Media always reporting bad news

**Addict** · 09-16-2005, 11:37 AM

A complaint often heard is that media only reports the bad stuff, and makes things seem worse than they are. I thought this was an interesting article about a recent day in Iraq that illistrated from a reporter's perspective the dilemna of what to lead the news with, stories of things going well or things going poorly. I'm not sure what conclusion to dar from it, or if it suggests something that can be done differently to balance the news?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9355409/site/newsweek/

**Tempus** · 09-16-2005, 11:45 AM

I feel that one of the media's responsibilities is to keep the goverment in check. That, consequently, often means reporting on negative things.

And of course, there's the old adage... "If it bleeds, it leads.."

**Wolfie** · 09-16-2005, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by Tempus

I feel that one of the media's responsibilities is to keep the goverment in check. That, consequently, often means reporting on negative things.

Correct, it is the media's responsibility to report on our governments. However, it is also up to them to insure that both sides of the story are being told and let the readers decide for themselves. Too often, the news groups tend to tell one-sided stories.

**Darkstar68** · 09-16-2005, 03:37 PM

Well - I think Fox is fair and balanced, and thier anchors are consummate professionals.

**Tempus** · 09-16-2005, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by Darkstar68

Well - I think Fox is fair and balanced, and thier anchors are consummate professionals.

I am positive you forgot the

at the end of that.

**Darkstar68** · 09-16-2005, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by Tempus

I am positive you forgot the

at the end of that.

Sorry - lol

**Vegas** · 09-16-2005, 08:46 PM

The problem with the media is that it always report the exception to the rule. So those on the outside looking in, and take it as gospel, see a very distorted pervese picture for the most part opposite, of what's really generally happening.

**USN_Squid** · 09-17-2005, 02:54 AM

Originally Posted by Darkstar68

Well - I think CBS, CNN, NPR, PBS, ABC, Air America are fair and balanced, and thier anchors are consummate professionals.

Fixed

**Wolfie** · 09-19-2005, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by USN_Squid

Fixed

Wasn't Dan Rather an anchor for CBS?

**improbablecause** · 09-19-2005, 01:27 PM

Good news doesn't sell. Do you honestly want to hear about a 11-year-old boy helping a blind grandmother cross a busy street and then, subsequently, read a biography on the 11-year-old boy's life of goodness? If you said yes, I'll have to put it bluntly... you're a liar.

The reason there isn't "good news" is because nobody wants to read or hear it. The idealistic view of what news should be doing is very different from reality. What's the reason for this? It isn't partisan crap that a certain side of the political spectrum likes to claim. It's because the audience wants the bad news. Whether it's to prove and solidify one's beliefs as correct, or whether it's to bitch and whine about (which, paradoxically, also solidifies one's personal beliefs)... bad news is the only news worth reading.

There has even been research done on a topic similar to this. Given a negative event and a positive event, people are more likely to tell others about the negative event than they are the positive event. That is, negative news spreads faster than positive news.

Just as you enjoy slowing down and surveying the carnage of a multiple vehicle pile-up, you enjoy news about the misfortunes of others. As one of my past professors would say: "It's schadenfreude... and I know you love it."