When companies fire broadcast journalists with experience because they are older, have higher salaries, are accruing pension benefits, more accrued vacation time, and higher health care costs, you end up with people of very little experience.   That is the blight on the media across the country, not just Toronto.

Having worked in TV news for a long time, this has long been one of my pet peeves.

I've watched this worrisome development take root like a computer virus - it just keeps spreading. I remember when Bell assumed control over CP24 and the "Toronto's Breaking News" moniker took over the branding. The problem was that there simply wasn't enough actual breaking news to reinforce the name, so they basically had to start expanding the meaning of the term.

Suddenly, EVERYTHING became breaking news, from the smallest fender bender to a slight new fact emerging on an existing story. I've been told of the meeting where executives told the staff about the change. One of the producers came out of the gathering, went to his post live producing the on-air content, turned to one of his colleagues and asked in a loud voice, "Do we have breaking news? Do we?" Clearly they were told to push it as much as possible. I believe they've pulled back on this a bit, but all the news stations are subject to this idiocy.

The worst has to be CNN, which constantly has a screaming "Breaking News" key on its lower screen, regardless of whether something has happened or not - or more often, occurred ten hours ago. I used to turn up the radio when I heard the The 680 News "breaking news" sounder. I don't anymore. They simply overused it and I don't trust them to be accurate using those words.

Ironically, insteading of spreading the brand, all these outlets have actually weakened it, as viewers/listeners caught on to the scam. It's a lot like the boy who cried wolf. Eventually, you just don't believe him anymore.

Same thing is going to happen with the Bell radio stations as it has with Rogers...breaking or lead news will be anything that Bell has a vested corporate interest in...you see it already with their large marketing or philanthropic campaigns leading their TV newscasts (e.g. Bell Let's Talk campaign - a worthwhile program to bring awareness to mental illness but it is not a lead or breaking news story)...similar to 680 stopping everything to announce a minor Blue Jays trade or leading the news with "Hey, it's 2 weeks to spring training!"...such blatant corporate shill is not news, it's pathetic propaganda...I remember a former PD coming in to chat with me about what my topics were for my show that day...he "suggested" that I talk about the Toronto Maple Leafs because Corus (640) was negotiating for the radio broadcasting rights at the time...I understood it was where the station was bringing in the most ad dollars but it was a shot against my creativity and what I believed my listeners were accustomed to from my show...I wanted to puke.

Last edited by Johnny B (November 27, 2015 1:38 pm)

Yeppers.  I remember it was about a month after the attacks, and I was driving westbound along Rymal Rd on Hamilton Mountain.  It was the first time I remember hearing a news story on 680 News other than something related to September 11th.  It was actually odd to hear about something else.
 

And preceded by the "CFTR Story" which was non-stop music all weekend.  I wonder how they automated that, because that would otherwise have meant a god-awful amount of open-reel tape for music.  Or did they just have a board-op run it?
 

My peeve is 'breaking news' within a newscast.  It's the ultimate navel gazing.  Not everyone is a 24/7 news junkie, therefore 'everything' is breaking news to most viewers / listeners during a newscast.  Newscast starts, and the first item is a 'breaking news' story.  Really?  So what's the rest of your cast?

To me it just comes across as 'holy shit, here's news we didn't know about, so make it breaking' rather than report it at the top of a newscast as another story.    "This is currently underway" should be what a large chunk of your news is, if possible, rather than here's what happened 12 hours ago.

 

I think it's being overused to the point where soon the announcement will have little impact on listeners. They've almost come to expect that at least a couple times during the morning run they will be hit with "breaking news". Unless it's a story of major significance, just report it and save the hoopla for the really big ones.

For your consideration - 'What If" research was conducted with heavy users of Newstalk 1010, and those users suggested that BREAKING NEWS was very important to them.   In that case, highlighting it makes sense to insure you are pleasing your high-use consumers.   The cost for doing it - free.    I would be willing to bet that a Newstalk audience is rarely offended by BREAKING NEWS.    And yes, what you consider is BREAKING may be different than me - however - you may like one song, and I may hate it.   All seems to be standard programming procedure to me.   

ig wrote:

 We're soon going to segue from 'breaking news' to 'storm watch' coverage which has nothing to do with watching for storms and everything to do with sales department inventory.  We can only thank Christ that till this point, Breaking News isn't sponsored.  

I don't have a problem with breaking news being sponsored. It depends how the liner is worded and delivered and where during breaking news. It would have to be subtle with no bells and whistles. But I always thought sales should try to sign a prestigious national sponsor to pay the station a retainer of big bucks. In return, a good percentage of that revenue should go to pay the expenses of sending a team to major events like the recent Paris terrorist attacks. We could run breaking news promos with a sales tag for the client (much like we did with storm watch promos that aired ROS during the winter) ... When Gary Slaight owned the company, he created a budget to offset the cost of  sending Taylor Parnaby and others to cover major breaking news events in Canada, the US and Europe. 

In terms of Storm Watch, Iain has a point. I'd always get angry phone calls from sales people when a snowflake fell and we didn't launch Storm Watch. Their clients would complain it's snowing and why wasn't their commercial being aired. This is where programming has to stand firm with the news department and only call Storm Watch when it is warranted. We had a criteria of how many schools closed (not counting the small schools), how bad was traffic and how many boards cancelled bus service. Big storms were a no brainer. But in the GTA where weather conditions varied from one community to another it was a more difficult call.That is why we created promos with a sponsor's tag to say when there is a big storm listen to the station. At least this way the client got air time during the winter with or without Storm Watch.

Sometimes we forget (on purpose) that radio survives through advertising and become holier than thou about what we should or should not sponsor. CBC Radio doesn't have that problem because they are funded by tax payers.

It's not a question of whether or not it's right to sponsor breaking news coverage. It's about how the sponsorship is created and when it is delivered on air during breaking news coverage.

In discussions with the news department, we figured out how to sponsor newscasts. We allowed the name of the client but no tags to be read by the anchor.

If breaking news is important to a station like Newstalk 1010 or 680News, than we need to think outside the box to come up with a way of monetizing the coverage without pissing off listeners (and staff). I remember when we first permitted a spot break in ongoing breaking news stories. We were worried listeners might complain. But they didn't say boo. They're used to commercials and trust me in breaking news coverage a commercial break lets everyone catch their breath and figure out what to do next. So if there was a breaking news sponsor, they would get the first spot in the beak. They would also get a mention in any promos created to promote our breaking news coverage in the 24-48 hours after the event.

But it all starts with coming to terms about sponsoring breaking news. Storm Watch is a breaking news event. It's sponsored. Done right, breaking news coverage of the Paris attacks could have also been sponsored with the right set of guidelines.