The 'news.' What makes for news? Writer and social critic Walter Lippman once made the obvious but insightful comment that 'there must be some barrier between the public and an event. Access to the real environment must be limited, before anyone can create a pseudo-environment that he thinks wise or desirable.'

Things happen all over the world, in every community, country, on every continent, in every household, workplace, etc., every day. What to report? News media get to decide many questions:

1. What to report
2. What not to report
3. Where to report it (front page, living section, back page, etc.)
4. How to report it (headlines vary, frequency of reporting, words used, sources used, etc.)
5. How long to report it (does a story have 'legs?' Which stories stay around the longest?)

Now, what makes for a news story that people will be willing to read/sit through/listen to? Bryant and Oliver (2009) discuss the importance of 'involvement' in media, and Rubin's work (2009) suggests people watch news for amusement and diversion--not primarily to be informed. According to the authors of Age of Propaganda, the following help:

1. New and timely
2. Involves conflict or scandal
3. Concern strange and unusual happenings
4. Happen to familiar and/or famous people (celebrities in Haiti, anyone??)
5. Simple to convey in a short space or time
6. Contains visual and dramatic elements (shock and awe, for instance, but not its aftermath)
7. Fit a theme that is currently prominent (like, say . . . pirates?? Got photos?? Sources??)
8. Similar to no. 7, fits a story narrative (for example, missing blonde co-ed, trapped miners, and . . . . pirates)
9. Predictability--if it's worked in the past, it stands a chance of working again--this may not lead to high ratings, but at least predictable ratings--think about the structure of the local newscast. And remember Jon Stewart's guest appearance on Crossfire--his fans probably loved it, but what about CNN? Were the hosts caught off-guard?

If we think of 'media' as performing a 'mediating' role between events that occur, and the people seeking to learn about them, obviously media have influence over what the public thinks. Clearly there are som entities that would like to have as much control as possible over how reporting gets done, and how those entities appear in the public light. Government obviously has a self-interest in favorable reporting, and in making sure that its activities are not only perceived favorably by the public, but reported on as the major news of the day. But in our contemporary society, large corporations and the business community also have a great stake in how they are perceived by the public. And they have budgets that can be used to influence public perceptions, through advertsing and public relations, mostly (not to mention their ability to donate money to politicians who will serve their interests in Congress, for example--much of which might be used to produce campaign commercials for television, and buy the time to air them).

Why does news often look so similar from one station/network to the next?

1. working the 'beats' ('news' that people may have come to expect--health care, consumer advocacy, crime, stock market, the Capitol, White House press briefings, Pentagon, etc.)
2. similar sources--with deadline pressures, it's easier to rely on the 'usual suspects,' people who are easily contacted, who present themselves well (not everyone is made for TV, in terms of either their appearance or their ability to fill air space with chat
   1. Both of the above may lead to over reliance on 'official sources,' not because there is an intention to 'bias' the stories, but because of pressures of the deadline, ease of getting the story, relationships cultivated with sources, and the need for compelling accounts
3. Corporate employers--more and more, as the industry consolidates and concentrates, reporters and journalists work for a corporation. What additional pressures might this add?
4. Ratings pressure--whatever it is, if it doesn't hold the reader's/viewer's/listener's attention, no matter how important, the reporter may be looking for work. How might this affect headlines, story length, content, sources used, visuals, etc.? Are all of the decisions made made in the interest of sound journalistic principles?

Jennings Bryant and Mary Beth Oliver (editors). 2009. Media Effects (third edition). NY: Routledge.
A.M. Rubin. 2009. Uses and gratifications perspectives on media effects. Pp 165-84 in Bryant and Oliver (eds), Media Effects. NY: Routledge.