Seven days ago, TVNewser asked: "When does breaking news become broken?" CNN's abuse of the "breaking news" banner seemed to diminish after the post, but by this weekend it was back with a vengeance. An e-mailer asks:

"Granted, most cable news has become sensational to the point of absurdity in recent years, but has anyone else noticed that most of the cable networks -- particularly CNN -- seem to be abusing the 'Breaking News' moniker since the Lebanon situation broke nearly two weeks ago?

While a major event -- such as a full-scale Israeli invasion of Lebanon or a series of dramatic Hez attacks -- would be significant from the norm of the generally-known situation in the region right now, why is a two-week-old story still promoted as 'breaking'? Short of major new developments in the situation, should there still be a 'breaking news' graphic on the screen?

This leads me to wonder, aside from using the term as a magnet for channel surfers to attract eyeballs to support understandable business goals of the news networks, what *should* constitute the use of the 'breaking' news graphic? And, does anyone think this practice is being abused by the news channels simply to attract more viewers?"