This Just In . . . the New Language of TV News

A letter came in recently from a frustrated viewer who is typical of Americans who haven’t made the effort to learn the exciting new idiom of television news.

“I am numb with the spate of ‘Breaking News’ reports we television viewers are bombarded with almost daily,” he wrote, angrily. “It used to be when ‘Breaking News’ flashed across the screen it meant that news was actually breaking at that moment and was of such magnitude that one felt compelled to pay attention because of the pending importance.

“It seems that now ‘Breaking News’ can actually happen three or four hours ago and might be as earth-shattering as a puppy caught in a water pipe. Don’t get me wrong . . . I love dogs in the water pipes as ‘Breaking News’ that has been ongoing since 8 a.m. Not to mention the fact that when I see or hear ‘Breaking News’ I am, or at least was, conditioned to heighten my alertness because something like a lunar landing or a military invasion was happening out there in the world.

“But what has happened, it seems, is that in the ever-growing practice of . . . self-promotion, they have only confirmed that local news is really only entertainment, and if we want to know what’s going on in the world, we should probably just watch CNN. Unfortunately, that doesn’t help too much to inform us about our neighborhood.”

Everyone can feel this viewer’s pain. It’s understandable, moreover, that “Breaking News” would baffle viewers who are not acquainted with the latest newscast terminology.

To clear up this confusion, here is a TV lexicon for the new age:

* “Breaking News!” This is applicable to anything occurring during the last 10 years, based on the Landscape of Time Theory. In other words, as a decade is but a blip on the landscape of time, anything happening within that period is, relatively speaking, contemporaneous, and thus an event of “breaking” significance.

As in: “Breaking News! Henry Wadsworth Longfellow has not written a poem in the 1990s!” Even though Wadsworth died in 1882, his continued lack of productivity extends to this decade, and is, therefore, a “breaking” story that is highly worthy of coverage in the present.

Another example: “Breaking News! Nothing new in the JonBenet Ramsey case!” The obvious question? How can nothing new be news? It can, indeed, for the following reason. Old news in the JonBenet Ramsey case covers only previous reports of nothing new, leaving available to newscasts the ever-fertile area of “updates,” in which viewers with short memories are reminded that there is nothing new in the JonBenet Ramsey case. Each reminder, then, is “breaking” news and a public service, and will remain so on into the next century.

So much for the ‘90s. An ongoing debate in TV newsrooms, however, is how to headline events that occurred prior to the present decade, such as U.S. troops returning from Korea, with support split about evenly between “Breaking news you may have forgotten!” and “Broken news!”

* “This just in!” Gaining favor in some newsrooms as an alternative to--or something to be used along with--”Breaking News!” An example: “This just in! Breaking News! No freeway chases today, but tomorrow is another day, so stay tuned!”

This headline is especially effective when aired in conjunction with live chopper reports from freeways where no chases are occurring, along with file footage of past chases similar to those expected to occur, so that viewers will know what they are missing.

An added advantage? Even if the “breaking” news isn’t actually breaking, the fact that viewers may infer that it’s phony is, in itself, something new or “just in” from the perspective of their own cognizance, validating the headline. In other words, as journalism becomes much more sophisticated, the “breaking” news to you, the viewer, is the realization that there is no “breaking” news.

* “Sources say.” This generally refers to the person or persons sitting across from the reporter in the newsroom.

* “We’re learning tonight.” Time being such a valuable commodity in newscasts, they can’t be faulted for saving it when they can, in this case by abbreviating: “We’re learning tonight from newspapers.”

* “Coming up next.” Also covered by the Landscape of Time Theory. In other words, although the story (generally of a titillating nature) won’t be aired for another 20 minutes, and only after several more commercial breaks, it’s accurate, in a wider historical sense, to report that it’s “coming up next.” Just as the 21st century will be coming up next after the 20th century.

* “Our exclusive interview.” The “exclusive” label means either that no other member of the media was speaking to the subject at that particular moment, or just as likely, no one else wanted the interview.

* “Indeed.” This word is essential to the vocabulary of news anchors, as when one of them faces the camera stonily and says “indeed” after the other has read a story. “Indeed” is code for: “I have no idea what you are talking about.”

* “What have you learned?” Another valuable time saver, this one the abbreviated question that anchors ask reporters checking in live from the field. The full text: “What have you learned from our competitors?”

* “You will not believe what we’ve discovered.” Although newscasts are accused of using this “tease” as a provocative come-on to keep their audiences watching, it’s a bad rap. In fact, this is an honorable act of full disclosure. They are warning viewers to “not believe what we’ve discovered” because what they’ve discovered is usually erroneous.

* “He’ll be missed.” This anchor addendum to obits is favored by graduates of the We’re Crying Our Hearts Out for You School of Broadcasting, whose alumni proliferate on Los Angeles TV stations. The theory here is that “He’ll be missed” is not insincere or deceptive because the deceased is bound to be missed by someone somewhere. Even though the anchor has never heard of this sucker and couldn’t care less.

* “Only time will tell.” With so much on their minds, anchors and reporters can be excused when forgetting to complete this tag on their stories and say what they really mean:

“Only time will tell . . . because we have absolutely no idea.”

*

Howard Rosenberg’s column appears Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. He can be contacted via e-mail at calendar.letters@latimes.com.