At the top of CNN’s 7 a.m. newscast, Roberts said, “We begin with breaking news this morning in Kirkwood, Missouri….Five people are dead.” But the killer was also killed, making six dead.

Near the top of the 8 a.m. newscast, Roberts said, “Breaking news in Kirkwood, Missouri….” That was 12 hours after the shootings. Was it still breaking news? I had heard that story on the late local news the night before. Yes, the next morning, the story was still news—and there were new details. But breaking news?

Another anchor team took over for CNN’s 9 a.m. newscast. This time, CNN didn’t call the Kirkwood story breaking news. After the Kirkwood story was told, an announcer broadcast one sentence, “Live breaking news, unfolding developments, see for yourself in the CNN Newsroom.”

That sounds like a pitch from a circus barker trying to lure rubes into the tent. At least, it wasn’t as tasteless as a line on New York City’s “all-news” WINS when an anchor reported the shooting deaths of eight people in a Nebraska mall before Christmas: “There was more red than green at a mall in Omaha yesterday.”

On CNN’s 9 a.m. ‘cast, the co-anchor Heidi Collins said five people had been “gunned down” in Kirkwood. “Gunned down” is ambiguous. It can mean “shot down” or “shot dead.” After a CNN correspondent reported from Kirkwood, Collins said, “What a terrible story.” Without her appraisal, I might not have realized how bad the massacre was. Does she make that same pronouncement after stories about multiple deaths in Darfur, Kenya, Iraq and elsewhere?

The first to report the Kirkwood shootings on the air nationally was MSNBC. Dan Abrams presented the story shortly before 10 p.m., EST, Wednesday, the previous day.

At 10:13 p.m., Greta Van Susteren reported what she called a “Fox News alert”: the six deaths in Kirkwood.

About 10:30 p.m., CNN carried news of the rampage. The anchor, John King, said, “Some breaking news now out of the Saint Louis suburb of Kirkwood, Missouri, a shooting, a bad one….” Better: “from [or in] the Saint Louis suburb,” not out of. King said a gunman shot and killed five people, then was shot dead by police.

The next morning, though, was it still acceptable to call that news breaking? It’s hard to pin down how long news can rightly be called breaking. But 12 hours is far beyond my breaking point. Please. Gimme a break.

Mervin offers more writing tips at mervinblock.com. And still more in Writing Broadcast News—Shorter, Sharper, Stronger.

By MERVIN BLOCK
Feb. 12, 2008

How long is it O.K. for newscasters to keep calling a story “breaking news”? After the news breaks, when does it cease to be breaking news? After two hours? Four hours? Let’s look at a recent case that points up the problem:

Last Friday at 6 a.m., on CNN, Alina Cho told her audience, “Boy, a lot of news overnight. If you went to bed early, it’s a very busy news day.” If it is a very busy news day, it makes no difference when anyone went to bed.

Then Cho’s co-anchor on American Morning, John Roberts, said: “We’ve got it all for you this morning. We start with breaking news in Missouri.” The story was that of the man who barged into a city council meeting the previous evening and shot five people dead. Then police killed him. But the next morning, was it still breaking news“A senseless and horrific crime scene at city hall,” Roberts said. I’ve heard of senseless crimes but never senseless crime scenes. Anyway, have you ever heard of a crime that was sensible? I don’t want to carp, but Roberts said, “We’ve got it all.” If anyone could ever have it all, he wouldn’t have time to tell it all. A CNN correspondent in Kirkwood said the shooting had begun about 7 p.m., CST—8 p.m., EST.