Practical Tools

Step 1: Reconnect with your own values

Look at the Schwartz values map at the back of this toolkit or downloadable at commoncausefoundation.org. Identify your five most and five least important values. Notice where they sit. Do they lean more toward intrinsic (Benevolence, Universalism and half of Self-direction categories) or extrinsic (Power and Achievement categories)? Are they grouped together or spread apart? Reflect on how your day-to-day work connects to these values and where it feels in tension with them

Step 2: Assess your current stage

Read through these indicators and consider honestly where most of your current practice sits. Most journalists recognise themselves most strongly in Stage 1 or early Stage 2. This reflects the professional environment, not a personal failure.

Step 3: Identifying your next step

At Stage 1:

Begin noticing values in your work and other people's

For each story, ask: what values might this framing foreground?

Read about values and their role in media – Common Cause Foundation’s resources are a good starting point, found at commoncausefoundation.org

Next milestone: move to Stage 2

At Stage 2:

Deepen your understanding of your own values and your organisation's values

Experiment with different frames for stories and notice the effect

Next milestone: move to Stage 3

At Stage 3:

Deepen your transparency practices

Seek greater alignment between personal, editorial and organisational values

Build and share evidence of the difference values-aware journalism makes

During reporting

• Ask sources: Ask about their values as well as their positions: "What matters most to you about this?" or "What do you hope happens here?". Listen for what people care about – you may find it differs from what institutional framings suggest.
• Consider different angles: Consider whether solution-focused or community-oriented angles are relevant to this story, as options that may reflect the fuller picture or information that is most important or useful for the audience. If there is evidence of collective action, cooperation or community response, ask whether it belongs in the story.

In writing – language

• Am I using "taxpayers" when "residents" or "community members" is more accurate, for example?
• Am I framing costs before human or environmental impact?
• Am I treating people primarily as economic actors when other aspects of their experience are more relevant?

In writing – structure

• Do I lead with the values most relevant to the story, or with the frame that came pre-packaged from a press release?
• Are the voices of those most affected given genuine prominence, or do they appear late as context?
• If community action or cooperation is part of this story, is it treated as a core part, rather than a minor or token element?

After publication

• What values did this story foreground? Did that feel intentional?
• Did this story make the perception gap wider or narrower?
• What feedback did you receive from audiences, sources, colleagues?
• What would you do differently next time?

For editorial meetings

• What values does each potential angle for this story foreground?
• Are we defaulting to our usual frame and is there a reason to?
• What angles might connect to what truly matters to people on this issue?
• Are we using values honestly, or mainly to achieve a particular effect?

For planning discussions

• What patterns dominate our recent coverage in this area?
• Are there angles we consistently miss that would reflect more of what our audiences actually care about?
• What community relationships would strengthen our reporting here?
• Are we unconsciously foregrounding extrinsic values in our coverage of this area?

This guide is not arguing that economic, security or achievement framing is wrong – these are legitimate parts of reporting. Nor is it suggesting these are either/or choices: in practice, a rail strike for example will generate multiple stories, and the economic impact story has its place. The aim is to help journalists notice a possible default bias towards these frames, and to ask whether the fuller picture is also being told, and whether angles that reflect the values that research shows most people hold – things like equality, belonging, curiosity, care for nature and creativity – are given equal weight. The examples below are offered in a spirit of curiosity rather than correction.

Use these questions to assess whether values are being used authentically in a specific piece of journalism, an editorial approach, or an outlet’s overall practice. They are most useful when applied to your own work, but can also help you analyse the work of others.

Is intrinsic values language being used to achieve extrinsic goals?

• Is values language mainly used in branding, marketing or headlines, while the actual journalism tells a different story?
• Is there a gap between the communities mentioned in an outlet's claims about values and those genuinely represented in the reporting?
• Are these values being highlighted more to support commercial or reputational goals than to reflect how the journalism is actually produced?
• Would the same editorial decisions be made if the values framing was removed?

Does the work use extrinsic framing to serve intrinsic goals?

• Is an economic argument used to justify something the journalist in fact judges to be important for reasons of care, equality or community?
• Does the framing suggest the subject, such as people, nature or a community, only matters if it's useful or profitable, rather than valuable in its own right?
• Is there a gap between the evident motivation behind the story and the frame used to tell it?

Is this authentic?

• Does the editorial practice reflect the stated values across coverage over time, not just in one story?
• Are communities invoked in values statements genuinely present in the journalism, as active voices rather than illustrative examples?
• Is there evidence of genuine discomfort or self-questioning when practice falls short of stated values?
• Is there transparency about the tensions between values and commercial or editorial pressures?

A values circle is a small group (three to six people) of journalists who meet regularly to explore values in their work, share challenges and strategies, and support each other's growth. It is a community of practice, not a training programme.

How to start

Find your people: Colleagues in your organisation, freelancers in your professional network, journalists at other outlets doing similar work. A mix of roles, experience and backgrounds is helpful. Meet regularly, create a space for honest reflection without judgement. Maintain confidentiality about what is shared.

Traditional metrics (reach, clicks, shares) don’t capture what values-aware journalism offers. The journalism industry is already moving toward richer measures of engagement, loyalty and impact because these better reflect what sustainable media looks like. Values-aware journalism is very much aligned with these shifts. Some approaches to consider: