
The 3 key parts of news stories you usually don’t get - joshwa
http://www.newsless.org/2009/08/the-3-key-parts-of-news-stories-you-usually-dont-get/#
======
JacobAldridge
These really fit into what is known as the Gatekeeper Theory of the media;
that is, a journalist receives billions of points of information and has to
decide which are the most important to share.

Formally, this is done through an Inverted Pyramid style of news story writing
- the most important information is communicated first, and the further into
the story you go the less important the information is. In theory (and like
anything, in practice things like personal experience and bias come into play)
this means the story can be ended at any point and the most important news
will be conveyed.

Where the story ends depends on News Hole (also what a lot of bloggers
probably call MSM journos). This is the amount of space that needs to be / can
be filled with news. _The beauty of the internet is that it removes many of
the factors that traditionally limit newshole, primarily the amount of space
that can be supported by advertising._

And ultimately, it's this final point which may address the '3 key parts'
identified in this article. When space is abundant, that information can be
shared. And since it's often easier to write a longer article than a shorter
one, in many cases the information discussed exists in early drafts and is
later cut for space, meaning a lack of cutting provides extra information
while actually saving time.

Don't get me started on the Janus view of the press, and how it will influence
online media, however.

Credentials - Australian Press Council Prize Winner 2000; University of
Queensland Journalism Prize Winner 2002. Google or Wikipedia key terms to find
links to more detailed papers.

~~~
olliesaunders
Journalists could impart more information by writing more concisely.

~~~
jws
"I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead." -
Mark Twain

"Remember that time is money." - Benjamin Franklin

~~~
puns
"Time is a waste of money" - Oscar Wilde

------
extension
News is based entirely on novelty, which is much more closely tied to
entertainment than it is to importance. Not only do you miss out on the all
important background information for reported stories, but you miss out on
very important stories all together if there doesn't happen to be anything new
about them.

Tens of thousands of people dying of cancer or car crashes is not news, but a
single person dying in a terrorist attack is not only front page news, but a
reason to turn your life upside down.

Popular notions of what matters and what doesn't are really screwed up. That's
largely human nature, but Journalism certainly reinforces it.

------
biotech
This is a great summary of the problems that I have with newspaper articles.
I've had a problem with the way news was reported ever since I learned to do
real research. usually, my argument revolves around two points:

\- Lack of Context; this actually can be split into the first two points that
this article makes: "The longstanding facts" and "How journalists know what
they know".

\- The Monopoly of the Associated Press. The argument against monopoly is
hardly unique to the press, though.

When I read an article in the newspaper, there are many questions that come to
my mind.

In the worst case scenario, I'm reading an AP article which _omits the
author's name_. WTF? The author's credentials and background (including their
history of previous articles) are very important in certain cases (and at the
least gives me some idea of where they are coming from).

Any technical researcher who writes a paper _must_ provide references to be
taken seriously. Journalists should also have some obligation to cite
background materials. If they take a quote out of context, they should tell me
where I can find the full discussion. If there is some important historical
background to the story, I'd like a reference to that information as well.

~~~
JacobAldridge
>In the worst case scenario, I'm reading an AP article which _omits the
author's name_. WTF?

Would you also expect the sub-editor's name, both from AP/AAP or Reuters _and_
from the publication which edited the wire story? The chief-of-staff probably
assigned that story over the alternatives, which would have been biased
(because she's human too) - so do you want her name? And don't forget the
section editor, the primary editor, the publication's owner (or owners).

It's a nice suggestion in theory. In reality, having the author's name can be
more misleading than having none at all, since it assumes they have more
control than they really do.

~~~
biotech
You make two good points:

1\. Yes, I would like to know the editors of each article.

2\. " _The chief-of-staff probably assigned that story over the alternatives,
which would have been biased (because she's human too) - so do you want her
name?_ "

I don't want only her name, I also want to know the reasoning she used to
chose these particular stories over the others.

Although I realize that you are [probably] being critical, I do believe that
you have some good suggestions. Even if this introduced more overhead per
story, I believe the quality of each story would increase dramatically.

------
jollojou
The author of the article has a good point on the limits of knowledge:
journalists seldom ponder their argument's proneness to fallacy. The author
also well emphasises that it is important to have at least a little bit of
information about how the news story was created. This gives the reader a
greater possibility to assess the plausibility of the story.

However, the author did not cover the issue of interpretation: the journalist
always writes from her personal standpoint. This raises several questions: can
the journalist write "neutral" news stories? how her political and cultural
background affects the news story? how could she clarify the background for
the reader?

Knowing how the journalists know what they know is not enough. I would like to
know something about the journalist's scheme of interpretation in order to
understand the news story she wrote.

~~~
JacobAldridge
Journalists, and particularly formal journalism training (eg, a Degree over a
Cadetship) really plug Objectivity as being this skill that can be developed
and an ideal that must be achieved.

As long as journalists are human beings, that theory is bullshit. Bias and
censorship, _usually unconscious, unintended, and not impacting on the story_
are natural parts of journalism.

Journalists should understand that (most don't). The public should understand
that (and read everything skeptically as a result).

------
phil
Seems like magazine journalism is much less susceptible to 1,2, and
occasionally 3.

I wonder how much of the missing information he describes is due to the lack
of time and words that journalists face when they're working in a short cycle.

