• Which events and actors appear in the news, and which do not?
• Within a story, which details are given, and which are left out?
• Within video or pictures, what is included, foregrounded, amplified, or given more time, and what is not?

• Is a story on the front page, suggesting it is most important, or buried deep within the paper or magazine? How much space is the story given?
• Does it lead the newscast (again, suggests it is most important), or does it come later? How much time is it given?

Headlines are the most widely read part of the paper, and if readers start a front-page article they may only read the "lead" (first paragraph), and not follow the "leap" to another page where the article continues. Thus, headlines and leads are considered especially important information, while final paragraphs are less so. "Teasers" are the brief, headline-like summaries that alert TV and radio audiences to upcoming stories ("Man Bites Dog - film at eleven.")

• Is the headline large, suggesting the article is especially important?
• Does a headline, lead, or teaser represent the larger story accurately, or does it favor some information and points of view in the story more than others? What kind of video is used in the teaser?

• Do pictures or video flatter a person, or make him/her look ugly, dangerous, upset, foolish, etc? What details of a larger event does the picture or video portray? Are they representative of the event as a whole?
• From what angle is the picture or video taken? How does this affect the meaning of the image (e.g., shot from below, people may look more powerful, or menacing; shot from above, they make look smaller, or less powerful.)
• Are any special lenses used that alter or distort the image? Why are they used?
• What caption (explanatory words) accompanies the photo in a paper or magazine? How does it tell you to interpret the image, which may be more ambiguous than the caption?
• Are any special effects used: lighting, coloration, slow- or fast-motion, titles, graphics? How do they make meaning?

• What names and titles are used to identify people, places, events, and do they suggest legitimacy or illegitimacy (e.g., is someone a "terrorist" or a "freedom fighter," a "dictator" or a "military leader"?)
• What words are used to describe beliefs, attitudes, and practices (e.g., is a group "anti-choice" or "pro-life," a person a "devout Muslim" or a "follower of fundamentalist Islam," an activist a member of a "public interest group" or a "self-styled community leader"?)

• Since the same set of numbers can be portrayed very differently, and the lessons to be drawn from statistics are rarely self-evident, how are they deployed here (e.g., are there "only six injured in the crash" or "six writhing bodies in pain," did the demonstration "fail to attract 500 marchers" or "energize a vocal group of at least 400 concerned citizens"?)
• How are statistics displayed visually, and are they presented in a misleading manner?
• Are insupportable assumptions drawn from numbers (e.g., "65% of Americans disapprove of the President's personal morality, but 60% don't want him impeached, which shows that we've grown cynical and all we care about is that the economy is doing well." Perhaps people are not cynical, but believe a President's personal moral failings are not reason enough to impeach him.)

• From whom or where does the information in this report seem to come? Even if a source isn't quoted or identified, they may have played an important role in the story.
• What sources appear in the article, and what other qualified sources don't?
• What sources are identified as, or implied to be, "expert" or "reliable" or "responsible" sources? Are there other sources that fit these criteria but are excluded? Are the criteria sound?
• Do some sources get to speak more than others in the report? Do they favor one point of view? Is there another pattern that explains why some get to speak longer?
• Do some sources speak anonymously, and what is the effect of this?
• Did these sources appear to seek news coverage (e.g., by holding a press conference) or did the reporter appear to seek them out? What is the effect?
• What sources get to define facts, problems and solutions (e.g., the professor who explains that there is a "culture of poverty" that keeps people down) and what sources only get to testify to their personal experience (the welfare recipient who is limited to saying "My mama was poor, and so am I")? What is the effect?