She told me that you basically need to lie. If your ideas contradict the narrative, or are complicated in any way, you need to come up with a baby version of those ideas that doesn't contradict any sacred journalistic beliefs. Even then you'll face an uphill battle.
There aren't many "sacred journalistic beliefs" beyond "don't take things at face value" and "coffee is necessary."
Also, "don't take things at face value" looks about as dead in modern journalism as their revenue streams.
Here's an example from a few years back. Journalists got a bee in their bonnet that Costco wasn't into MBAs. That must be the key to their success, relative to Walmart!
http://washingtonmonthly.com/2013/06/09/the-secret-of-costco...
The wonkish answer - fewer SKUs, less labor intensive process involving higher skill workers, more affluent customers - is unfortunately too boring to be picked up.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/26/why-can-t-w...
See also discussions of high frequency trading, basic income, algorithmic discrimination, and a variety of others. Algorithms wearing klan robes and voting Trump is a good story, but a stats 101 lecture explaining why linear regression doesn't do that is a very boring story.