To my understanding, news editors choose what to spread based on three criteria: validity, importance and interestingness, among which the one comes first takes the priority.

Some argue that nowadays we are fed with too much negative information, or bad news, as they call it, which serves us no good. Knowing who got shot where, they believe, is not helping with our lives. People holding such views consider most bad news irrelevant and distracting. They find detailed reports and graphic coverage exceeds their expectation, and thus accuse the media of giving "too much information".

I believe, however, that the truth is just the opposite. In a world where people are ever more connected, it is of grave importance for any one with ambition to acquire up-to-date information, and knowing what is happening now on this planet is a big part of it. This is where mass media come in. It is in the nature of media to keep their audiences informed, whether they like it or not. Moreover, good or bad is not a judgment that should be past on by readers, while the job of news editors is only to provide them with enough information to make that judgment. True as it is that objectivity is a rule hard to observe, it is no excuse for news editors to make moral distinctions among the news they report.

Hence my opinion, to sum up, is that news should be reported as they come to show people the reality.  Priorities can be arranged according to importance and interestingness attached to the news, but it should by no means harm the validity of news report. News editors should not judge the news as good or bad as they report, and manipulated cherry-picking should be considered as a violation of professionalism.