"Breaking News"
Posted on 2006.12.27 at 10:06
Honestly, is there really a need for "Live Coverage of New Developements" when reporting on the death of a famous person? Whether it's Gerald Ford or James Brown, once you've reported that he's gone, this is no longer breaking news. It's broken. Done deal, it's all over with. He was dying. Now he's done. He's dead, and that's all for new developments, unless he's somehow getting deader.
Is it important that the Godfather of Soul died? Yes. is it newsworthy? Of course it is. Likewise the nation's first un-elected President, (of two, thus far, the second being a court appointee) and the man who Pardoned Richard M. Nixon. Their passings are absolutely news. But they aren't breaking news. They're static events, in the past from the moment they happened, and we'll all settle for simple, factual, respectful coverage, in as much depth as you want to give them, without some artificial "Unfolding of events." They aren't unfolding. They're unfolded. You see enough events that actually do unfold, you don't have to pretend they all do.
Is it important that the Godfather of Soul died? Yes. is it newsworthy? Of course it is. Likewise the nation's first un-elected President, (of two, thus far, the second being a court appointee) and the man who Pardoned Richard M. Nixon. Their passings are absolutely news. But they aren't breaking news. They're static events, in the past from the moment they happened, and we'll all settle for simple, factual, respectful coverage, in as much depth as you want to give them, without some artificial "Unfolding of events." They aren't unfolding. They're unfolded. You see enough events that actually do unfold, you don't have to pretend they all do.
