The journalism ethics textbook authors begin their descriptions of newsworthiness and news values by describing journalists’ role in the story selection process. Perebinossoff (2016) writes that “reporters and editors should always begin the news dissemination process by first determining if something is newsworthy and therefore worth sharing with the public (p. 171). Cohen and Elliott (1997) describe the process of narrowing down news items for broadcast or publication:
“Physical limitations of space, time, money, etc. make it inevitable that the amount of information that is published by news organizations is only a fraction of available information… As such, new organizations sift through information available in an effort to distinguish that which is newsworthy from that which is not, and that which is
As the authors identify that collection of information as the first step in the newsmaking process, followed by the narrowing down of that information, they next describe the process of story selection based on a determination of newsworthiness.
5.2.1 The Press’ Latitude in Defining Newsworthiness
In defining the concept of newsworthiness, the journalism textbook authors first touch on the relationship between journalists and the Court system. Christians (2010) explains that the press has a great latitude in defining newsworthiness, and that the courts rely on the press for that definition (p. 203-204). Further, the author writes that journalists’ definition of newsworthiness is a self-interested definition, often based on trends and the economy: “The prerogative here belongs to the journalist instead of the public. Journalism’s self-interest definition of
newsworthiness, rather than the common good, becomes the standard” (p. 204). “The meaning of newsworthiness is susceptible to trendy shifts in news values and often is adjusted when
competition for markets is fierce” (p. 209). Day (2006) also discusses the relationship between journalists and courts, writing “the First Amendment says nothing about media responsibility. It is left to the consciences of practicing journalists to decide what is newsworthy” (p. 35). Further, “the Courts have taken a very liberal approach in allowing the media to define what they
consider to be news or matters of public interest. Taken to the extreme, anything that is disseminated by a news organization might be considered news” (p. 138). Cohen and Elliott (1997) also address this “great latitude in defining newsworthiness,” writing that the process of determining newsworthiness is a subjective one: “Such interests that shape the news [political, commercial, value considerations] are relative, and there are no absolute standards of
newsworthiness. What is newsworthy for one system of journalists, sources, and audiences is not so for another” (p. 43).
In describing the relationship between journalists and the Court system, these authors argue that the lack of a “newsworthiness” definition within the First Amendment means that courts turn to the field of journalism for a working definition. Journalists, in turn, have developed a definition that is subjective, relative, and based on their own self-interests and conscience. The journalism textbook authors approach this relationship with a critical eye, suggesting that a definition should not be subject to self-interests and market forces, and that journalists instead should be using their professional judgment to determine newsworthiness based on common good and public interest.
5.2.2 Newsworthiness and Morality
Having discussed the relationship between journalists and the court system, and how the courts rely on journalists to create a working definition of newsworthiness, the authors next discuss the how journalists incorporate the public into their definition of newsworthiness. In other words, how journalists incorporate newsworthiness, the public, and morality. Christians (2010) writes about journalists’ role in a democratic society and their duty to the public: “the challenge for journalists, as for all professionals, is the moral life as a whole – no harm to innocents, truth telling, keeping promises, beneficence, gratitude, [and] reparations for wrong actions” (p. 208). Further, Christians writes that the process of determining newsworthiness is the process of separating what the public wants to know (gossip, pandering, innuendo,
exaggeration, falsehood) from what it needs to know (p. 208). Day (2006) also emphasizes the importance of what the public needs to know, writing that journalists should pay more attention “to what the public needs to know rather than merely what [the public] is curious about” (p. 138). Cohen and Elliott (1997) suggest that journalists should adhere to universal standards in their selection and presentation of the news – and that those standards should include
perspectives on “justice, wisdom, and other ideals of civilization” (p. 44). Concerning universal standards and values, Black and Roberts (2011) write that contemporary journalism has three essential shared values: 1) publishing news that is balanced, accurate, relevant, and complete, 2) avoiding preventable harm, and 3) giving citizens information they need for self-governance (p. 192). The first two categories of shared values relate to how to ethically report the news and the latter category relates to how to ethically select the news (newsworthiness). They suggest that in addition to objective news values such as proximity, timeliness, prominence, consequence, novelty, conflict, currency, etc., that the news enterprise should transcend these traditional values to also incorporate moral values.
These authors, in their description of the relationship between newsworthiness and morality, are setting up a series of dichotomies – or, what they suggest are dichotomies: what the public wants to know vs. what the public needs to know, evaluative news standards vs. objective news standards, and traditional news values vs. moral new values. The authors assert that moral news values should include information promoting justice, wisdom, ideals of civilization, and what information is needed for self-governance. In this section, the authors are broaching a definition of newsworthiness; they assert what while there is no concrete formula for
newsworthiness within the field of journalism (unfortunately due to news being subjective and based on journalists’ self-interest) that any criteria for newsworthiness should include elements of what the public needs to know.