Hubbry Logo
News valuesNews valuesMain
Open search
News values
Community hub
News values
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
News values
News values
News values
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Journalism
Beats
Genres
Ethics and standards
Challenges
Public relations
News media
Newsroom

News values are "criteria that influence the selection and presentation of events as published news." These values help explain what makes something "newsworthy."[1]

News values are not universal and can vary between different cultures.[2] Among the many lists of news values that have been drawn up by scholars and journalists, some attempt to describe news practices across cultures, while others have become remarkably specific to the press of particular (often Western) nations. In the Western tradition, decisions on the selection and prioritization of news are made by editors on the basis of their experience and intuition, although analysis by Johan Galtung and Mari Holmboe Ruge showed that several factors are consistently applied across a range of news organizations. Their theory was tested on the news presented in four different Norwegian newspapers from the Congo and Cuban crisis of July 1960 and the Cyprus crisis of March–April 1964. Results were mainly consistent with their theory and hypotheses.[3] Galtung later said that the media have misconstrued his work and become far too negative, sensational, and adversarial.[4]

Methodologically and conceptually, news values can be approached from four different perspectives: material (focusing on the material reality of events), cognitive (focusing on people's beliefs and value systems), social (focusing on journalistic practice), and discursive (focusing on the discourse).[5] A discursive perspective tries to systematically examine how news values such as negativity, proximity, eliteness, and others, are constructed through words and images in published news stories. This approach is influenced by linguistics and social semiotics, and is called "discursive news values analysis" (DNVA).[6][better source needed] It focuses on the "distortion" step in Galtung and Ruge's chain of news communication, by analysing how events are discursively constructed as newsworthy.

History

[edit]

Initially labelled "news factors," news values are widely credited to Johan Galtung and Mari Holmboe Ruge.[3] In their seminal 1965 study,[3] Galtung and Ruge put forward a system of twelve factors describing events that together are used as defining "newsworthiness." Focusing on newspapers and broadcast news, Galtung and Ruge devised a list describing what they believed were significant contributing factors as to how the news is constructed. They proposed a "chain of news communication,"[3]: 65  which involves processes of selection (the more an event satisfies the "news factors," the more likely it is selected as news), distortion (accentuating the newsworthy factors of the event, once it has been selected), and replication (selection and distortion are repeated at all steps in the chain from event to reader). Furthermore, three basic hypotheses are presented by Galtung and Ruge: the additivity hypothesis that the more factors an event satisfies, the higher the probability that it becomes news; the complementary hypothesis that the factors will tend to exclude each other; and the exclusion hypothesis that events that satisfy none or very few factors will not become news.

In 2001, the influential 1965 study was updated by Tony Harcup and Deirdre O'Neill, in a study of the British press. The findings of a content analysis of three major national newspapers in the UK were used to critically evaluate Galtung and Ruge's original criteria and to propose a contemporary set of news values. Forty years on, they found some notable differences, including the rise of celebrity news and that good news (as well as bad news) was a significant news value, as well as the newspaper's own agenda. They examined three tabloid newspapers.[7]

Contemporary news values

[edit]

In a rapidly evolving market, achieving relevance, giving audiences the news they want and find interesting, is an increasingly important goal for media outlets seeking to maintain market share. This has made news organizations more open to audience input and feedback, and forced them to adopt and apply news values that attract and keep audiences. Given these changes and the rapid rise of digital technology in recent years, Harcup and O'Neill updated their 2001 study in 2016,[8] while other scholars have analysed news values in viral news shared via social media.[9] The growth of interactive media and citizen journalism is fast altering the traditional distinction between news producer and passive audience and may in future lead to a redefinition of what "news" means and the role of the news industry.

List of news values

[edit]

A variety of external and internal pressures influence journalistic decisions during the news-making process, which can sometimes lead to bias or unethical reporting. Many different factors have the potential to influence whether an event is first noticed by a news organisation, second whether a story will be written about that event, third, how that story is written, and fourth whether this story will end up being published as news and if so, where it is placed. Therefore, "there is no end to lists of news criteria."[10] There are multiple competing lists of news values (including Galtung & Ruge's news factors, and others put forward by Schlesinger,[11] Bell,[12] Bednarek & Caple[5]), with considerable overlap but also disagreement as to what should be included.[13]

News values can relate to aspects of events and actors, or to aspects of news gathering and processing:[12]

Values in news actors and events:

  • Frequency: Events that occur suddenly and fit well with the news organization's schedule are more likely to be reported than those that occur gradually or at inconvenient times of day or night. Long-term trends are not likely to receive much coverage.
  • Timeliness: Events that have only just happened, are current, ongoing, or are about to happen are newsworthy.[5]
  • Familiarity: To do with people or places close to the target audience. Others prefer the term Proximity for this news value, which includes geographical and cultural proximity (see "meaningfulness").[5]
  • Negativity: Bad news is more newsworthy than good news. Sometimes described as "the basic news value."[12] Conversely, it has also been suggested that Positivity is a news value in certain cases (such as sports news, science news, feel-good tabloid stories).
  • Conflict: Opposition of people or forces resulting in a dramatic effect. Events with conflict are often quite newsworthy. Sometimes included in Negativity rather than listed as a separate news value.[5]
  • Unexpectedness: Events that are out of the ordinary, unexpected, or rare are more newsworthy than routine, unsurprising events.[12][5]
  • Unambiguity: Events whose implications are clear make for better copy than those that are open to more than one interpretation, or where any understanding of the implications depends on first understanding the complex background in which the events take place.[12]
  • Personalization: Events that can be portrayed as the actions of individuals will be more attractive than one in which there is no such "human interest." Personalization is about whether an event can be contextualised in personal terms (affecting or involving specific, "ordinary" people, not the generalised masses).
  • Meaningfulness: This relates to the sense of identification the audience has with the topic. "Cultural proximity" is a factor here—events concerned with people who speak the same language, look the same, and share the same preoccupations as the audience receive more coverage than those concerned with people who speak different languages, look different and have different preoccupations. A related term is Relevance, which is about the relevance of the event as regards the target readers/viewers own lives or how close it is to their experiences. Impact refers more generally to an event's impact, on the target audience, or on others. An event with significant consequences (high impact) is newsworthy.[5]
  • Eliteness: Events concerned with global powers receive more attention than those concerned with less influential nations. Events concerned with the rich, powerful, famous and infamous get more coverage. Also includes the eliteness of sources – sometimes called Attribution.[12]
  • Superlativeness: Events with a large scale or scope or with high intensity are newsworthy.[12][5]
  • Consonance: Events that fit with the media's expectations and preconceptions receive more coverage than those that defy them (and for which they are thus unprepared). Note this appears to conflict with unexpectedness above. However, consonance really refers to the media's readiness to report an item. Consonance has also been defined as relating to editors' stereotypes and their mental scripts for how events typically proceed.[12]

Values in the news process:

  • Continuity: A story that is already in the news gathers a kind of inertia. This is partly because the media organizations are already in place to report the story, and partly because previous reportage may have made the story more accessible to the public (making it less ambiguous).
  • Composition: Stories must compete with one another for space in the media. For instance, editors may seek to provide a balance of different types of coverage, so that if there is an excess of foreign news for instance, the least important foreign story may have to make way for an item concerned with the domestic news. In this way the prominence given to a story depends not only on its own news values but also on those of competing stories.[3]
  • Competition: Commercial or professional competition between media may lead journalists to endorse the news value given to a story by a rival.
  • Co-option: A story that is only marginally newsworthy in its own right may be covered if it is related to a major running story.[12]
  • Prefabrication: A story that is marginal in news terms but written and available may be selected ahead of a much more newsworthy story that must be researched and written from the ground up.[12]
  • Predictability: An event is more likely to be covered if it has been pre-scheduled.[12]
  • Story impact: The impact of a published story (not the event), for example whether it is being shared widely (sometimes called Shareability), read, liked, commented-on. To be qualified as shareable, a story arguably has to be simple, emotional, unexpected and triggered. Engaging with such analytics is now an important part of newsroom practice.
  • Time constraints: Traditional news media such as radio, television and daily newspapers have strict deadlines and a short production cycle, which selects for items that can be researched and covered quickly.
  • Logistics: Although eased by the availability of global communications even from remote regions, the ability to deploy and control production and reporting staff, and functionality of technical resources can determine whether a story is covered.[11]
  • Data: Media need to back up all of their stories with data in order to remain relevant and reliable. Reporters prefer to look at raw data in order to be able to take an unbiased perspective. An alternative term is Facticity – the favouring of facts and figures in hard news.[12]

One of the key differences in relation to these news values is whether they relate to events or stories. For example, composition and co-option both relate to the published news story. These are news values that concern how news stories fit with the other stories around them. The aim here is to ensure a balanced spread of stories with minimal duplication across a news program or edition.[14] Such news values are qualitatively different from news values that relate to aspects of events, such as Eliteness (the elite status of news actors or sources) or Proximity (the closeness of the event's location to the target audience).

Audience perceptions of news

[edit]

Conventional models concentrate on what the journalist perceives as news. But the news process is a two-way transaction, involving both news producer (the journalist) and the news receiver (the audience), although the boundary between the two is rapidly blurring with the growth of citizen journalism and interactive media. Little has been done to define equivalent factors that determine audience perception of news. This is largely because it would appear impossible to define a common factor, or factors, that generate interest in a mass audience. Basing his judgement on many years as a newspaper journalist Hetherington states that: "...anything which threatens people's peace, prosperity and well being is news and likely to make headlines."[15]

Whyte-Venables suggests audiences may interpret news as a risk signal.[16] Psychologists and primatologists have shown that apes and humans constantly monitor the environment for information that may signal the possibility of physical danger or threat to the individual's social position. This receptiveness to risk signals is a powerful and virtually universal survival mechanism. A "risk signal" is characterized by two factors, an element of change (or uncertainty) and the relevance of that change to the security of the individual. The same two conditions are observed to be characteristic of news. The news value of a story, if defined in terms of the interest it carries for an audience, is determined by the degree of change it contains and the relevance that change has for the individual or group. Analysis shows that journalists and publicists manipulate both the element of change and relevance ('security concern') to maximize, or some cases play down, the strength of a story.

Security concern is proportional to the relevance of the story for the individual, his or her family, social group and societal group, in declining order. At some point there is a Boundary of Relevance, beyond which the change is no longer perceived to be relevant, or newsworthy. This boundary may be manipulated by journalists, power elites and communicators seeking to encourage audiences to exclude, or embrace, certain groups: for instance, to distance a home audience from the enemy in time of war, or conversely, to highlight the plight of a distant culture so as to encourage support for aid programs.[17][better source needed]

In 2018, Hal Pashler and Gail Heriot published a study showing that perceptions of newsworthiness tend to be contaminated by a political usefulness bias. In other words, individuals tend to view stories that give them "ammunition" for their political views as more newsworthy. They give credence to their own views.[18]

Evolutionary perspectives

[edit]

An evolutionary psychology explanation for why negative news have a higher news value than positive news starts with the empirical observation that the human perceptive system and lower level brain functions have difficulty distinguishing between media stimuli and real stimuli. These lower level brain mechanisms which function on a subconscious level make basic evaluations of perceptive stimuli, focus attention on important stimuli, and start basic emotional reactions. Research has also found that the brain differentiates between negative and positive stimuli and reacts quicker and more automatically to negative stimuli which are also better remembered. This likely has evolutionary explanations with it often being important to quickly focus attention on, evaluate, and quickly respond to threats. While the reaction to a strong negative stimulus is to avoid, a moderately negative stimulus instead causes curiosity and further examination. Negative media news is argued to fall into the latter category which explains their popularity. Lifelike audiovisual media are argued to have particularly strong effects compared to reading.[19]

Women have on average stronger avoidance reactions to moderately negative stimuli. Men and women also differ on average in how they enjoy, evaluate, remember, comprehend, and identify with the people in news depending on if the news are negatively or positively framed. The stronger avoidance reaction to moderately negative stimuli has been explained as it being the role of men in evolutionary history to investigate and potentially respond aggressively to threats while women and children withdrew. It has been claimed that negative news are framed according to male preferences by the often male journalists who cover such news and that a more positive framing may attract a larger female audience.[19] However, other scholars have urged caution as regards evolutionary psychology's claims about gender differences.[20]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

News values

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
News values are the professional criteria used by journalists and editors to assess the newsworthiness of events and stories, determining their suitability for coverage, placement, and emphasis in news media. These values operate as filters in the gatekeeping process, prioritizing information based on attributes that align with audience interest, journalistic norms, and institutional demands. The framework was formalized by Norwegian sociologists and Mari Holmboe Ruge in their 1965 empirical study of foreign news selection, which analyzed coverage patterns to identify factors enhancing an event's visibility. They proposed twelve additive and compensatory factors—such as (short-term events amenable to daily reporting), threshold (magnitude of consequences), unambiguity (clarity of outcomes), meaningfulness (cultural ), consonance (fit with existing schemas), unexpectedness, continuity (ongoing narratives), composition (editorial balance), reference to nations or persons, (attribution to individuals), and negativity (bad news over good)—hypothesizing that events scoring high on multiple factors are disproportionately selected as news. Subsequent scholarship has condensed these into core elements like impact (scale of effects), proximity (geographical or emotional closeness), timeliness (recency), prominence ( involvement), conflict, novelty (surprise), and human interest (emotional resonance), though lists vary by context and medium. While news values facilitate efficient information amid information abundance, they have drawn for embedding structural biases, such as an overemphasis on negativity, perspectives, and conflict, which can amplify and underrepresent routine or positive developments. Galtung himself later refined the model in light of , arguing that media's additive logic perpetuates violence-oriented narratives by favoring disjunctive, high-intensity events over empathetic or holistic coverage. In the digital era, evolving dynamics like audience metrics (e.g., clicks and shares) and algorithmic amplification have prompted reassessments, shifting focus from innate event properties to discursive construction in texts, visuals, and user interactions, though empirical studies underscore persistent gaps in visual and analysis.

Fundamentals

Definition and Core Concepts

News values are the criteria journalists and editors use to evaluate the newsworthiness of events, , or developments, guiding the selection of stories from an overwhelming volume of potential content. These values function as subjective yet patterned benchmarks in the journalistic , prioritizing material that aligns with interests, constraints, and norms. Empirical analyses, such as those examining news coverage patterns, indicate that stories scoring highly on multiple news values are more likely to be selected and amplified, reflecting a gatekeeping mechanism that filters into reportable narratives. Core traditional news values, distilled from decades of journalistic practice and academic study, include timeliness, which favors recent or impending events; impact, assessing the scale of consequences on affected populations; proximity, emphasizing geographic, cultural, or emotional closeness to the audience; prominence, involving elite persons or institutions; conflict, highlighting opposition, tension, or controversy; novelty or unexpectedness, capturing the unusual or deviant; and human interest, evoking emotional resonance through personal stories or relatable experiences. These elements are not exhaustive or universally fixed but emerge from observational patterns in news output, with studies showing their compensatory nature—deficiencies in one value can be offset by strengths in others. The foundational theoretical framework originates from and Mari Holmboe Ruge's 1965 analysis of foreign news in Norwegian media, which identified twelve additive factors—such as (short-interval events), threshold (scale exceeding perceptual limits), unambiguity (clear interpretation), meaningfulness (cultural relevance), consonance (expected alignment with ), continuity (ongoing stories), and negativity (bad news)—to explain selection biases. Their model, grounded in psychological and structural principles rather than prescriptive rules, underscores how news values distort events toward simplicity and elite-centric perspectives, a pattern corroborated in subsequent cross-national studies despite cultural variations. While critiqued for overemphasizing Western biases, this approach remains influential for revealing causal drivers in news production over ad hoc judgments.

Theoretical Role in Journalism

News values constitute a core theoretical framework in studies for elucidating the criteria that determine an event's newsworthiness and its subsequent selection for media dissemination. They operationalize the gatekeeping process, whereby journalists and editors systematically filter an abundance of potential stories to prioritize those aligning with established factors such as timeliness, impact, and proximity, thereby shaping the informational environment available to audiences. This conceptualization traces to foundational gatekeeping theory, initially formalized by in 1943 and adapted to newsrooms by David Manning White in 1950, who observed editors rejecting wire service items based on subjective yet patterned judgments of relevance and interest. The most empirically grounded articulation of news values emerged from and Mari Holmboe Ruge's 1965 content analysis of foreign news coverage in Norwegian media, identifying 12 factors—including (events with immediate consequences), threshold (scale of impact), unambiguity (clear interpretation), and meaning (personal or cultural relevance)—that cumulatively and compensatorily elevate an event's likelihood of becoming news. Their additivity posits that events fulfilling more factors receive greater prominence, while complementarity suggests certain factors (e.g., positivity versus negativity) rarely coexist in reporting, explaining patterns like the prevalence of elite-nation and conflict-oriented stories. This structural approach enables predictive modeling of news selection, revealing causal mechanisms such as cultural proximity , where events closer to the reporting nation's worldview dominate coverage. Theoretically, news values extend beyond mere selection to inform critiques of journalistic routines and their societal implications, integrating with paradigms like agenda-setting by highlighting how prioritized stories influence public salience of issues. Empirical studies validate their role in consistent cross-media patterns, though refinements account for contextual variations, such as digital amplification of shareability or metrics altering traditional thresholds. Galtung later updated the framework in 2014 to emphasize , advocating values like empathy to counter violence-prone selections inherent in negativity and focus, underscoring news values' potential for normative in fostering balanced reporting.

Historical Development

Early Practical Origins

The practical origins of news values arose in the with the of printed news in , where publishers curated content from handwritten newsletters (avvisi) to fill limited pages and attract paying readers. Early corantos, such as those printed in starting in 1618 and imported to by 1621, prioritized dispatches on military conflicts, royal decrees, and trade disruptions, reflecting an intuitive emphasis on timeliness—events no more than weeks old—and consequence, as these held direct implications for merchants and statesmen whose subscriptions funded production. Selection was pragmatic, constrained by reliance on slow postal networks and censors, favoring verifiable foreign over domestic to minimize risks while maximizing perceived utility. By the 18th century, colonial American printers adapted these criteria to local contexts, as in James Franklin's New-England Courant (1721), which blended imported European news with Boston-specific reports on shipping arrivals and scandals, applying proximity and unexpectedness to sustain readership in resource-scarce weeklies. Limited to four pages and printed on rudimentary presses, editors like Benjamin Franklin in the Pennsylvania Gazette (from 1729) triaged copy by impact—favoring events affecting commerce or public order—implicitly balancing informativeness against entertainment to compete with oral traditions and pamphlets. This gatekeeping evolved as a craft honed by trial, where poor choices led to low circulation, embedding values like elite involvement (coverage of governors or clergy) without formal theory. The 19th-century in the United States intensified practical application amid technological advances like steam-powered presses, enabling daily editions for mass audiences. Benjamin Day's New York Sun, launched September 3, 1833, at one cent per copy, shifted from partisan advocacy to neutral, sensational local fare—police reports, fires, and murders—prioritizing human interest and conflict to achieve circulations exceeding 15,000 by 1834, far surpassing six-cent rivals. James Gordon Bennett's New York Herald (1835) refined this by dispatching reporters to crime scenes, valuing timeliness and proximity over elite sources, which boosted sales through reader identification with ordinary victims. These innovations, driven by advertising revenue replacing subsidies, formalized news judgment as a profit-oriented process, where values like novelty (e.g., the 1835 "" ) tested audience thresholds for versus .

Key Academic Formulations

The seminal academic formulation of news values emerged from and Mari Holmboe Ruge's 1965 study analyzing foreign news coverage in Norwegian newspapers, identifying 12 factors influencing newsworthiness: (events aligning with news cycles), threshold (events exceeding intensity levels), unambiguity (clear, non-abstract outcomes), meaning (familiarity and cultural relevance), consonance (alignment with expectations), unexpectedness (deviation from norms), continuity (ongoing stories), composition (balance in news mix), reference to elite nations (involvement of powerful countries), reference to persons (personal impact), negativity (adverse events), and personalizability (human-scale framing). Their model posited three hypotheses: additivity (more factors increase selection probability), organic independence (factors interrelate but operate distinctly), and a distortion hypothesis (selected events are amplified in traits like negativity). This quantitative approach, tested on crises in Congo, , and , emphasized structural biases in international reporting, though later critiques noted its focus on elite Western perspectives limited generalizability. Building on Galtung and Ruge, Pamela Shoemaker developed a of newsworthiness rooted in deviance from social norms and event significance for societal functioning, arguing that news prioritizes deviations in size, intensity, or proximity to audiences, as well as events threatening or enhancing . In her 1996 work and collaborations like Shoemaker and Cohen (), she framed news values as deriving from biological imperatives (e.g., threats via conflict or novelty) and cultural hierarchies (e.g., status amplifying prominence), with empirical support from cross-national content analyses showing consistent patterns in deviance-based selection. This formulation shifted emphasis toward audience cognition and gatekeeping dynamics, positing news as a constructed balancing economic viability with informational utility, though it has been critiqued for underemphasizing cultural variability in deviance thresholds. Tony Harcup and Deirdre O'Neill revisited and expanded these frameworks in their 2001 and 2016 studies of British journalism, retaining core elements like negativity, exclusivity, and bad news while adding contemporary factors such as (amusing or celebrity-driven content), power ( wrongdoing or decisions), and shareability ( virality potential). Their , derived from practitioner interviews and content audits post-9/11 and during digital shifts, included 10-12 values like (audience impact), magnitude (scale of event), and novelty (unusualness), arguing for contextual adaptability amid market pressures, with evidence from case studies showing digital platforms elevating surprise and human interest over traditional thresholds. Unlike earlier models' , Harcup and O'Neill highlighted ideological influences on application, such as underreporting structural inequalities unless framed as scandals, though their UK-centric data invites caution in extrapolating to non-Western contexts. Monika Bednarek and Helen Caple's 2017 discourse-analytic approach in "The Discourse of News Values" reconceptualized values as linguistically constructed rather than inherent event traits, examining how journalistic language (e.g., evaluative adjectives, quantification) realizes authenticity, impact, and attitudinal alignment in multimodal news texts. Drawing from of English-language outlets, they identified discursive strategies like intensification for negativity or for human interest, empirically validating overlaps with prior lists while critiquing static taxonomies for ignoring production routines; this perspective underscores news values' relativity across genres, with applications in analyzing in framing or conflict stories. These formulations collectively inform gatekeeping , revealing persistent tensions between objective criteria and subjective interpretations shaped by institutional norms.

Catalog of News Values

Traditional News Values

Traditional news values constitute the foundational criteria journalists apply to evaluate events for newsworthiness, rooted in practices from the era of print and early broadcast media. These values prioritize attributes that align with audience curiosity and the operational demands of timely reporting, such as recency and , shaping news selection processes since the professionalization of around the late 19th century. The standard set of traditional news values, drawn from journalistic education and editorial routines, encompasses timeliness, proximity, prominence, impact, conflict, human interest, and novelty. A story's newsworthiness intensifies when it satisfies multiple values, enabling editors to filter vast information flows efficiently.
  • Timeliness: Events unfolding recently or with immediate developments command priority, as news derives its essence from novelty and urgency in fast-paced cycles. For example, real-time updates on crises like outrank historical analyses.
  • Proximity: Occurrences close to the audience's locale or cultural sphere heighten interest, fostering a sense of implication; a local factory closure garners more attention than a distant equivalent.
  • Prominence: Involvement of recognized figures, institutions, or landmarks amplifies appeal through established public recognition, as seen in coverage of actions by political leaders or celebrities.
  • Impact: Consequences affecting numerous individuals or altering societal conditions elevate priority, such as economic policies influencing employment for thousands.
  • Conflict: Disputes, rivalries, or adversarial dynamics inherently attract scrutiny, reflecting innate interest in contention over harmony, evident in political debates or legal battles.
  • Human Interest: Narratives evoking emotion through personal triumphs, tragedies, or quirks resonate universally, often sustaining coverage beyond factual import, like stories of individual resilience amid adversity.
  • Novelty: Anomalous or unforeseen elements disrupt expectations, capturing attention via surprise, as in rare phenomena or inversions of norms like "" rather than the commonplace.
These values, while not exhaustive, form a practical for gatekeeping, balancing objective metrics with intuitive judgments to curate content that informs and engages.

Emerging and Contextual Values

Emerging news values have arisen primarily from the shift to digital platforms, where engagement and algorithmic amplification influence selection processes alongside traditional criteria. Shareability, the likelihood that a story will generate widespread dissemination via shares, comments, or virality, has gained prominence as newsrooms integrate real-time metrics like clicks and interactions into gatekeeping. This value reflects the economic pressures of , where high-engagement content sustains traffic and revenue, as evidenced by studies showing journalists prioritizing stories with proven social traction. Other digital-era additions include audio-visual fit, favoring events adaptable to video, graphics, or immersive formats like VR, which enhance viewer retention on platforms such as or . value, encompassing lighter fare like celebrity anecdotes or human-interest narratives with emotional or humorous appeal, often supplements harder news to boost dwell time and shares, particularly in fragmented audiences. Public response, incorporating anticipated or observed audience reactions from polls, social feedback, or analytics, further emerges as a feedback loop shaping coverage continuity. Contextual values adapt news selection to specific environments, such as platform constraints, cultural norms, or institutional agendas, rendering newsworthiness situational rather than universal. In state-controlled media, for example, alignment with official narratives—prioritizing "good news" and relevance to policy goals over conflict—overrides negativity, as seen in analyses of Chinese VR productions where 63.2% of stories emphasized positive outcomes. During crises like pandemics, impact or scientific novelty may elevate stories irrespective of proximity, while in digital outlets, community resonance trumps elite prominence. These variations underscore how external factors, including regulatory pressures or technological affordances, dynamically recalibrate values, with empirical research confirming their role in diverse global contexts.

Applications in Practice

In Traditional Media Gatekeeping


In traditional media, gatekeeping refers to the editorial process by which journalists and editors evaluate and select news stories from a vast pool of potential items, guided by news values to fit the limited space in print publications or airtime in broadcasts. This mechanism ensures that only stories deemed most newsworthy—based on criteria such as timeliness, proximity, prominence, conflict, and impact—reach audiences, as the finite nature of traditional outlets necessitates prioritization. David Manning White's seminal 1950 study, "The 'Gate Keeper': A Case Study in the Selection of News," analyzed a newspaper wire editor's decisions over a month, revealing that subjective judgments aligned with these values led to the rejection of most incoming dispatches; for instance, stories lacking perceived public interest or political significance were dismissed, with the editor passing roughly 40% of items while citing reasons like "not important" or "dull." News values function as practical heuristics in this gatekeeping, applied at multiple stages from wire services to final publication. In newspapers, editors might elevate a due to its proximity and conflict elements, displacing international events unless they exhibit exceptional impact or involve prominent figures, as observed in content analyses of selections. Broadcast gatekeeping similarly prioritizes visual and immediate elements; producers select stories with high timeliness for evening slots, often favoring human-interest angles to maximize audience engagement within rigid time constraints. These applications, while consistent with empirical patterns in observations, demonstrate how values like novelty can amplify unusual events, such as disasters, over routine policy developments. Empirical research underscores the causal role of news values in shaping traditional media output, yet highlights limitations including subjective interpretation and potential biases. Studies of news selection processes show that gatekeepers' application of values correlates with coverage patterns, with higher-value stories receiving disproportionate attention; for example, analyses of print media reveal that prominence drives 20-30% more space allocation to elite actors compared to events. However, gatekeeping introduces ideological distortions, as evidenced by partisan asymmetries in story selection—outlets tend to amplify press releases from ideologically aligned sources while suppressing others, reflecting gatekeepers' personal and institutional leanings rather than neutral value assessment. This systemic filtering, prevalent in mainstream , privileges narratives consistent with prevailing editorial cultures, often underrepresenting dissenting viewpoints despite equivalent newsworthiness.

Adaptations in Digital and Social Media

In digital and social media, traditional journalistic gatekeeping has diminished, with algorithms and user behaviors increasingly determining news visibility and dissemination. Platforms like Facebook and Twitter employ recommendation systems that prioritize content based on predicted engagement, reshaping news values to emphasize shareability, emotional arousal, and interactivity over sole editorial judgment. This adaptation aligns with an "extra-media" framework, where external platforms exert influence through metrics such as likes, shares, and dwell time, often amplifying content that aligns with user preferences rather than public interest criteria. News organizations respond by tailoring content to platform logics, retaining core values like timeliness and proximity while incorporating virality factors such as controversy and negativity to maximize reach. For instance, analyses of posts by outlets including and RT reveal a focus on elite actors, ideological proximity, and socially significant events, with top stories centered on political figures like (19.7% of coverage) and regions like (19.1%), mirroring traditional selections but optimized for hyperlink-driven traffic and real-time comments. Similarly, activity peaks around news with high social impact, geographical closeness to users, and , as evidenced by a study of 1.8 million tweets from 18 Dutch organizations (February 2015–February 2016), where 189 peaks averaged 3.3 news values per event, predicting intensity via multilevel modeling. These shifts introduce tensions, as algorithmic amplification favors emotionally charged or entertaining material—often sidelining in-depth reporting on complex issues like policy reforms—potentially eroding distinctions between factual news and . Empirical reviews indicate that while classical values persist, digital environments elevate "shareworthiness" as a proxy for newsworthiness, driven by economic imperatives to combat declining ad revenues, though independent outlets may prioritize civic utility to counter platform dominance.

Criticisms and Controversies

Sensationalism and Prioritization Flaws

News values emphasizing conflict, consequence, and human interest inherently favor stories with dramatic, emotional appeal, which critics argue promotes by prioritizing shocking or exaggerated elements over factual depth and balance. A of 13,444 television news items across 29 stations in 14 countries revealed that 50.36% involved sensational topics, with commercial channels showing higher prevalence (53.23%) than public service ones (48.03%), and audience fragmentation correlating with increased sensational formal features (p < .05). This pattern intensifies in competitive markets, where outlets amplify novelty and negativity to capture , often at the expense of comprehensive reporting. Such values contribute to prioritization flaws through a , as encapsulated in the journalistic maxim ", it leads," which drives disproportionate coverage of and rare hazards despite declining real-world incidences. Experimental research with 190 participants found that negative news content doubled average viewing time (55.84 seconds versus 27.82 for neutral), while tabloid-style packaging further extended engagement, though less effectively for already negative stories; younger viewers and men exhibited stronger preferences for this type of material. This incentive structure leads to systemic underrepresentation of positive or routine developments, skewing toward immediate, visceral events over substantive issues like gradual policy shifts or statistical trends. The resulting distortions manifest in warped public risk assessments, where media overemphasize dramatic threats—such as or rare diseases—while downplaying common ones like vehicular accidents, fostering exaggerated fears unsupported by . Datasets from multiple studies provide strong evidence of this overrepresentation of vivid risks, contributing to misallocated societal focus and resources, such as heightened responses to low-probability events. Critics contend this flaw undermines news values' purported role in informing the public, as sustained erodes trust and promotes a "mean world" disconnected from empirical realities.

Ideological Bias in Application

The application of news values often reflects the ideological predispositions of personnel, leading to selective prioritization where stories reinforcing an outlet's receive amplified assessments of impact, timeliness, or human interest, while counter-narrative events are undervalued or omitted. Empirical content analyses demonstrate this through disparities in story selection: for example, a study of partisan gatekeeping found that U.S. media outlets systematically favor messages from ideologically aligned political actors, with left-leaning publications selecting 20-30% more content from Democratic sources during election cycles compared to conservative counterparts. This extends to news values like prominence and conflict, as outlets judge figures' actions through partisan lenses, elevating scandals involving opponents while contextualizing allies' controversies as isolated or insignificant. Quantitative measures of media ideology, derived from citation patterns and references in reporting, position most mainstream U.S. outlets—such as and —left of the political center, correlating with overrepresentation of progressive-framed stories on issues like or . A 2023 analysis of 1.8 million headlines from 2014 to 2022 revealed growing polarization in domestic political coverage, with left-leaning media assigning higher novelty and consequence values to narratives (e.g., 15-25% more emphasis on identity-based protests) than to fiscal or security topics favored by right-leaning sources. Such patterns persist despite journalistic norms of objectivity, as surveys of U.S. journalists indicate 28-52% self-identify as Democrats versus 7-18% as Republicans, fostering gatekeeping that privileges ideologically congruent events. Critics attribute this to institutional homogeneity in media, where left-leaning consensus in newsrooms—evident in undercoverage of stories like the 2020 Hunter Biden laptop revelations by 51 of 52 major outlets initially—distorts application of universality or relevance values, deeming dissonant facts as less newsworthy absent corroboration from aligned experts. Conversely, conservative outlets exhibit mirroring biases, though empirical studies show their aggregate influence smaller due to market share dominance by center-left entities (over 80% of national coverage). These asymmetries underscore how news values, intended as neutral heuristics, function as filters calibrated by causal beliefs and empirical priors held by gatekeepers, often prioritizing narrative coherence over comprehensive event assessment.

Empirical Research

Studies on News Selection Processes

Early empirical research on news selection processes centered on gatekeeping theory, which examines how journalists filter information at various stages. In a seminal 1950 case study, David Manning White analyzed the decisions of a wire editor, pseudonymously called "Mr. Gates," at a midwestern U.S. newspaper over a one-month period in 1949. The editor rejected approximately 60% of incoming Associated Press wire stories, often citing subjective criteria such as perceived lack of reader interest, poor writing quality, or alignment with his personal presuppositions about topics like foreign affairs or communism; for instance, he dismissed certain international dispatches as "too commie" or irrelevant to local audiences. This study demonstrated that individual biases and organizational routines significantly shape selection, rather than purely objective news values, highlighting the subjective nature of gatekeeping. Building on such work, and Mari Holmboe Ruge conducted a 1965 analysis of foreign news coverage in four Norwegian newspapers during crises in the Congo, , and , identifying 12 additive news values—including frequency (events with immediate effects), threshold (scale of impact), and elite proximity (involvement of powerful actors)—that predict selection probability. Their empirical findings showed that stories scoring higher on these factors appeared more frequently and prominently, with elite-nation events dominating over peripheral ones, supporting the hypothesis that news values act as universal filters but are amplified by cultural and geographical biases in reporting. Subsequent tests, such as Harcup and O'Neill's 2001 content analysis of 1,200 U.K. news stories, partially validated these values while noting adaptations like the addition of factors such as and , though empirical support remains mixed due to contextual variations. More recent experimental studies have tested specific influences on journalists' perceptions of newsworthiness. In a 2021 survey experiment involving over 1,500 U.S. political journalists, Hans J. G. Hassell exposed participants to identical story vignettes varying only in prior publication venue; results indicated no significant boost in perceived newsworthiness from national outlet origins, but stories attributed to local sources were rated substantially lower, suggesting pack journalism dynamics and venue hierarchies override intrinsic news values in selection decisions. Other research, including content analyses of wire services versus published output, consistently finds that stories embedding multiple news factors (e.g., conflict and prominence) correlate with higher selection rates, yet audience metrics like click potential increasingly compete with traditional values in digital environments, as evidenced by studies showing popularity trumping thematic relevance. These findings underscore that while news values provide a framework, gatekeeping remains influenced by cognitive heuristics, institutional pressures, and evolving metrics, often leading to non-random omissions.

Audience Reception and Perceptions

Empirical studies indicate that audiences respond to core values such as deviance and social significance, which directly predict to content independent of the extent of media coverage. A path analysis of events covered in U.S. media from 2001 to 2003 demonstrated these effects, with deviance (unexpected or negative events) and social significance (events affecting many people) exerting positive causal influences on interest, suggesting innate perceptual alignment with journalistic selection criteria. In digital news aggregators, specific news factors like conflict, involvement, and negativity heighten users' attention and drive selective exposure to congruent stories, as evidenced by a 2021 experiment with over 1,000 participants exposed to manipulated headlines. These factors increased click-through rates by 10-20% and reinforced exposure to ideologically similar content, implying audiences perceive them as markers of relevance and urgency, though this can amplify echo chambers via . Reception analyses reveal varied decoding of news values, where audiences apply personal frameworks to interpret encoded messages, leading to dominant acceptance of mainstream narratives, negotiated adaptations, or oppositional rejection based on cultural priors. For instance, Stuart Hall's model, tested in , shows how influences whether proximity or human interest is prioritized over elite dominance, with lower-status groups favoring emotionally resonant stories. Academic surveys across and the U.S. further confirm audiences share cognitive cues of newsworthiness with journalists—timeliness, impact, and surprise—but emphasize personal utility and shareability more in digital contexts, diverging from institutional routines. This alignment is not universal, as partisan divides lead to differential valuation, with conservative audiences often perceiving mainstream selections as undervaluing local or deviance. Perceptions of news values are also shaped by audience metrics in modern journalism, where click rates and data retroactively validate selections, fostering a feedback loop; however, this risks prioritizing over substantive impact, as audiences undervalue complexity in favor of immediate emotional cues. Cross-national studies, including those in and the , using surveys of thousands, find audiences intuitively assess newsworthiness via similar hierarchies but critique overemphasis on negativity, preferring balanced utility for informed . Overall, while supports perceptual congruence on basics, divergences arise from individual agency and systemic incentives, underscoring news values' dual role as shared heuristics and contested interpretations.

Evolutionary and Psychological Foundations

Adaptive Evolutionary Explanations

Evolutionary explanations posit that news values reflect cognitive adaptations for monitoring the environment to enhance survival and in ancestral settings, where rapid detection of threats, opportunities, and conferred fitness advantages. The function of , as articulated by Shoemaker, arises from biological imperatives to track deviance—events or entities deviating from norms—which signal potential dangers or resources, combined with amplifying these biases through repeated selection of salient stories. For instance, values like conflict and negativity align with heightened attention to intergroup rivalries and hazards, as failing to detect predators or rivals historically outweighed overlooking benign events, fostering a where adverse information elicits stronger physiological responses across cultures. Sensational news, encompassing elements of violence, , and elite prominence, exploits evolved mechanisms akin to processing, drawing attention to information pertinent to kin , mate selection, and status hierarchies that impacted propagation. Davis and McLeod argue that such stories trigger innate propensities to prioritize cues of reproductive threats, such as sexual or power shifts among high-status individuals, mirroring ancestral 's role in navigating social coalitions and avoiding exploitation. Empirical support includes experimental findings that negative headlines boost consumption rates by evoking tied to threat detection, while positive ones reduce engagement, suggesting an adaptive asymmetry where vigilance against harm predominates. Proximity and unexpectedness in news values further trace to spatial and temporal sensitivities evolved for local and ; distant or routine events were less fitness-relevant than immediate anomalies signaling environmental shifts, like resource scarcity or predators. These preferences persist because modern recapitulate the small-group information flows of societies, where tracking elite actions or conflicts informed alliance formation and risk avoidance, though cultural overlays can exaggerate them into without proportional real-world . Overall, this framework underscores news selection as a of modules for social and surveillance, rather than deliberate journalistic invention, with implications for why empirically minor but emotionally charged events dominate coverage.

Cognitive and Psychological Mechanisms

Cognitive and psychological mechanisms explain why certain news values—such as , conflict, and novelty—systematically elevate story prominence in journalistic selection processes. These values exploit evolved cognitive biases that prioritize signaling potential threats or opportunities in resource-scarce environments, where rapid threat detection conferred survival advantages. , a core mechanism, directs disproportionate attention to adverse events, as negative stimuli elicit stronger neural activation and encoding than positive equivalents. A across 14 online news outlets in 2019–2020 revealed that headlines containing negative words boosted consumption rates by 0.37 percentage points on average (equivalent to a 2.3-fold relative increase over neutral baselines), while positive words reduced them, illustrating how this bias shapes both audience demand and editorial choices. Evolutionary psychology frames these preferences as adaptations for monitoring environmental hazards and . Sensational news, encompassing , elite scandals, or unexpected disruptions, triggers vigilance toward cues of physical danger, resource competition, or reputational threats—analogous to ancestral gossip networks that tracked cheaters or aggressors to safeguard . A 2003 analysis argued that human valuation of such stories stems from an innate module favoring information with implications for gene propagation, as evidenced by cross-cultural preferences for threat-laden narratives over routine updates; this persists in modern media, where conflict-driven stories (e.g., wars or political betrayals) dominate coverage despite their statistical rarity. Cognitive heuristics further amplify these effects by filtering vast information flows through mental shortcuts. The salience of proximity and human interest arises from egocentric processing, where personally relevant or emotionally vivid events override abstract data due to limited working memory capacity (typically 4–7 chunks). Neuroimaging studies confirm this: negative and socially salient news elicits amplified activity in the amygdala and prefrontal cortex within 200 milliseconds of exposure, facilitating quicker dissemination over neutral facts. Timeliness leverages novelty detection circuits, evolved to flag environmental changes, ensuring recent events preempt older ones in attentional hierarchies. These mechanisms, while adaptive for individual threat avoidance, can distort aggregate news agendas toward outliers, as verified in analyses of brain responses to untrustworthy yet emotionally charged reports.

Societal Impacts and Reforms

Effects on Public Discourse and Knowledge

News values function as gatekeeping mechanisms that determine which events enter public consciousness, thereby exerting influence through agenda-setting processes on what topics dominate discourse and shape collective knowledge. Empirical research originating from the 1972 Chapel Hill study demonstrates a strong correlation between media emphasis on issues—driven by criteria such as prominence, conflict, and impact—and the public's ranking of those issues as important, with correlations reaching 0.97 in some analyses of the 1968 U.S. presidential election coverage. This transfer of salience means that stories aligning with news values, like elite involvement or novelty, amplify public discussion of immediate crises while sidelining gradual or mundane developments, such as long-term policy implementations or statistical improvements in public health metrics. Consequently, discourse often prioritizes episodic events over systemic trends, fostering a fragmented understanding of causality in societal issues. The predominance of negativity as a core news value exacerbates distortions in public perception, as negative events are disproportionately covered and consumed, leading to heightened anxiety and a skewed view of reality. A 2023 analysis of over 2 million news articles across multiple languages found that articles with negative emotional language received up to 2.3 times more views and shares, particularly in and , reinforcing a cycle where audiences seek confirmatory threat narratives. This negativity bias contributes to phenomena like the "scary world syndrome," where heavy news consumers overestimate personal risks—such as crime rates—by factors of 2-5 times actual statistics, as evidenced in longitudinal surveys linking exposure to negative framing with elevated responses. In , this manifests as polarized debates centered on conflicts rather than solutions, diminishing nuance in formation. Selection criteria favoring proximity, elite status, and human interest further skew knowledge toward parochial or powerful perspectives, underrepresenting marginalized or routine realities. Studies of coverage patterns reveal that non-elite communities receive 40-60% less unless tied to conflict or , resulting in public misconceptions about inequality drivers, as seen in underreporting of structural economic data versus anecdotal elite scandals. This elite-centric filtering, combined with digital amplification of viral negativity, entrenches echo chambers where reinforces preexisting biases, reducing exposure to diverse viewpoints and hindering informed on . While news values aim to match audience , their application empirically correlates with gaps, such as overemphasis on inflating perceived probabilities of disasters by up to 10-fold in public surveys.

Proposed Reforms for Greater Objectivity

Several scholars and practitioners have proposed structured training programs to mitigate cognitive biases, such as , that distort the application of news values during story selection. These include pre-registering selection criteria before evaluating potential stories to avoid justifications, actively seeking disconfirming evidence that challenges initial assessments of timeliness or impact, and incorporating diverse editorial teams to challenge in prioritizing conflict or prominence. Such debiasing techniques, drawn from , aim to enforce more empirical evaluation of newsworthiness, reducing reliance on subjective intuitions that often amplify sensational elements over substantive consequence. Empirical tests of these methods in journalistic workflows have shown modest reductions in biased omissions, though long-term adoption requires institutional commitment beyond one-off workshops. To counter systemic ideological skews in news values—evident in surveys revealing that over 90% of U.S. journalists identify as Democrats or independents leaning left, leading to uneven emphasis on certain proximities or interests—reforms for deliberate ideological diversification in newsrooms. Hiring practices could prioritize viewpoint balance, similar to models but focused on representation, with quotas or audits to ensure conservative, libertarian, and centrist voices influence decisions on story and negativity. This addresses causal evidence from content analyses showing left-leaning outlets underreport events challenging progressive narratives, such as failures with broad economic impacts, by fostering internal debates that refine news values toward causal realism over partisan signaling. Proponents argue this mirrors successful diversity initiatives in other fields, potentially measurable via pre- and post-reform bias audits using crowd-sourced content evaluations. Further reforms emphasize transparent, auditable protocols for news selection, such as public disclosure of applied criteria (e.g., quantified thresholds for impact based on data like affected population size or economic cost) and peer-review mechanisms for pitches, akin to scientific publishing. Integrating empirical tools, like algorithmic filters trained on historical outcomes to flag under-covered stories with high verifiable consequence, could standardize values like timeliness against evidence of real-world effects rather than viral potential. These steps, supported by public media guidelines, promote accountability by allowing external scrutiny, particularly valuable given academia's own left-wing biases that influence journalism education and perpetuate flawed objectivity training. Implementation challenges include resistance from entrenched cultures, but pilot programs in outlets adopting such rules have correlated with higher audience trust metrics in independent surveys.

References

  1. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1461670X.2021.1917445
  2. https://oxfordre.com/communication/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228613-e-850
  3. https://www.galtung-institut.de/en/2015/galtung-and-ruge-news-values-an-update-by-prof-galtung-october-2014/
  4. https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Communication/Journalism_and_Mass_Communication/The_American_Journalism_Handbook_-_Concepts_Issues_and_Skills_%28Zamith%29/03%253A_Influences_on_Journalistic_Media/3.03%253A_News_Values
  5. https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/5850/4408
  6. https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/subject_specific_writing/journalism_and_journalistic_writing/components_of_newsworthiness.html
  7. https://owenspencer-thomas.com/journalism/newsvalues/
  8. https://fiveable.me/introduction-journalism/unit-3/defining-news-news-values/study-guide/LtOFfP38ctDy4xLg
  9. https://mediatheory.net/gatekeeping-theory/
  10. https://folgerpedia.folger.edu/Breaking_News:_Renaissance_Journalism_and_the_Birth_of_the_Newspaper
  11. https://earlymodernscribbling.com/2022/05/26/tracing-the-seventeenth-century-roots-of-journalism/
  12. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781400821334.147/html
  13. https://research.colonialwilliamsburg.org/Foundation/journal/spring03/journalism.cfm
  14. https://d.lib.msu.edu/etd/16310
  15. https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Communication/Journalism_and_Mass_Communication/The_American_Journalism_Handbook_-_Concepts_Issues_and_Skills_%28Zamith%29/06%253A_History_of_U.S._Journalism/6.02%253A_Journalism_in_the_19th_Century
  16. https://communication.iresearchnet.com/media/penny-press/
  17. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/002234336500200104
  18. https://www.jstor.org/stable/423011
  19. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118783764.wbieme0053
  20. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED257128.pdf
  21. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5732590/
  22. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1461670X.2016.1150193
  23. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303654014_What_is_news_News_values_revisited_again
  24. https://academic.oup.com/book/2322/chapter/142467916
  25. https://portal.findresearcher.sdu.dk/files/294642365/News_values_in_a_digital_age_Lisa_Peter_.pdf
  26. https://etd.ohiolink.edu/acprod/odb_etd/ws/send_file/send?accession=ohiou1603113395389372&disposition=inline
  27. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/communication/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2024.1480659/full
  28. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/14648849231165855
  29. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/107769905002700403
  30. https://spkb.blot.im/_readings/The_gatekeeper-MANNING_WHITE_1964.pdf
  31. http://web.mit.edu/comm-forum/legacy/mit6/papers/Braun.pdf
  32. https://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstreams/a31d0a7d-b3cf-4df8-bd4d-cf5f23f3b4e8/download
  33. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/145055999.pdf
  34. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5679709/
  35. https://economics.rice.edu/sites/g/files/bxs4046/files/2020-10/media2017-12-05.pdf
  36. https://www.mdpi.com/2673-5172/4/3/58
  37. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884918809299
  38. https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia4030058
  39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650216663364
  40. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1931243117739947
  41. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10776958241242941
  42. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027724000222
  43. https://academic.oup.com/sf/article/101/1/506/6372946
  44. https://sites.stat.columbia.edu/gelman/stuff_for_blog/Media.Bias.pdf
  45. https://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/study-of-headlines-shows-media-bias-growing-563502/
  46. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283320880_Empirical_Studies_of_Media_Bias
  47. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957417423021437
  48. https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/3/11/pgae474/7831539
  49. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10776990241261721
  50. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14616700118449
  51. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17512786.2024.2441290
  52. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254120267_News_Values_Media_Coverage_and_Audience_Attention_An_Analysis_of_Direct_and_Mediated_Causal_Relationships
  53. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1461670X.2021.1889395
  54. https://media-studies.com/reception-theory/
  55. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347558306_News_Values_in_Audience-Oriented_Journalism_Criteria_Angles_and_Cues_of_Newsworthiness_in_the_Digital_Media_Context
  56. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-45046-5
  57. https://academic.oup.com/joc/article-abstract/46/3/32/4160255
  58. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1996.tb01487.x
  59. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1908369116
  60. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513803000126
  61. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2003-05508-008
  62. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01538-4
  63. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15205436.2023.2297829
  64. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257492054_Why_humans_value_sensational_news_An_evolutionary_perspective
  65. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811921008454
  66. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5502265/
  67. https://fbaum.unc.edu/teaching/articles/POQ-1972-McCOMBS-176-87.pdf
  68. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/news-powerful-and-privileged-how-misrepresentation-and-underrepresentation-disadvantaged
  69. https://journalistsresource.org/home/confirmation-bias-strategies-to-avoid-it/
  70. https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/1liiat6/what_realistic_steps_could_reduce_political_bias/
  71. https://5harad.com/papers/mediabias.pdf
  72. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780444636850000152
  73. https://publicmediaintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/cpb_BestPractices_Kaplan.pdf
  74. https://www.niemanlab.org/2024/04/objectivity-in-journalism-is-a-tricky-concept-what-could-replace-it/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.