The public would be better served and more informed if news stories were selected based on the aggregate impact of all similar incidents, rather than by the novelty and drama of rare outlier events. For example, mass shootings will affect far fewer people than suicides by gun.
Suggested by steven.noble
I think this is more or less the vision statement of thecorrespondent.com, ("an online platform for unbreaking news") and it's certainly a perspective I agree with, but it can also feel a bit like journalism as whole grains and fibre — something is good for us, that we should all get more of, but not necessarily that tasty or appealing when compared to the alternative.
The word "news" itself seems to suggest that we've always focused on the novel rather than the ongoing, and I suspect as humans we are instinctually drawn to — and more likely to remember — stories that surprise or shock us. I think any journalist has to reconcile that human bias when it comes to trying to report news that deals more on aggregate impact. Some of the "explainer" stuff happening these days struggles to matter I think because it tends not to actually be continuous (don't just explain to me once, keep explaining over time and maintain my interest!), and it tends to lack any particular additional reporting (the explainers are often kept in a separate pen from the reporters).
Is there a plausible incentive structure that would make this more likely to happen?
I sometimes wonder if there’s a business in grading media organizations on metrics like this. Getting the aggregate data for frequency of impactful events isn’t that hard; at least reasonable estimates. eg there’s a lot in this table alone https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/LeadingCauses.html.
Categorizing the stories for each organization seems laborious. And I don’t know who would pay for it.
My suspicion is that this view at least partly reflects unrealistic expectations for high-frequency news media. If you consider daily news in a role more like popular TV shows or sports events, it provides some common topics for people to talk about, whether or not those topics are actually the most important things to think about overall. Watching the news to be informed about what's important might simply be a category mistake.
My own behavior suggests I've at least subconsciously noticed this: for topical/watercooler information, I'm more likely to gravitate towards things that are obviously just entertainment. If I want to be better informed on what's important, I look for longer-form journalism, books, etc.