New Zealand news consumers are calling out local media for treating the red "breaking news" banner like wallpaper—plastering it across stories that are decidedly not breaking, urgent, or particularly newsworthy.
A screenshot circulating on social media this week showed a New Zealand news site with the red alert banner deployed for what readers generously described as "not exactly a national emergency."
"I know it doesn't SAY breaking news," the poster wrote, "but we can all agree that the red banner is kind of universal language for it, right?"
Mate, when everything's breaking news, nothing is.
The Breaking News Inflation Problem
The red banner—or "breaking news" chyron in broadcast—used to mean something. A plane crash. A political resignation. A natural disaster. Information that was genuinely developing and urgent.
Now it means "we want you to click this" or "please don't leave our website" or "look, we published something new."
New Zealand media isn't unique here. News organizations globally have devalued the breaking news signal through overuse. But in a small media market like New Zealand, where a handful of outlets dominate, the fatigue is more visible.
Viewers and readers notice when the same banner used for earthquake alerts gets deployed for celebrity gossip, minor political announcements, or stories that are several hours old.
Why It Happens
The economics are simple: breaking news banners increase engagement. They trigger psychological urgency, prompting clicks and attention. In a media environment where revenue depends on pageviews and time-on-site, publishers are incentivized to deploy every tool that works.
Broadcasters face the same pressure. A "breaking news" banner during a live broadcast signals viewers to keep watching, boosting ratings.
The problem is the tragedy of the commons. When every outlet overuses the alert, audiences tune it out. The signal loses value. Real breaking news becomes harder to identify because the alarm has been crying wolf for years.
The Trust Cost
Media credibility depends partly on editorial judgment—knowing what's important and what's not. When a news organization marks routine stories as urgent, it signals either poor judgment or cynical manipulation.
Neither builds trust.
New Zealand already has media trust issues. A 2024 survey showed declining confidence in news media, with younger audiences particularly skeptical. Overusing urgency signals contributes to that erosion.
If the red banner appears for everything from genuine emergencies to minor updates, audiences learn to ignore it. Then when something actually urgent happens—an earthquake, a tsunami warning, a major political crisis—the alert carries less weight.
What Good Practice Looks Like
Some international outlets have implemented stricter breaking news policies. The New York Times, for example, reserves push notifications for stories that meet high thresholds of importance and urgency. The Guardian uses a tiered system, distinguishing between "developing stories" and true breaking news.
The discipline requires editorial courage. It means accepting that most stories, even important ones, don't qualify as breaking. It means resisting the pressure to compete on urgency when the real competition should be on accuracy, depth, and insight.
New Zealand media outlets have the talent and resources to do this. They choose not to because the short-term engagement incentives point the other way.
Reader Responsibility
Audiences aren't blameless here. We click the breaking news banners. We reward urgency over importance. Media organizations respond to what works, and if slapping a red alert on routine stories drives traffic, they'll keep doing it.
The feedback loop breaks when readers start penalizing outlets that overuse urgency signals—by leaving, by complaining, or by shifting to outlets with better editorial judgment.
Social media callouts like this week's screenshot are part of that process. Public mockery has regulatory force in small media markets where reputation matters.
The Bigger Picture
This isn't just about banners. It's about the broader information ecosystem and how newsrooms signal what matters.
In an era of infinite content, editorial curation is more valuable than ever. Readers need trustworthy signals about what's important, what's urgent, and what can wait.
When news organizations devalue those signals for short-term engagement, they undermine their own long-term credibility.
Mate, if your breaking news banner shows up more often than actual breaking news, you're not informing people—you're training them to ignore you.
New Zealand media can do better. The question is whether they'll choose to.
