This is true, but I don't see this as a huge problem. Most 'big news' is very easily understood by lay people (e.g. "Congress is debating a pandemic relief bill" or "The World Trade Center has been struck by aircraft"), or it has a long delay before the news is actionable.
Something complex like the financial response to the pandemic leaves plenty of time to write a more thoughtful analysis. The only fast 'news' the mainstream should be reporting on is what various interested parties are saying and when to expect certain details. Anything more than that and they themselves become the fount of misinformation because they can't possibly have all the details. If the people voting on the 5,000+ page omnibus spending bill didn't have time to read it, with all their support staff pitching in ~ and considering the fact that they helped write it ~ what chance does a news organization have?
> In mainstream news the correspondent for X will helpfully add that knowledge to the story being reported so you can understand the new facts in context.
I don't think this is actually helpful at all. Very rarely is the information complete or accurate. It's always presented as being fact, when it is often more opinion. We killed a lot of people over yellowcake uranium that never actually existed while the news assured everyone it did. [0]Of course, the evidence the news was citing was debunked by our allies almost immediately.
Personally, I think so-called news should behave more responsibly, take their time, and produce more complete analysis so they can actually inform instead of mislead the people.
[0]https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2003/03/31/who-lied-to-wh...
The internet has managed to blur the lines and people are convinced anything and everything is automatically news.
E.g. my OnlyTheFacts (tm) news org who doesn’t add any form of opinion to the news they report might still choose to just not report some types of story and choose to always cover a relatively rare type of event skewing the perception of reportable news in the world.
I’m not aware of any news vendors who list the stories they choose not to cover.
I don’t think this is anything new to the 21st or even to the 20th century.
The only thing I am aware of that is even close is Project Censored, which aims to document the most important stories that have been ignored by all major news outlets each year:
https://www.projectcensored.org/category/the-top-25-censored...
Can you point out an opinion expressed by the publication?
As for covered in the news, they do reference the niche sites which cover the stories they’re reporting but i would take it to mean they’ve not been reported in the mainstream news. The two stories i read don't appear in a google news search for example?
If you’re reading the AP wire then yes it is different, it’s just dry facts with limited context or framing.
That’s not how most people consume news though. That is far too dry for most and you’ll likely miss key observations because you can’t possibly be up to speed with every context. In mainstream news the correspondent for X will helpfully add that knowledge to the story being reported so you can understand the new facts in context.
News as I’m thinking you’re meaning it, would be that model, the facts and a curtailed context, often eliding the “for and against” arguments to go straight to a ready to consume conclusion that should neatly fit the reader’s prior preferences.
The exploration of the for and against is usually cut out of news since it sells better and costs less to produce.