Frequent tropes in news

Tropes in news function as shorthand for audiences, allowing for more efficient narrative construction and reducing cognitive load, often at the cost of flattening complex realities.

Common tropes and framing patterns in news include:

• Assumed conflict: framing stories in terms of opposing sides (for instance, focusing on the disagreements between two groups rather than their common ground, or framing business and the environment as inevitably opposed).[1]
• Bad news bias: media outlets tend to emphasize negative news, which means that “the news is mostly an aggregation of every bad event that happened in the last 24 hours, anywhere on Earth.”[2] For example, researchers have observed that while increases in crime or other problems are seen as newsworthy, decreases rarely are,[3] which can give us a very distorted view of the world.
• Horse race journalism: political reporting that focuses disproportionately on who is winning or losing in elections, often relying on polls and campaign strategy, rather than delving into policy issues. This approach has been linked to distrust in politicians and news outlets, and a less informed electorate.[4]
• Implied causality or omission: news framing can subtly connect concepts to suggest causal links (e.g., sentencing policy and violent crime) or leave out crucial contextual information (e.g., affordable housing from homelessness articles), thereby shaping public perception.
• Inverted pyramid structure: most news stories are written in what is called “inverted pyramid” style, beginning with what is considered the most newsworthy facts (the lede), followed by the important details relating to those facts (the nut), then finally background information to provide context (the body), sometimes closing with a kicker that shows why the story is important or relevant to the audience. The last part of the story contains information that readers are least likely to read and editors are most likely to cut. 

Stock words and phrases: journalists often use stock words and phrases to add colour and drama to a story. Figures are always startling, rises always sharp and trends always troubling.[5] The choice of words to describe an action affects what we think about it. Compare “Police confiscate gun collection,” “Police seize gun collection” and “Police grab gun collection.” Was something a “death,” a “killing” or a “murder”? Did a politician “state” something, “claim” it or “allege” it? Similarly, how a person or group is described affects how we see them. Is a candidate an experienced politician, a long-serving politician or an old politician? (This is why responsible news sources avoid using strongly inflected words like “terrorist” except when directly quoting sources.)

[1] Kozolanka, K., & Orlowski P. (2018) Media Literacy for Citizenship. Canadian Scholars.

[2] Klaas, B. (2025) Why the world isn’t as bad as you think. The Garden of Forking Paths.

[3] Austin, J. (2023) Why isn’t the media reporting on falling crime rates? Safety and Justice Challenge.

[4] Masullo, G., Shermak, J., Riedl, M. J., Brown, J., & Tenenboim, O. (2022). Online political comments: Americans talk about the election through a “horse-race” lens.

[5] Mastrine, J. (2022) Media bias alert: Fox News, NPR frame same story differently. AllSides.