?QuestionMark? Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 This is something I've always wondered, but how long can breaking news be considered "breaking news"? I notice that when something big in sports happens like a major blockbuster trade, signing, etc., they have a ticker on ESPN that says "Breaking News" and they report on it as soon as the even occurs. Yet...3 or 4 hours later, it's still under the ticker as "Breaking News". After 3 or 4 hours, is it really "breaking news"? In an era of the smart phone and internet that allows us to receive up to the minute updates, isn't it at that point just "news". Sorry but when I get bored my mind tends to wander on stupid stuff. But how long do you think news should be called "breaking news"? I say 1 hour, 2 hours tops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sħãlïq™ Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 (edited) (...) Sorry but when I get bored my mind tends to wander on stupid stuff. But how long do you think news should be called "breaking news"? I say 1 hour, 2 hours tops.Yeah, nowadays it should be 1-2 maybe 3 hours max. BUT I'm pretty sure they got some old 80's rule that says they should keep "Breaking News" under the ticker for like 4-5 hours. <_< That rule needs to be updated. Edited February 25, 2012 by Šhãłïq Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SRV Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 I think it should be breaking news for the entire day....when Albert Pujols signed with the Angels, I didn't find out about it until hours after it happened. He signed at like 2 AM Eastern time and I was sleeping until like 12 PM. I think it really depends on when it happens and how quickly people will find out about it. If it happens really early in the morning and its only breaking news for 2 hours, then people waking up later won't know about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenneral Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 I think it should be breaking news for the entire day....when Albert Pujols signed with the Angels, I didn't find out about it until hours after it happened. He signed at like 2 AM Eastern time and I was sleeping until like 12 PM. I think it really depends on when it happens and how quickly people will find out about it. If it happens really early in the morning and its only breaking news for 2 hours, then people waking up later won't know about it.I kind of agree with this as everyone will watch tv, go online, etc at different times throughout the day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trutrojan8 Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 I think Breaking News is just like the top hot story at the time. If it's like 9/11, there wasn't really any story that topped it for like a month, so I think it'd still be considered breaking news Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.