TW
Yes, "2 British soldiers killed in roadside bomb" (the breaking news displayed from the time that you posted earlier) does look far more appealing than 'Press Red for Sport'.
The channel may class breaking news as a priority, but to state that that is the whole point of it is pathetic. I can hardly imagine the broadcasting centre going into meltdown on a 'quiet' day!
Musey posted:
because 1) the breaking news strap looks cool, and the active strap looks like a turd;
and 2) it's there for a good reason, indeed it's part of the whole point of the channel in the first place. the active strap just looks ghey.
and 2) it's there for a good reason, indeed it's part of the whole point of the channel in the first place. the active strap just looks ghey.
Yes, "2 British soldiers killed in roadside bomb" (the breaking news displayed from the time that you posted earlier) does look far more appealing than 'Press Red for Sport'.
The channel may class breaking news as a priority, but to state that that is the whole point of it is pathetic. I can hardly imagine the broadcasting centre going into meltdown on a 'quiet' day!
MU
i didn't mean the whole point of sky news is just breaking news lol, i just meant that breaking news is a significant part of what they exit for, as well as rolling news updates and bulletins. Hence the breaking news strap is part of the whole point of the channel, whereas the active strap needs to go and die.
FE
Cool? Well personal opinion and all that.
Yes, it's there for a good reason, if only they used it with a little more restraint. They sometimes imply that any news happening anywhere is worthy enough of a breaking news strap.
Musey posted:
because 1) the breaking news strap looks cool, and the active strap looks like a turd;
and 2) it's there for a good reason, indeed it's part of the whole point of the channel in the first place. the active strap just looks ghey.
and 2) it's there for a good reason, indeed it's part of the whole point of the channel in the first place. the active strap just looks ghey.
Cool? Well personal opinion and all that.
Yes, it's there for a good reason, if only they used it with a little more restraint. They sometimes imply that any news happening anywhere is worthy enough of a breaking news strap.
OL
Totally agreed. The concept of 'Breaking News' is now virtually meaningless because of its excessive use. They should read the story about The Boy Who Cried Wolf.
Looks like the adults are back in charge of the graphics, no sign of the press red strap, or maybe they've eased off on its usage on the back half hour?
Just seen a nice interview with Frank Gardner talking to Juliet Foster about his new book. He was billed as 'Security Expert', with no mention of the BBC. He hasn't left the beeb has he?
fernando posted:
Yes, it's there for a good reason, if only they used it with a little more restraint. They sometimes imply that any news happening anywhere is worthy enough of a breaking news strap.
Totally agreed. The concept of 'Breaking News' is now virtually meaningless because of its excessive use. They should read the story about The Boy Who Cried Wolf.
Looks like the adults are back in charge of the graphics, no sign of the press red strap, or maybe they've eased off on its usage on the back half hour?
Just seen a nice interview with Frank Gardner talking to Juliet Foster about his new book. He was billed as 'Security Expert', with no mention of the BBC. He hasn't left the beeb has he?
TW
Totally agreed. The concept of 'Breaking News' is now virtually meaningless because of its excessive use. They should read the story about The Boy Who Cried Wolf.
Breaking news can't be described as meaningless just because there's more of it nowadays, what with the war etc. A breaking news story is a new piece of news or a story that is developing, which, obviously, can't be avoided. To class this as meaningless just because there is now more is unjust!
Olympus posted:
fernando posted:
Yes, it's there for a good reason, if only they used it with a little more restraint. They sometimes imply that any news happening anywhere is worthy enough of a breaking news strap.
Totally agreed. The concept of 'Breaking News' is now virtually meaningless because of its excessive use. They should read the story about The Boy Who Cried Wolf.
Breaking news can't be described as meaningless just because there's more of it nowadays, what with the war etc. A breaking news story is a new piece of news or a story that is developing, which, obviously, can't be avoided. To class this as meaningless just because there is now more is unjust!
ST
Totally agreed. The concept of 'Breaking News' is now virtually meaningless because of its excessive use. They should read the story about The Boy Who Cried Wolf.
Breaking news can't be described as meaningless just because there's more of it nowadays, what with the war etc. A breaking news story is a new piece of news or a story that is developing, which, obviously, can't be avoided. To class this as meaningless just because there is now more is unjust!
I can see what both of you are saying..yet it seems to be used a lot.
For example, BREAKING NEWS - Camilla and Charles visit Nursing Home.
BREAKING NEWS - Camilla opens the door of Nursing Home
then BREAKING NEWS - Camilla seen sipping from a mug.
Perhaps it is used excessively on occasion?
Time Warp posted:
Olympus posted:
fernando posted:
Yes, it's there for a good reason, if only they used it with a little more restraint. They sometimes imply that any news happening anywhere is worthy enough of a breaking news strap.
Totally agreed. The concept of 'Breaking News' is now virtually meaningless because of its excessive use. They should read the story about The Boy Who Cried Wolf.
Breaking news can't be described as meaningless just because there's more of it nowadays, what with the war etc. A breaking news story is a new piece of news or a story that is developing, which, obviously, can't be avoided. To class this as meaningless just because there is now more is unjust!
I can see what both of you are saying..yet it seems to be used a lot.
For example, BREAKING NEWS - Camilla and Charles visit Nursing Home.
BREAKING NEWS - Camilla opens the door of Nursing Home
then BREAKING NEWS - Camilla seen sipping from a mug.
Perhaps it is used excessively on occasion?
OL
Totally agreed. The concept of 'Breaking News' is now virtually meaningless because of its excessive use. They should read the story about The Boy Who Cried Wolf.
Breaking news can't be described as meaningless just because there's more of it nowadays, what with the war etc. A breaking news story is a new piece of news or a story that is developing, which, obviously, can't be avoided. To class this as meaningless just because there is now more is unjust!
I agree that it's subjective what the definition of 'Breaking News' is, in the same way that the order that stories appear in the running order is down to the editor on the day.
I just get the impression it's used more these days as a device to grab viewer's attention rather than for strong editorial reasons. (Fox News are the worst at this, their equivalent 'Fox News Alert' is a total joke).
Maybe they need to use the 'News Update' strap more for ongoing stories: after all, there have been stories in the past which have been 'breaking' on Sky for many hours after the initial event, which does make the strap seem meaningless.
What does 'breaking news' mean anyway? Any story which has just come to the attention of the newsroom could be one definition, though most people would agree that to call something 'breaking news' means the editor thinks this is a story which has more importance than the normal stories which have just happened.
An older definition of breaking news (pre rolling news) would be a story which the BBC and ITV would break into their normal schedules with, such as the Iranian Embassy siege.
Perhaps there needs to be invented a new category for these major TSHJHTF stories, maybe 'Holy Cow, I don't believe it News' or something, which leaves the breaking news tag for lesser stories.
Time Warp posted:
Olympus posted:
fernando posted:
Yes, it's there for a good reason, if only they used it with a little more restraint. They sometimes imply that any news happening anywhere is worthy enough of a breaking news strap.
Totally agreed. The concept of 'Breaking News' is now virtually meaningless because of its excessive use. They should read the story about The Boy Who Cried Wolf.
Breaking news can't be described as meaningless just because there's more of it nowadays, what with the war etc. A breaking news story is a new piece of news or a story that is developing, which, obviously, can't be avoided. To class this as meaningless just because there is now more is unjust!
I agree that it's subjective what the definition of 'Breaking News' is, in the same way that the order that stories appear in the running order is down to the editor on the day.
I just get the impression it's used more these days as a device to grab viewer's attention rather than for strong editorial reasons. (Fox News are the worst at this, their equivalent 'Fox News Alert' is a total joke).
Maybe they need to use the 'News Update' strap more for ongoing stories: after all, there have been stories in the past which have been 'breaking' on Sky for many hours after the initial event, which does make the strap seem meaningless.
What does 'breaking news' mean anyway? Any story which has just come to the attention of the newsroom could be one definition, though most people would agree that to call something 'breaking news' means the editor thinks this is a story which has more importance than the normal stories which have just happened.
An older definition of breaking news (pre rolling news) would be a story which the BBC and ITV would break into their normal schedules with, such as the Iranian Embassy siege.
Perhaps there needs to be invented a new category for these major TSHJHTF stories, maybe 'Holy Cow, I don't believe it News' or something, which leaves the breaking news tag for lesser stories.
OL
But the term 'Breaking News' seems to be used to tag the story with more gravity and seriousness than other stories. Trouble is, there are more and more of them, which inevitably means that they don't stand out as much.
Taking it to the extreme, if everything was breaking news, how would they flag an even more serious story such as 9/11? They'd have to invent a new phrase to describe it.
Example: Blair might be giving a pre-arranged speech somewhere, or maybe they're covering his monthly presser. Oftentimes the quotes they pull out are tagged as breaking news, even if they're not that significant.
Question: What's the difference between 'Breaking News' and 'News Just In'?
fusionlad posted:
Surely breaking news is just news that has just happened and is still unfolding minute by minute.
But the term 'Breaking News' seems to be used to tag the story with more gravity and seriousness than other stories. Trouble is, there are more and more of them, which inevitably means that they don't stand out as much.
Taking it to the extreme, if everything was breaking news, how would they flag an even more serious story such as 9/11? They'd have to invent a new phrase to describe it.
Example: Blair might be giving a pre-arranged speech somewhere, or maybe they're covering his monthly presser. Oftentimes the quotes they pull out are tagged as breaking news, even if they're not that significant.
Question: What's the difference between 'Breaking News' and 'News Just In'?