Key norms of the news industry

Journalism is guided by a set of norms that reflect its aspirational role in society, though these norms are constantly debated and challenged. There are standard practices that guide how the industry works.

Attribution and sources

Identifying where information came from is crucial for credibility. Quoted sources are people who have agreed to go “on the record” (their words can be quoted and attributed to them). A conversation between a reporter and a source is only off the record if both people agree that it is before they start.

News articles may sometimes include quotes or information from anonymous or unnamed sources (The reporter and editor/producer do know who they are!) However, in some cases they will agree not to give the person’s name in the story (or other identifying details) if the person would be in danger of getting hurt or losing their job. If the person isn’t named but information about why they’re a valuable source is given (for instance “a government official”) they are quoted on background.

Usually, a reporter will want at least one on-the-record source or two unnamed sources to confirm everything in the story. If they can’t confirm important details in the story, it may be spiked (cancelled).

Beats

A “beat” is the specific topic or area that a story fits in: politics, crime, health, sports, business, et cetera. Anything that fits one of these beats is more likely be seen as “newsworthy.” Reporters often specialize in one or two beats; in some cases beats can become their own sub-genres, as with crime or health and science news, with tropes and norms that can influence how the story is told. If a journalist is on the crime beat, for example, the default frame for issues like homelessness might be "disorder," solvable through arrests for trespassing, rather than an economic problem requiring affordable housing.[1]

To find out an outlet’s beats, look for bylines (where the reporter’s name is listed) like “tech reporter” or “City Hall correspondent.”

Fairness and objectivity

Objectivity in reporting is one of the most important norms in journalism and considered a key part of what makes a news source reliable. In some cases, choices that appear to be the result of bias, such as the use of the passive voice and the omission of the subject of a sentence – phrasing a headline as “Ten killed in blast,” for instance – may reflect the norm of objectivity if who or what caused the blast hasn’t been established yet.[2]

However, this view of objectivity is often criticized for excluding minority voices, perpetuating false balance that legitimizes falsehoods and reflecting a "White, male, upper-class sensibility and worldview."[3] Some critics suggest focusing too much on objectivity has resulted in a “view from nowhere,” where reporters take unreasonable steps to appear completely neutral.[4] Even objectively reported facts can frame an issue: “when you report as an objective fact that there’s a shortage of prison guards as opposed to too many people in prison, you’re actually taking a side in a very consequential political debate.”[5] Similarly, including something like a suspect’s race, religion or gender identity when reporting on a crime may meet the standard of objective truth, but creates an impression that it’s relevant to the crime: “Imagine you saw a news story that said, ‘This morning by Buckingham Fountain, a financial analyst at Morningstar killed a mechanic for United Airlines.’ Naturally you’d think the place of employment must be relevant to understanding the shooting, otherwise why mention it at all?”[6]

Many now argue that journalism is political but shouldn’t be politicized, asserting that a journalist should be (in the words of The Washington Post’s Wesley Lowery) "an activist for truth, in favor of transparency, on behalf of accountability.”[7] As journalism scholar Jay Rosen puts it, “If in doing the serious work of journalism – digging, reporting, verification, mastering a beat – you develop a view, expressing that view does not diminish your authority. It may even add to it.”[8] A growing sentiment suggests "transparency is the new objectivity”; this includes sharing information about organizational structure, political donations and even journalists' own biases.[9]

Fairness is defined as representing all involved parties' perspectives without favorable treatment. However, studies show that younger and older people, women and political partisans often perceive news coverage of "people like them" as unfair.[10] “Pop-up journalism,” like the CBC program that creates temporary bureaus across Canada, focuses on immersing reporters in underserved communities to build relationships, trust, and uncover local stories, to make up for “parachute journalism" that lacks local context.[11]

Hallin’s spheres:

Journalist and media scholar Daniel Hallin’s model of three “spheres” is a way of mapping the often unspoken and unconscious norms that determine whether or not something is seen as newsworthy. The sphere of consensus contains ideas that are so widely accepted they don’t need to be discussed; the sphere of deviance, ideas that are so fully rejected that we don’t need to discuss them; and the sphere of legitimate controversy, those ideas which are seen as worth discussing in the media, in polite conversation and political debate.[12] Which sphere an idea or position is considered to be in is a large part of the news media’s agenda-setting influence.[13]

Native advertising, pink slime and news mirages:

Native advertising, also known as advertorials or sponsored material, is promotional content created to look like a news outlet’s authentic editorial work. It lends a veneer of journalistic credibility to the advertiser's message. Research indicates that many people don’t recognize native advertising as actual advertising.[14]

"Pink slime" is a term for low-quality news outlets that mimic genuine local news but mostly produce automated or shallow content, often with partisan agendas disguised as community reporting. These sites exploit trust in local journalism by offering superficial coverage, sometimes funded by hidden political interests, and often lack transparency about ownership and funding. In the local news environment, companies like fossil fuel interests may fund news sites that either replace or take over local news outlets.[15] These "news mirages" may present facts, but "the context, the framing, the omissions add up to presenting a very different sense" of the truth.[16] In both cases, the appearance of local news with partisan bias is a strong sign that a news source has been compromised.

Partisanship and bias:

While bias is widely considered a reason to distrust a source,[17] the fact is that all sources have some bias or another, and that some biases are harder to perceive because they determine what isn’t included. As Margaret Gallagher put it, “it matters profoundly who and what is selected to appear in news coverage and how individuals and events are portrayed. Equally, it matters who is left out and what is not covered.”[18] While women now make up 41% of reporters in Canadian news media, for instance, they’re only 31% of subjects in news stories.[19] The same study found that worldwide, “women’s relative invisibility in traditional news media has crossed over into digital news delivery platforms: Only 21% of the people in Internet news stories and media news posts combined are women.”[20] Similarly, three-quarters (75.5%) of Canadian journalists identify as White, while only two-thirds (68.8%) of the overall population does.[21] Members of marginalized groups may also have good reason not to trust mainstream news, given their long history of being marginalized and stereotyped by news outlets. One study, for instance, found that Black Americans consider news coverage of Black people to be overly negative, selective and stereotyped.[22]

The risk of focusing on bias, however, is that consumers may use it as a reason to reject anything but those sources whose biases they agree with.[23] Some researchers have found that this habit has given rise to “competing sets of ‘facts’ and interpretations of those facts, driving the increasing disagreement on key issues, and sowing uncertainty about what is opinion and what is fact”;[24] similarly, it may explain why a majority of Americans agreed that “fake news” can sometimes (51%) or always (28%) refer to stories that are accurate, but which portray the subject in a negative light, and why they simultaneously feel that there are too many news sources and not enough to overcome their biases.[25]

This may be a result of hostile media bias, which often leads people on both sides of an issue to see news coverage as being biased against their side[26] - when in fact most news sources are most biased neither towards their owners’ nor their advertisers’ views, but those of their audience.[27] Many news consumers find it important for their news sources to share their political views, indicating a complex relationship between factuality and perceived bias.[28]

To correct this misunderstanding about bias, we should encourage consumers not to reject bias but “to understand news in context, understand the motivations and interests (whatever they may be) behind the production of news, and how news relates to other ideas.”[29] Rather than dismiss a source because its bias disagrees with yours, a better mark of reliability is to see whether that bias compromises its news coverage (by being less skeptical of stories that support the bias, for instance, or ignoring news items that don’t support it) and look at what steps it takes to acknowledge and mitigate its bias. An opinion columnist is supposed to have a point of view, but a news or analysis article shouldn’t be biased. However, a news outlet that primarily platforms a single view could be seen as biased.

It’s important to distinguish between partisan sources - which may have a strong point of view in their opinion content and some bias in their framing, but still follow industry norms of accuracy and objectivity – with hyperpartisan ones that ignore those in favour of their political views.[30] One way of telling the difference is by thinking about who the imagined audience is: if an outlet would only appeal to people on one particular side of an issue, it’s a hyperpartisan source. If you can imagine that more than a quarter of its audience might not agree with its views, then it’s just a partisan one.

The Wall Street Journal and Mother Jones are good examples of news outlets that are openly partisan, but whose news coverage is generally fair and complete. You do have to keep their partisan bias in mind when reading it – for one thing, almost all of the Journal’s coverage is framed as “business” stories – but unlike a hyperpartisan source, it’s actually worth that critical attention.

Truth and accuracy:

A core norm is verifying the accuracy of claims, information and sources, including rigorous fact-checking. Journalists are expected to be skeptical of their sources and to help citizens discern truth,[31] but while accuracy is vital, "a news story can be 100 percent factually accurate yet not fully truthful,"[32] as truth is more than a mere collection of facts. Good journalism aims for "the best obtainable version of the truth."[33]

Professionalism and expertise:

Professional codes and standards distinguish journalists – either those who are employed by legacy media outlets or reliable independent journalists - from unreliable sources.[34] A core duty of news producers is the verification of claims and examining relevant evidence as well as to "fess up when they’ve made an honest mistake,"[35] demonstrating journalistic integrity.

The reporting process

A reporter may find a news story in a few different ways. Sometimes they may receive a press release about something like a protest, a new scientific discovery or a research paper. Other times they may learn about something that’s happening from a source, a colleague or even social media. Usually the editor (in print or online news) or producer (in TV news) then decides whether or not the story is worth covering. There will often be a meeting early in the day where reporters, editors and producers discuss what stories to cover.

If they decide to do the story, the reporter starts to write it. They will do research and interview people connected to the story. Once the story is written, the editor or producer will review it and the reporter may rewrite it based on their edits. Many news outlets have fact-checkers whose job it is to double-check everything important in the story. Anyone mentioned in the story is usually given a chance to comment before the article is published.

Finally, a copy editor will write a headline for the story. A headline’s job is to get your attention, so it  sums up the most interesting parts of the story in as few words as possible.

Wire services

Wire or syndication services like Reuters and the Canadian Press are another important part of how the news industry works. These news agencies do original reporting and then license it to other outlets, which may sometimes add some extra material. It’s important for young people to understand that when they see identical stories in different news outlets, it’s not some kind of collusion or conspiracy, but rather that the outlets are all running the same wire service story.

[1] Karakatsanis, A. (2025) Copaganda. The New Press.

[2] Matuskura, N. (2005) On Passives Occurring in Newspaper Headlines.

[3] Eddy, K. A., & Fletcher, R. (2024). Exploring perceptions of fairness in news coverage across 45 countries. Journalism, 14648849251362459.

[4] Rosen, J. (2010) The View from Nowhere: Questions and Answers. PressThink.

[5] Golding, Y.T.R. (2025) The Media’s Role in Spreading Copaganda. Columbia Journalism Review.

[6] Ludwig, J. (2025). Unforgiving Places: The Unexpected Origins of American Gun Violence. In Unforgiving Places. University of Chicago Press.

[7] Quoted in Blanding, M. (2018) Where Does Journalism End and Activism Begin? Nieman Reports.

[8] Rosen, J. (2010) The View from Nowhere: Questions and Answers. PressThink.

[9] Downie, L., & Heyward A. (2023) Beyond Objectivity: Producing Trustworthy News in Today’s Newsrooms. Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication.

[10] Eddy, K. A., & Fletcher, R. (2024). Exploring perceptions of fairness in news coverage across 45 countries. Journalism, 14648849251362459.

[11] Todd, Z. (2020) Pop-up journalism: the CBC’s low-budget solution for under-reported regions. Reuters Institute.

[12] Hallin, D. C. (1989). The “Uncensored War”: The Media and Vietnam. New York: Oxford University press. pp. 116–118. ISBN 0-19-503814-2.

[13] McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public opinion quarterly, 36(2), 176-187.

[14] Westervelt, A., & Green M. (2023) Leading News Outlets are Doing the Fossil Fuel Industry’s Greenwashing. The Intercept.

[15] Anderson-Davis, S. (2024) “Pink Slime Journalism” and a history of media manipulation in America. Columbia Journalism Review.

[16] Dhanesha, N. (2024) How NPR and Floodlight teamed up to uncover fossil fuel news mirages across the country. NiemanLab.

[17] Newman, N & Fletcher R. (2017) Bias, Bullshit and Lies: Audience Perspectives on Low Trust and Media. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.

[18] (2021) “Who Makes the News: Global Media Monitoring Project.” World Association for Christian Communication.

[19] (2021) “Who Makes the News: Global Media Monitoring Project.” World Association for Christian Communication.

[20](2021) “Who Makes the News: Global Media Monitoring Project.” World Association for Christian Communication.

[21] (2023) Canadian Newsroom Diversity Survey: Final Report. Canadian Association of Journalists.

[22] (2023) Black Americans’ Experiences with News. Pew Research Center. < https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2023/09/26/black-americans-experiences-with-news/>

[23] Kavanagh, J & Rich M.D. (2018) “Truth Decay: An Initial Exploration of the Diminishing Role of Facts and Analysis in American Public Life.” RAND Corporation.

[24] Kavanagh, J & Rich M.D. (2018) “Truth Decay: An Initial Exploration of the Diminishing Role of Facts and Analysis in American Public Life.” RAND Corporation.

[25] (2018 ) “American Views: Trust, Media and Democracy.” Knight Foundation.

[26] Hansen, G. J., & Kim, H. (2011). Is the media biased against me? A meta-analysis of the hostile media effect research. Communication Research Reports, 28(2), 169-179.

[27] Galeazzi, A., Peruzzi, A., Brugnoli, E., Delmastro, M., & Zollo, F. (2024). Unveiling the hidden agenda: Biases in news reporting and consumption. PNAS nexus, 3(11), pgae474.

[28] Eddy, K., et al. (2025) What is news? How Americans decide what ‘news’ means to them – and how it fits into their lives in the digital era. Pew Research Center.

[29] Malik, M., Cortesi S. and Gasser U. (2013) ”The Challenges of Defining ‘News Literacy.’” Berkman Center for Internet & Society, 2013.

[30] Bhadani, S., Yamaya, S., Flammini, A., Menczer, F., Ciampaglia, G. L., & Nyhan, B. (2022). Political audience diversity and news reliability in algorithmic ranking. Nature Human Behaviour, 6(4), 495-505.

[31] Ashley, S. (2019). News literacy and democracy (p. 218). Taylor & Francis.

[32] Weiner, Eric. (2022) The Media Is Biased, But Not in the Way You Think. Medium.

[33] Bernstein, C. (2017) Remarks to the White House Correspondents’ Association.

[34] Benton, J. (2022) Is “resistance journalism” about practices or power? NiemanLab.

[35] Ashley, S. (2019). News literacy and democracy (p. 218). Taylor & Francis.