"Suddenly the news program was broken into by one of those 'Breaking News' announcements...we were fixated, waiting for the news...Paris Hilton had been arrested early that morning on a DUI charge," writes Washington, DC area resident Tom Guisto in the November 9 edition of the Washington Post.

Guisto shares the full story about his encounter with "Breaking News" while watching a local TV station's morning newscast here. [1]

Guisto goes on to write that before the revelation that the "Breaking News" was about Paris Hilton's arrest, he started to run down in his head the possibilities for the news he was about to hear: another terrorist attack, a plane crash, more bombings in Iraq, the death of a national or international figure.

Instead he learned local TV news had raised his blood pressure once again to report a "news" story with no discernible news value.

Funny? Sure. Guisto writes that he and several others watching the program with him during their early morning workouts laughed. I found the story funny too, but also sad.

I can only guess at the station's motives for branding this item "breaking news" and unleashing graphics, sounds, and the sense of urgency that are usually portents of something truly important. The misguided belief that the story was actually newsworthy? A really, REALLY slow news day? A mandate that because the station could "blow something up" during the newscast they should?

Guisto and his those in his company may not have been exposed to any real news in this instance, but they were exposed to something else - a manipulation that may well leave them less likely to find the station's estimation of newsworthiness credible or reputable.

The station "cried wolf." Guisto thought enough of his laughable experience with this newscast to write about it. He wouldn't have written about viewing a legitimate news piece - that's what people expect from local TV news. For now, anyway. Until the manipulations and exposure to non-news pile up to the point that people don't expect anything of value from the time they spend with newscasts and don't bother with them at all.

This unnamed station is certainly not alone in having made a news decision that at least one of its viewers decided was most useful as fodder for mockery. My hope in writing this is that it will reinforce for local TV news staffers and students interested in getting into broadcast news that every editorial decision in which actual news value takes a back seat to something sensational, sexy or trite is one more sledgehammer blow to the rock of editorial credibility. The damage may take the form of a phone call here, a letter to the local newspaper there, a few disgusted TV channel changes - but the blows will add up. And in the end local TV newscasts could be left with a pile of dust.