/ media

It’s (not) news to me

<p>I signed up for CNN&#8217;s &#8220;breaking news&#8221; mailing list sometime in October of 2001.  At the time, the NSC was issuing &#8220;heightened security alerts&#8221; for various and sundry &#8220;non-specific threats&#8221;, and I thought it might be nice to be on the bleeding edge of these warnings.  Over time, the usefulness of the NSC alerts wore thin (though I should have given them no thought in the first place), but the events that CNN deemed worthy of a Breaking News Bulletin Email proved to be rather interesting indeed. </p>

<p>Well, tonight&#8217;s email haul included another Breaking News Email, and I double clicked with nervous anxiety.  Inside, it announced:</p>

<p>&#8220;Tampa Bay beats Oakland 48-21 in Super Bowl XXXVII in San Diego.&#8221;</p>

<p>Now, by the time that email went out, if you did not know the final outcome, you most likely did not give a shit about this contest.  Am I wrong?  And is this really worthy of a news flash?  I&#8217;m thinking that the people who consider this event &#8220;news&#8221;, were watching the game, and therefore already knew the outcome (as I did, just to clear up any ambiguity).  Those who don&#8217;t care about professional American football could find about about the game the next day at work&#8212;or not&#8212;as they see fit.  These people certainly would not consider the outcome of this contest newsworthy, not in these times, not in this age of uncertainty.  </p>

<p>You see that Breaking News subject line, you&#8217;re expecting big trouble; you open it up to see a ballgame score, you&#8217;re gonna be a bit put off, fan or non-fan.</p>

<p>This got me to wondering:  who decides what is CNN Breaking News Email Flash worthy?  Is there a CNN Breaking News Email Flash Czar?  I would like to have a chat with this person or committee.  </p>

<p>Better yet, I should simply cancel my subscription for that crap.  BBC News is better anyway.</p>