“BREAKING NEWS,” CNN displays in big, bold font, interrupting normal, vapid broadcasting. Wolf Blitzer then appears as a hologram, announcing that an “iReporter” has an exclusive update regarding some minor news event. CNN’s “Internet correspondent” then comes on the air and explains that the masses are using Twitter to spread word of said minor event and Google is overwhelmed by searches for it. An eyewitness is added to the broadcast via cell phone and describes the event as completely unprecedented and life-altering, but can’t give any new details. The story simmers down, a couple hours pass and the cycle repeats itself with a remarkably similar minor event somewhere else.

As exaggerated as it seems, this scenario is becoming more and more reasonable as CNN, FOX News and the other major news networks compete to find new gimmicks. For years these networks have been trying dozens of tactics to capture the most eyeballs (and corresponding advertising dollars), and the result has been the accelerating cheapening of news networks.

While each station has its own unique way of deploying their new widgets, some strategies have proven particularly popular with the networks. Among them are bizarre technological wonders (touch screens, virtual globes and holograms) used for no practical purpose, “citizen journalists” (laypersons with a microphone or camera with a desire to have their 15 seconds of fame) and a fascination with the latest craze on the world wide web. These fixations are pervasive and just a few among the many which now dominate network news. Common among them is a reduction of news reporting in relation to entertainment art — at the expense of traditional journalistic morals and a well-informed public.

Perhaps the first needless technological “innovation” introduced by the major news networks was the “crawl,” or ticker, listing the moment’s stories in scrolling text on the bottom of the screen. Unlike the information conveyed in ESPN and MSNBC’s crawls ­— sports scores and stock quotes which are well suited to be conveyed in a fast-moving line of text without elaboration — true news stories require more than just a snippet of text to be valuable. When was the last time major news was communicated to you via the tiny line of text on the bottom of the screen? The crawl, instead, should be reserved for its original purpose of communicating vital information — warnings (severe weather) and bits of information (school closings) needing no further expansion. Otherwise it serves only to make networks seem constantly overwhelmed by the news and unable to report it all.

Other distracting technological wonders: holograms and touch screens. These serve no purpose on a news network other than to demonstrate the technology and provide entertainment. Holograms do not help elucidate election results and touch screens do not display weather maps any better than the traditional system has for decades. In fact, anchors often ultimately spend more time communicating the exact same information, hampered by technology that seems to fly over their heads more often than not.

Blog posts, Twitter trends and Google search statistics have all become indications of a story’s appeal, justification for its continued coverage and sometimes primary sources themselves. “Internet correspondents” tell viewers which stories are hot on the Web and which blogs have the most outrageous posts. The obvious irony is that the Internet services being highlighted are popular precisely because they excel at spreading information — whether that information be true or otherwise — without support from large organizations like news networks.

Blogs are important because they cover what networks won’t. Often the information can’t be confirmed or is based on speculation and rumor. For networks to report the occurrences on these blogs gives them credence and sidesteps the journalistic obligation to check facts. Reporting information with a disclaimer that it comes from Twitter is no better than reporting information without a source.

Networks seem to believe that amateur reporting suddenly has a place in network news. While a minority of contributions provide news-worthy material of substance which wouldn’t otherwise be shared, the majority are amateur attempts to featured on a popular TV station. CNN’s iReporters almost never report important developments, and make the station look incredibly unprofessional. Airing YouTube videos highlights the irrelevance of the network: if a video is available freely and easily online, why even turn on CNN or FOX?

And like the problem resulting from the emphasis being placed on stories from the Internet, amateur reporters are not expected to go through any of the basic journalistic practices. There’s no guarantee that citizen-journalists’ information is based in reality and no way to know whether photos and video footage have been staged. By giving laypersons a soapbox to shout their views in the guise of journalists, by using popular Internet stories and trends as the basis of reporting and by abusing technology, major networks compromise the trust which gives them any value as true journalistic institutions.

Should these trends continue, the most fair, balanced and trusted names in news will be nothing more than compendiums of pop-culture and call-in lines for those eager to be famous.

Associate Editor Brett Weinstein is a College senior from Scarsdale, N.Y.