Who, and what, determines which news is fit to publish?

Open this photo in gallery:

I’ve been hearing from readers who have questions about – or flat-out disagree with – the mix of news covered by The Globe and Mail. Some believed The Globe had published too much about Charlie Kirk; others felt there hadn’t been enough coverage. Readers outside Ontario have said they find The Globe too Toronto-centric, while sports fans have argued their preferred team is ignored. Earlier this week, a reader asked why The Globe didn’t publish more about MP Heather McPherson’s entry into the race for federal NDP leadership.

What all these queries have in common is a journalistic concept called news judgment. That’s the blanket term for the many decisions a team of journalists make throughout any given day. Through informed and continuing discussions within the newsroom, they must decide which events constitute breaking news, what is most relevant for their particular audience and which stories should be given the most prominence.

“When journalists think about what’s news and how it should be covered, they’re thinking on behalf of a public, and to do that they need a sense of what that public thinks,” said a recent Nieman Lab article.

Of course, that understanding isn’t perfect. “One 1972 study found that journalists overestimated the similarity between their own opinion and the public’s, and another 1996 study found a relationship between journalists’ partisan beliefs and their ideas about which issues were most newsworthy to their audiences,” the Nieman Lab article reported. This is also known as “social projection.”

Journalists are not intentionally conflating their own opinions with those of the reading public, however. On the contrary, a pair of studies cited earlier this year in the journal aptly titled Journalism showed that “journalists generally aim to align reporting with (perceived) audience interests and preferences.”

But readers’ perception of social projection among journalists isn’t always correct. “Politicians, activists and the public often complain about how much – or how little – news coverage is given to a particular issue or event. But sometimes these complaints do not accurately reflect actual reporting,” according to the News Literacy Project, a U.S. non-profit that provides educational resources. The project’s materials emphasize the importance of reviewing any accusation, or even one’s own personal perception, of inaccurate or slanted reporting.

During the last American and Canadian federal election campaigns, some readers e-mailed to complain that The Globe was “platforming” politicians they believed were bad actors who should not be granted space in news media. But reporting on bad actors is a key function of news media. And without understanding the policies of all political candidates, how can voters make informed decisions at the polls?

Another question I receive is, “Why doesn’t The Globe have any reporters on the ground in (insert location here)?” In some cases, it simply isn’t possible. I was on a video call this week with a Russian journalist who must cover his home country from Paris. Similarly, in February, Le Monde was forced to recall its Moscow correspondent – leaving the French newspaper without coverage in the Russian capital for the first time in nearly seven decades.

When you think a news organization has missed the mark, the first step is to check the facts with at least a couple of different credible sources, such as official government or corporate websites, and other journalistic news sources. If you remain convinced, contact the organization’s standards editor or ombudsperson, if it has one, or use the e-mail or phone number provided for customer complaints. Every reputable news organization will have one or more of these resources. (At The Globe, the customer care team forwards editorial concerns to me, or to the newsroom, as appropriate.)

Readers can contact me any time at standardseditor@globeandmail.com.