Bias in news coverage

These days, news sources are often derided for their bias. However, bias is different from conspiracy (as least in the news).

Having worked in the newspaper business (very briefly), I have seen how the "fit to print" decision matrix works:

1. Is it relevant to our readers?
2. Is it credible?
3. Is it controversial?
4. In what way is this more important than something else?

The first question shows the bias in readers; the last shows bias in the editors -- what things are deemed more important than others. (And it explains why James Jameson was always running anti-Spiderman coverage.)

Why do some murders get more coverage than others? In the case of Breonna Tylor, it was controversial because she was killed while she was asleep and the police had a no-knock warrant. It was also relevant to people who've experienced or seen recent coverage of police abuse of power.

Other deaths, like my brother's death, don't get a lot of coverage. A story will run. People see it, say "that's a shame," and then move on. It's either not as relevant, or it's not controversial, or it doesn't matter as much as something else.

Media outlets have finite resources to dedicate to coverage. I recognize some people think certain issues (e.g. Angela Summers) deserves more attention, but let's face it: those won't get it when there are so many other things going on that the world simply cares more about.

Others have similar perspectives. Jon Stewart, for example, sees liberal media bias as a matter of sensationalism (getting the news that people will read, even if it's sketchy), and laziness (not doing the work).
I can see that as well.