Every day, billions of pieces of information circulate across television channels, websites, social media feeds, and messaging apps. Yet only a small fraction of it gets labeled as “news.” Why? What separates a newsworthy story from background noise? The question what is news? seems deceptively simple, but it has occupied journalists, editors, and media scholars for over a century – and the answers keep evolving.
Table of Contents
News: more than just “what happened today”
At its most basic, news is the dissemination of new information about recent events. But that definition barely scratches the surface. News is not simply a record of what happened – it is a selection of what someone decided was worth telling other people about. Of the millions of events that occur around the world each day, only a tiny fraction ever become visible as potential news stories, and of those, only a small number are actually produced as the day’s news in the media. As media scholars have noted, news values operate as a kind of deep structure – a selective mechanism that is often opaque even to the journalists who use it professionally.
What distinguishes news from history, gossip, or entertainment is its focus on the immediate and unpredictable present. Historical study looks backward with analytical distance. News, by contrast, captures events as they unfold – raw, urgent, and consequential. It is anchored to time. Yesterday’s front page is already on its way to becoming archival material. A story’s newsworthiness often fades the moment it is read.
Classic definitions that still resonate
Some of the most enduring definitions of news came from 19th and early 20th-century newspaper editors who understood instinctively what their readers wanted – even if they couldn’t always articulate why.
The most famous of these is the “man bites dog” maxim. Attributed variously to New York Sun editor John B. Bogart, Charles Anderson Dana, and British press baron Lord Northcliffe, the saying goes: “When a dog bites a man, that is not news, because it happens so often. But if a man bites a dog, that is news.” The point is elegant: news is defined by deviation from the expected. The ordinary is not news; the extraordinary is. Dana also reportedly said news was “anything that will make people talk” – a definition that foregrounds public interest over institutional judgment.
Lord Northcliffe, the influential British publisher, offered a sharper, more political take: “News is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress; all the rest is advertising.” This definition highlights the power dimension of news – that information worth knowing is often information that someone in authority would prefer to keep quiet. It positions journalism not just as a reporting function, but as a check on power.
American publisher William Randolph Hearst added yet another lens, defining news as “anything that makes a reader say ‘Gee Whiz!’” – capturing the emotional and sensational pull that has always been part of news appeal. Taken together, these classic definitions reveal that news has never been a purely objective category. It is shaped by surprise, power, emotion, and audience expectation.
The academic framework: Galtung and Ruge’s news factors
The most systematic early attempt to define what makes news came in 1965, when Norwegian researchers Johan Galtung and Mari Holmboe Ruge published their landmark paper, The Structure of Foreign News. They analyzed over 1,262 press cuttings from Norwegian newspapers covering the Congo, Cuba, and Cyprus crises to identify which factors consistently elevated an event onto the news agenda.
Their research produced a list of 12 news factors, and their central argument was straightforward: the more of these factors an event satisfies, the more likely it is to become news. These factors included:
- Frequency – events that unfold over a short, defined period fit neatly into the news cycle.
- Threshold – an event must exceed a certain scale or intensity before it registers as newsworthy.
- Unambiguity – clear, easily understood events are more likely to be reported than complex, ambiguous ones.
- Meaningfulness – culturally familiar events feel more relevant to the audience.
- Unexpectedness – rare or surprising events within familiar contexts attract the most attention.
- Continuity – once a story enters the news cycle, it tends to stay there even as its intensity fades.
- Reference to elite nations and elite people – actions by powerful countries or prominent individuals are deemed more newsworthy.
- Negativity – bad news, conflict, and disaster consistently attract more coverage than positive developments.
Galtung and Ruge’s framework was groundbreaking because it moved beyond gut instinct and gave journalism a structured vocabulary for understanding news selection. Their analysis of international news in Norwegian newspapers showed these criteria applied consistently across multiple news outlets, suggesting a degree of universality in how editors approach the question of what is worth reporting.
Harcup and O’Neill: updating news values for the modern era
More than three decades after Galtung and Ruge, British academics Tony Harcup and Deirdre O’Neill revisited the framework. Their 2001 study – What Is News? Galtung and Ruge Revisited – analyzed the content of three major UK national newspapers and proposed a contemporary set of news values that better reflected how journalism actually worked at the turn of the 21st century.
Harcup and O’Neill found that while many of Galtung and Ruge’s original factors remained relevant, the original list needed refinement. They proposed cleaner, more operationally useful categories, including:
- The power elite – stories involving powerful individuals, organizations, or institutions.
- Celebrity – stories featuring well-known entertainers, athletes, or public figures.
- Entertainment – stories with elements of sex, humor, drama, or human interest.
- Surprise – stories with unexpected or counterintuitive elements.
- Bad news – stories with negative dimensions such as conflict, tragedy, or death.
- Good news – stories with a positive resolution or uplifting quality.
- Magnitude – stories involving a large number of people or with significant impact.
- Relevance – stories about issues that directly affect the audience’s lives.
- Follow-up – stories that develop from previously covered events.
- Newspaper agenda – stories that align with the editorial priorities of a specific publication.
The study concluded that most published news stories satisfy at least one – and often several – of these criteria. Notably, Harcup and O’Neill separated The Power Elite from Celebrity, recognizing that modern news increasingly treats famous entertainers and athletes as a distinct category from political or institutional power – a distinction Galtung and Ruge had lumped together.
In 2016, Harcup and O’Neill revisited their own framework again, this time accounting for the rapid rise of digital media and social platforms. They added new factors including exclusivity (stories broken by a news organization through original reporting) and shareability – stories likely to generate engagement, discussion, and sharing on social media. This last addition marked a significant shift: the audience’s behavior was now formally acknowledged as a factor shaping what counts as news.
News in the digital age: the concept under pressure
The digital revolution has not changed what news fundamentally is – but it has dramatically changed how it is produced, distributed, and consumed. Social media have become multi-functional tools applicable in all phases of news production and distribution, blurring the line between professional journalism and citizen reporting. Anyone with a smartphone can now break a story before any news organization does.
This has created both opportunities and serious challenges. Research confirms that social media have dethroned news outlets’ own websites and apps as the primary gateway to online news consumption, with platforms like Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok now serving as the main channel through which audiences encounter journalism. According to Pew Research Center, a fifth or more of Americans regularly get news on Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok.
Yet this shift has also introduced what researchers call news fatigue. News fatigue is psychological exhaustion resulting from too much information – a phenomenon that has significantly increased over the past decade, driven partly by constant connectivity and the design of social media platforms to keep users perpetually engaged. A Pew Research survey found that 66% of American adults felt “exhausted” by the volume of news they received even before the COVID-19 pandemic amplified these pressures further.
For journalists and media-literate citizens alike, this environment makes a rigorous understanding of news values more important, not less. When every tweet, press release, and viral video competes for attention, the ability to distinguish genuine news from content that merely mimics it becomes a critical skill. Research has found that social media has driven a shift from investigative journalism to instant journalism – where speed often takes precedence over depth of analysis, raising significant concerns about accuracy and verification.
Why the definition of news keeps evolving
News is not a fixed category – it is a social construction, shaped by the values of the society producing it, the technology available to distribute it, and the audience receiving it. What counted as news in 1880, when Dana ran the New York Sun, is not identical to what counts as news in a TikTok-era newsroom. The core principles – novelty, relevance, significance, and human interest – remain, but their weighting and application shift with every major technological and cultural change.
What Galtung and Ruge, Harcup and O’Neill, and every working journalist across generations have collectively demonstrated is that news selection is never truly neutral. Every editorial decision about what to cover – and what to ignore – reflects values, priorities, and power. Understanding those mechanisms is the first step to becoming a more critical consumer of the news we receive every day.
What do you think? If surprise and unexpectedness are core to what makes something newsworthy, does that mean consistently negative or alarming news is structurally built into how journalism selects stories? And in an era where social media shareability influences editorial decisions, who should ultimately define what counts as news – journalists, algorithms, or audiences?
References
- https://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/27381/1/What%20is%20news%20Original.pdf
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_bites_dog
- https://diginsider.com/2012/09/28/whats-news/
- https://owenspencer-thomas.com/journalism/newsvalues/
- https://www.galtung-institut.de/en/2015/galtung-and-ruge-news-values-an-update-by-prof-galtung-october-2014/
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_values
- https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1461670X.2016.1150193
- https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/journalism-media-and-technology-trends-and-predictions-2023
- https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1461670X.2024.2324318
- https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/social-media-and-news-fact-sheet/
- https://institute.aljazeera.net/en/ajr/article/2826
- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391176977_The_Evolution_of_Journalism_in_the_Digital_Age_Analyzing_the_Impact_of_Social_Media_on_News_Process_and_Information_Integrity
Leave a Reply