I learned first-hand about how stubborn journalists can be when they get locked into a master narrative. I once demonstrated to a reporter from the KC Star exactly how the press was getting it all wrong about a local story that made national news (including 60 Minutes–the Piper H.S. plagiarism case). I had real data. Not opinion. She interviewed me for more than an hour. Not one word or one idea of mine every showed up in print. My narrative did not fit with what “everyone” had accepted as true. 60 Minutes wouldn’t return my calls (not at all surprising–my narrative was not as dramatic).

The only people who can stop this are editors who care enough to look past the master narratives and conventional wisdom.

We need to come up with something equivalent to writing “[I will not say X since it is untrue]” on the blackboard 100 times.

Talking about the genie.

I think layers are a great way to gain perspective into both the psychological aspect of journalism, as well as the institutional and constraints imposed by the medium chosen.

Re: layers Yes, interesting.

I am still advocating thinking in layers. I think the “schema” would be a great way to differentiate between, perhaps, schema at the lowest layer, biases at the middle layer and frames at the top, or presentation layer.

Re: class and loyalty bias

Perhaps. It certainly includes the other nine. In fact, I could refer to them as schemas rather than biases. That might even be more correct than the more typical “frames.”

“professional socialization and professional schemas”

Would that include a class and loyalty bias?