Our research found little evidence of formal written rules for selecting news stories. Generally, there are some universal news values (Galtung & Ruge, 1965) that lead newsrooms and journalists to prize some stories – some narrative elements – over others. Investigative reporters, we heard, do not pay much attention to agenda news or press releases. Moreover, some news organisations market or differentiate themselves by their commitment to investigative journalism. CBC News, for instance, heralds its commitment to investigative reporting. The news organisation’s Go Public investigative unit encourages Canadians to “hold power to account” by shining a light on alleged wrongdoing by government or business. It follows, then, that the journalists responsible for producing this news segment for radio, online, and television look for and select compelling characters with stories, for instance, about medical treatments gone wrong, consumers being ripped off by big corporations, or people being treated unfairly by business or government.
As Shoemaker and Reese’s (2014) hierarchy of influence model suggests, and our interviews confirmed, journalists value stories that are important or unusual, timely, reflect a human interest, convey a clear conflict, and are nearby. None of the journalists, newsroom leaders, or scholars we interviewed talked about formal rules or a stylebook for news selection. “News is news”, said one interviewee, adding “you know it when you see it”. A number of journalists highlighted the importance of news meetings to “kick around” or “hash out” story ideas and potential treatments. Some journalists talked about the benefits of “blue skying” or “story boarding” their ideas in story meetings to decide if their idea warranted further pursuit. Often, it is at these meetings or smaller assignment meetings where stories originating from social media get a critical eye or review before deciding whether there is merit to assigning a reporter or producer for further pursuit.
