What happens to all that information and observations, what e.g. journalists and photographers gather and store? Will the most usable material always become perceivable by readers and viewers? What here means "the most usable material"? Does it mean that reader/viewer gets to sneer or smile even once or that he will think that "broadness and level of details is exactly what I would have asked them to aim at so that I can make up my own opinion about the subject"?

If phone conversation lasted for almost 20 minutes and eventually there is only a short comment like "In my opinion.. no.", then it probably means that some parts of the phone conversation didn’t get released to the public. Sometimes space or time related restrictions affect largely what fits in and there still seems to be enough for a general reader to consume, but that doesn’t erase the possibility that the producing organization or individual journalists etc. could just keep "best parts" to themselves.

By interviewing and talking to people belonging to multiple demographic, psychographic and behavioral segments (marketing terms), it is possible to gather lots of information and certainly not all of that can be published, because the potentially huge amount of information doesn’t fit to any kind publication other than to a book. Will journalists, producing organizations etc. throw away everything that isn’t relatively immediately used? Will they also ask questions from interviewees that aren’t related to a main subject and what happens to those answers? Will they sell the leftovers and "extra material" or exchange them to something else?

Finnish publication Taloussanomat showed an example of how to not tell what is relevant and keep many of their readers from bothering to dig deeper by publishing a news piece about research conducted by researchers of the Cornwell university. The researchers had been analyzing mood changes of people, who tweet (send Twitter messages). Taloussanomat handled telling about the research by using amusing comment (translated): "Do we really need researcher to tell us that in the mornings our mood is better?" Taloussanomat didn’t tell how sophisticated researchers’ methods were even when it would probably have been very interesting to many of its readers. They could have told about the following in layman’s terms, but usual to them they didn’t bother to make their readers "too wise":

"We measured PA and NA using Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC), a prominent lexicon for text analysis (17). The LIWC lexicon was designed to analyze diverse genres of text, such as e mails, speeches, poems, or transcribed daily speech. LIWC contains lists of words or word stems that measure 64 behavioral and psychological dimensions, including PA and NA, as well as anxiousness, anger, and inhibition. These lists were created using emotion rating scales and thesauruses and validated by independent judges."

Sure it might be so that journalist, who wrote about the research didn’t even bother to take a look at the full text and decided to read just the abstract text – how lazy should that be seen? – but it is also possible that more meaningful information was stored to some computer system of its parent company (Sanoma, a media group with operations in over 10 European countries).