reporting rumors and putting a headline "Breaking" from a source that is absolutely flimsy is shameful.
1) Well, if anyone here knows about shameful commenting it's you. zing!
2) If you took a second to look up the term breaking news you'd see that it's defined as "newly received information about an event that is currently occurring or developing."
The breaking tag when applied to rumors or notes doesn’t seem appropriate, IMO. If the content of the story is time sensitive or incredible, sure, but for plain rumors not so much. If the content isn’t time sensitive or incredible, why not designate every new story as breaking?
We updated the story 10 times in an hour with more information. Seems pretty breaking to me.
I'm not saying the news item isn't *current*. Because it is, it's a current rumor. But is the content of the rumor ('[company] says iPhone [is] [is not] going to be delayed') actually time-sensitive or incredible? What about this particular rumor/item is any more time-sensitive or incredible in its content than other rumors/items? I get that you may update a story frequently as editor, but how does the breaking tag make this item more valuable to *readers*? Is there a call to action I may miss if I don't read it immediately? Is the content of the item relevant based on its freshness? Those are cases where an org normally upgrades an item to a breaking one.
reporting rumors and putting a headline "Breaking" from a source that is absolutely flimsy is shameful.
1) Well, if anyone here knows about shameful commenting it's you. zing!
2) If you took a second to look up the term breaking news you'd see that it's defined as "newly received information about an event that is currently occurring or developing."
The breaking tag when applied to rumors or notes doesn’t seem appropriate, IMO. If the content of the story is time sensitive or incredible, sure, but for plain rumors not so much. If the content isn’t time sensitive or incredible, why not designate every new story as breaking?
We updated the story 10 times in an hour with more information. Seems pretty breaking to me.
I'm not saying the news item isn't *current*. Because it is, it's a current rumor. But is the content of the rumor ('[company] says iPhone [is] [is not] going to be delayed') actually time-sensitive or incredible? What about this particular rumor/item is any more time-sensitive or incredible in its content than other rumors/items? I get that you may update a story frequently as editor, but how does the breaking tag make this item more valuable to *readers*? Is there a call to action I may miss if I don't read it immediately? Is the content of the item relevant based on its freshness? Those are cases where an org normally upgrades an item to a breaking one.
They are not. At least, not for internet mostly-text news.
Breaking is used in internet venues, plus the WSJ, Bloomberg, CNN, Fox, et cetera internet portals as a story which may start as "Banana pudding avalanche sweeps away small city" with no elaboration to "Banana pudding avalanche caused by testy baker obliterates small city" to "Banana pudding avalanche caused by testy baker used to fend off abominable snowman, destroys city anyhow" as the facts are collected and put in perspective.
When we all use it like that, it means that this is what we have now, and we're going to have more soon. If I woke up at 6, and the aforementioned banana pudding story happened at 3, then the last headline would be the only one, and the breaking tag wouldn't get used.
It is not the same usage as Television, which is as you describe it.
The iPhone 8 does not get a 5.1" screen? The width of 1125 pixels is exactly 1.5 times the width of the iPhone 7 (750 pixels). This could simply mean that this is a 3x retina display instead of the 2x retina used in current 4.7" models. (The 5.5" model already has a 3x retina resolution, but this is scaled up logical resolution.)
If the 1125 x 2436 is indeed a 3x retina screen it will probably have (163 points x scale 3) 489 ppi.
With this ppi and the given resolution, the screen size will 5.49". An 5.5" screen in a 4.7" device housing.
By going from a 2x to a 3x retina, it has the same screen width as the 4.7" models. (Making the screen wider will increase the screen size even more above the 5.49".)
An iPhone 7 with a 3x retina screen would have 1125 x 2001 pixels. So the "iPhone 8" has 435 pixels (or 145 logical points) extra in height. (The screen also has an aspect ratio of 2.17 instead of the 16:9 of the 4.7" devices.) So, Apple has a 435 pixels to play with.
So the iPhone 8 has a 4.7" housing with a 5.49" retina 3 screen, same screen width as the current 4.7" devices but with the full height of the device.
The 2800 x 1242 is more likely the resolution of the full-height version of the current 5.5" devices. The current 5.5" device (with scaled up retina 3) also have 1242 pixels. If they upgrade the 5.5" model (next year?) to a real 3x retina, and add the extra bar height of 435 pixels to it, it will have a resolution of 2643 x 1242. The 2800 pixel height is strange because it doesn't device nicely by 3. 2700 is probably a better candidate because that will also result in the same aspect ratio of 2.17.) Keeping the same with as the current 5.5" devices (using the logical 462 ppi) its size will be 6.43".
Comments
Breaking is used in internet venues, plus the WSJ, Bloomberg, CNN, Fox, et cetera internet portals as a story which may start as "Banana pudding avalanche sweeps away small city" with no elaboration to "Banana pudding avalanche caused by testy baker obliterates small city" to "Banana pudding avalanche caused by testy baker used to fend off abominable snowman, destroys city anyhow" as the facts are collected and put in perspective.
When we all use it like that, it means that this is what we have now, and we're going to have more soon. If I woke up at 6, and the aforementioned banana pudding story happened at 3, then the last headline would be the only one, and the breaking tag wouldn't get used.