diaries list, treated with scorn because it cannot deliver on what it promises: there is no new news in your story now, it is no longer “breaking” anything of interest.
But the most important reason for never ever using that term to indicate recent and urgent news is that you are mixing up your media.
Let me ask you this: when have you seen headlines in newspapers and magazines — whether print or electronic — with “Breaking”? The correct answer should be “never” (although some outlets, like here at DK, may very well use it incorrectly).
When Walter Cronkite broke into regular programming, you knew it was important and that CBS would continue to keep you informed
“Breaking” is a broadcast media term. That word flashes up on the TV screen, or is uttered by an announcer on radio, to alert viewers and listeners that what appears to be a dramatic and crucial story has just been reported but that information about it is very incomplete at this point.
The “talking head” breaks into the regular flow of the broadcast with this urgent but partial story and ends the segment with the promise that the media source will continue to provide updates as more information and analysis are acquired; then it is “… and now back to our regular programming.”
So, if you use “Breaking” in your DK story, please tell me how it works.
- Do you control the flow of information for your readers, such that you can forcibly interrupt their regularly scheduled diary reading with your story?
- Do you have access to the “liveblog” feature that staff uses for live events which will let you post regular updates to your story throughout the day and those updates will automatically show up on the reader’s page without hitting “Reload”?
- Even if you had access to that feature, would you commit to using it and updating your story continuously throughout the day?
- Like a TV or radio broadcaster, can you send people to personally investigate the matter at the scene, either your own employees or those of your affiliates, to ensure you acquire new info ASAP?
No? Well, then your “Breaking” title is quite misleading, isn’t it? It does not meet the expectations we have when we see or hear that word in broadcast media. Doesn’t it look sad and pointless a few hours later?
Perhaps that is why professional print media outlets do not use it. Perhaps we should follow their example.
And now we return you to your regularly scheduled reading, commenting, and annihilating political opponents by means of snarky tweets (for some odd reason, they always seem to fully recover after being slaughtered, flayed, destroyed, or gutted … go figure).
But … THIS JUST IN! … Generalisimo Francisco Franco is still dead.
