Despite the formidable consequences for firms of having their misconduct publicized-and thus scandalized-we know little about why only some misconduct instances become scandals beyond the idea that high-status firms' transgressions are scandalized more often. Focusing on the media's essential role in scandalizing misconduct, we take a media routines perspective to theorize how the status of past transgressors inside and outside the focal transgressor's industry creates different contexts that shape the likelihood of scandalization. We argue that the prevalence of past transgressions by high-status firms within the industry leads journalists to scrutinize the misconduct more, amplifying the effect of the focal firm's status by highlighting its commonalities with past transgressors. Conversely, the prevalence of transgressions by high-status firms outside the industry attenuates the firm status effect on scandalization by directing media attention outside the industry, limiting the information that can be inferred from firm status. Past transgressors' status and their categorical proximity to current transgressors serve as boundary conditions for the scandalizing effect of status. Our contribution lies in elucidating contextual factors that influence how status acts as an antecedent of scandals, and explaining how status and categories feed media routines that influence the likelihood of firm misconduct being scandalized.