Prepare for the Ultimate Gaslighting
forge.medium.com
forge.medium.com
The media has done this to themselves. For years they have eagerly profited not on the truth, but on the outrageous. Many news outlets will spin the truth any way they can to make it more outrageous, fear-inducing, or more (in their parlance) "breaking".
Lastly, the media should not be our source of truth, nor should the government be our source of truth. Truth needs not to be told to individuals but discovered by individuals after carefully considering information from multiple sources.
Breaking news just means a story is current, reported as events unfold or just happened, nothing to do with how outrageous or "fear-inducing" it is.
Which means less time is allocated to investigation, fact-checking, and comparing reports from different sources.
The term exists because it refers to special news reports which would "break into" regular programming, it goes all the way back to radio.
By your definition, me spilling a little bit of coffee a few minutes ago (as I in fact did) would be "breaking news", but that's certainly not going to show up on CNN with a 200-point "BREAKING!!!!! NEWS!!!!" headline, accompanied by zoomy visual effects and dramatic music.
They are, without exception, sensationalistic stories, not mundane stories that just happen to be new.
Can you give me a counter-example of even one boring, run-of-the-mill story that has been shown on any major news site that has been given the "BREAKING NEWS!!!!!" treatment simply because it is a new story?
I don't think you can, and even if you could, it would be an extreme outlier.
Really?
Literally every story reported on every news outlet anywhere in the world, without exception labelled as breaking news is sensationalized? Nothing reported on as breaking news actually deserves to be covered as such on its own merits?
>Can you give me a counter-example of even one boring, run-of-the-mill story that has been shown on any major news site that has been given the "BREAKING NEWS!!!!!" treatment simply because it is a new story?
You... you do realize that boring, run of the mill events are by definition not news, right? And that the entire point of "breaking news," legitimately, used as intended, is to report exceptional events? What's your definition of "mundane breaking news," exactly? Man walks dog?
But fine. Since your thesis is that such a thing doesn't exist, I only had to find one, but I found three.
Shooting at a Fresno party: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPkPWLcBlUM
And CNN: Trump saying a thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z53kXE5dRHk
And Kobe Bryant's death: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbVn_ziuTJ4
No hyperbole, no crazy sound effects, no multiple exclamation points, no "spin(ning) the truth any way they can to make it more outrageous, fear-inducing." Literally just the media reporting current events.
Yes. Really.
"You... you do realize that boring, run of the mill events are by definition not news, right?"
Ah, yes. That's why my local newspaper prints the details of the city council meeting. Because it's "not news".
You know what they don't do? Print it under a big banner "breaking news" headline. Nor do the local TV stations interrupt regular programming with a "BREAKING NEWS BULLETIN" about the new trash collection rates.
Every single example you gave was of a sensationalistic story.
We're done here.
Fair enough, I didn't realize you were being purposely obtuse and pedantic.
Yes. You are correct. Items printed in a newspaper such as city council meetings are, technically, news. Merriam Webster's dictionary defines "news" thusly:
1a : a report of recent events b : previously unknown information c : something having a specified influence or effect.
2a : material reported in a newspaper or news periodical b : matter that is newsworthy 3 : newscast
I assumed you were aware the context of the thread was the definition of the term "breaking news" and its nature, and that you would realize that by "news" I was referring to noteworthy matters, specifically on tv and cable news, not in the newspapers (because newspapers don't have breaking news.) My mistake. Therefore, let me be more accurate and restate my comment:
You... you do realize that boring, run of the mill events are by definition not particularly newsworthy, and therefore, not of being covered as news, right?
>Every single example you gave was of a sensationalistic story.
Every single example was of a noteworthy event being covered as it occurred, and thus, of being breaking news under the definition I and the entire rest of the world understand it.
None of those examples were of sensationalist coverage, however, which is the definition you seem, for reasons I can't fathom, to want to die on the hill of defending.
Also, you have yet to provide an example of what you consider a mundane, run-of-the-mill event which should be covered as breaking news.
I can tell you really wanted the endorphine hit that scoring imaginary points on the internet provides but you still don't know what you're talking about.
>We're done here.
Yeah, I don't know why I wasted my time. Closing this thread and forgetting now.
It's a tactic that has been lampooned many times by The Onion:
Expertise is important. And so are secondary and tertiary sources who can synthesise the mass volume of raw information those experts generate in a way that is consumable by the non expert.
Your commentary reads as skeptical of the value of the advice of healthcare experts during a pandemic, which, to me, is truly a confusing position for anyone to take other than someone who only understand the splash, and not the ripples, of this global situation.
This container says honey. I expect it to be honey. If it is thickened sugar water, then shame on me for buying it, even if I’m not a chemist.
If you are part of the government, it is your duty to lead the best course of action for the population at large.
If you are a registered news organization, you should be sued every time you are caught fear-mongering. News entertainment companies should be banned. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it needs to be a duck.
This of course is unlikely happen.
Mass media has been a source of inaccurate, biased, hysterical drivel since the invention of the printing press. That's always going to be true, no matter who runs it.
The US has survived epidemics before, and far worse catastrophes.
Sure there will be economic wreckae everywhere but we’ve seen that before. It presents opportunity and optimism.
Remember “RIP good times”? People always feel like things will never get back on track when they’re inside the bad part.
The article rings true to me, it describes a distilled version of the world we lived in a mere two months ago. The desperation that will exist to get back to the lifestyles we were familiar with and the gross reality of consumerism that will be there to hold our hands through the re-transition. And it's nothing new, it will just be a more condensed, hyper, desperate version of the hyper, desperate consumerism we had before.
"This is our chance to define a new version of normal"
If the new normal is just progress towards the old normal, then we've learnt nothing.