Journalists used to pride themselves on being gatekeepers. Some still do.

Journalism has been referred to as the “fourth estate.” The news media served as self-appointed watchdogs, protected under the First Amendment, that kept the public informed and exposed corruption, thereby ensuring that democracy continued to function.

It is therefore both ironic and disturbing that journalism now poses, in my view, one of the biggest threats to democracy – a threat that can be summed up in two words.

“Breaking news”

Broadcasters started using these two words to indicate something new and important was about to be shared. That’s a legitimate objective. But now they seem to be used for anything and everything. They appear on hours-old stories being repeated for presumably new audiences, on minor developments in long-running stories, and even on network promotions.

The idea is no longer to inform viewers of something important, but to keep them engaged through the next commercial break.

News outlets have always needed the support of advertising. But hard-and-fast lines once separated reporting, editorials (opinion), and advertising. In the 21st century, those lines have become blurred at best. Television news skews clearly liberal or conservative, tainting and sometimes even suffusing news reports with opinion.

Contemporary news reports are driven far less by what the public needs to know as by what it wants to hear. No longer gatekeepers, most journalists have instead become cheerleaders in search of clicks and advertising dollars at the expense of facts and objectivity. Outrage fuels ratings, and immediacy trumps accuracy.

Broken news

“Breaking news” is a tool in the never-ending quest for relevance and instant gratification.

But at what price? How can journalists maintain their credibility when their rush to “break” news leads to carelessness? In a polarized nation, it’s more and more difficult. Any misstep opens the mainstream media up to charges of “fake news” from partisans eager to substitute their own propaganda for fact-based reporting.

In their hurry to report breaking news, journalists are more vulnerable to this sort of attack than ever – especially since they’ve laid off the copy editors and fact-checkers who used to safeguard their reputation.

But there’s something even more insidious about “breaking news” than this.

We’ve become so numb to it that we’re no longer paying attention. Who can blame us? “Breaking news” might signify a foreign invasion or a celebrity divorce. Or, more dangerous, it can signify nothing more than yet another incremental step in a seemingly endless story – a court case, for instance, or a government investigation.

What happens when the demand for immediacy meets the gridlock of bureaucracy?

News organizations, trapped like rats on the treadmill of a 24-hour news cycle, need to report something, even if nothing important is happening. They need to give their talking heads something to talk about; their analysts something to analyze. This “analysis” is little more than speculation based on incomplete facts. Yet absent those facts, their speculation becomes the only truth available.

Great expectations

In this vacuum, viewers develop expectations that the story will end the way the “experts” said it would.  

But that doesn’t always happen.

Many pundits, for example, seemed sure that the Mueller investigation would reveal something damning about Donald Trump. When it didn’t, they lost credibility – and Trump’s charges of “fake news” gained traction. Of course, it was more complicated than that. But viewers hooked on breaking news don’t want details; they just want to know the winners and losers. The losers, in this case, were the news media and the public interest.

As the media sacrifice their integrity on the altar of breaking news, the public is bound to lose both interest and confidence. The more often these “alerts” turn out to be trivial, self-promoting, repetitive, or just plain wrong, the less the public will pay attention – and the more corrupt politicians will be able to get away with.

The road to autocracy

“Breaking news” has helped create distrust and apathy on the part of the public. No one cares about the next turn of the wheel in a court case, because it will be appealed to a higher court anyway. (This is as much an indictment of the courts as it is of the media.) Another study about global warming? Who cares? We’ve heard that before, right?

Another frantic newscaster chagrined and overwrought at Trump’s latest misdeed? What else is new? Each new report is just more of the same. It doesn’t help that, almost without fail, some pundit declares he’s reached “a new low” and speculates that maybe, just maybe, this latest revelation will be enough to discredit him.

When it never is, credibility suffers even more. The public turns away, thereby creating a self-fulfilling prophecy: Each new misdeed really is a new low… but no one cares anymore. And that’s why Trump can get away with more and more blatant affronts to democracy, the law, and common decency.

It’s not just Trump; he’s merely the most obvious example. Imitators stand poised to take advantage of the public’s cynicism and inattention, so they can create the perfect incubator for fraud, cronyism, and power grabs.

If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, the road to autocracy is paved with breaking news.

Stephen H. Provost is a former journalist and the author of more than 40 books, including three on the Trump years. All are available on Amazon.