Reporting involved eliciting as much information as possible about an underlying event. The emphasis was on attempting to present an accurate picture. An important tenet was that the opposing point of view must be reported accurately, even if it was being rejected. There was another consideration, putting the story or event in perspective or in a larger setting by looking at the past. Television, with its relentless emphasis on the present and insistence on dramatic and shocking images, has effectively killed this aspect of reporting an event.
Print seems to be following suit with gusto.
The most important element today is the angle of the story, which has become all important. If the event can be portrayed as a morality story, a conflict between good and bad as perceived by the editors, the better it is. I remember one British consultant saying that readers read a publication not so much to get information as to confirm their own views and beliefs. In this value system editors blithely make assumptions on what their readers apparently believe to be true. In other words, any story is approached with the lead already fixed in one's mind.