Politics, News & Issues >
News Industry
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedDo mainstream media outlets favor bad news over good news?
Results so far:
| Yes | 92% | 875 votes | Total: 955 votes | |
| No | 8% | 80 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to Favorites
Reporting bad news seems to be a practice internationally. For some reason tragedy seems to catch people's attention. The Japanese news program, NHK, broadcasts some of the most disturbing crimes and misdeeds. Japan is supposed to have a low crime rate, but what gets attention? Precious minutes in a 30 minute program are consumed reporting depressing crimes.
In addition to crimes, depressing social issues such as bullying in the schools are also covered. If one were to make a judgment about safety in Japan based on the news program, one might be afraid to visit.
The practice of the news media in the democratic countries reporting bad news is probably better than the practice of totalitarian countries which report only good news and avoid reporting any bad news. Well the totalitarian countries probably have to report only good news to keep their grip on the country and maintain the facade of a workers' paradise.
But it should not be a conflict of all bad news on the one hand and nothing but good news on the other. Negative news stories should be reported to make people aware of the challenges society faces. On the other hand an overemphasis on bad news can give one a distorted perspective. Television host, John Stossell, wanted to do a program entitled Scaring ourselves to death. His television company, ABC, wanted him to do a story on exploding cigarette lighters, but he thought the danger was overstated.
He obtained a chart of causes of death. And the leading cause was not exploding cigarette lighters. It was disease (heart disease?) Mr. Stossel's point was that one should put these possible dangers in perspective. However death by heart disease or cancer is not as sensational as death by exploding cigarette lighters.
A friend said he gave up on watching the news when one program dedicated about 50 minutes to depressing news with the remaining 10 minutes dedicated to something sweet. Perhaps one advantage to the Japanese news broadcast is that it is only half as long and maybe half as depressing.
One of the fortunate developments in this modern age is the internet. Instead of wading through an hours worth of depressing news, one can skim the headlines. And one is no longer dependent on three television stations. One can get news all over the world from different sources through the internets. One can make acquisition of the news less painful, by spending less time on the subject.
Learn more about this author, Guy Takamatsu.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
The President of the United States is assassinated. Bad News.
The hated President of a third world dictatorship is assassinated. Good News.
"Bad News" and "Good News" are only differentiated by perspective.
Interest rates go up. Bad news for people buying homes or borrowing money.
But great news for retirees relying on interest to live.
For every person in the world there is bad news which would be good news for someone else.
Many Western nations like the United Kingdom and Australia import doctors from third world countries. Good news for patients in Manchester or Melbourne, very bad news for patients in Lagos or Limpopo.
What is bad news for you, may not necessarily be bad news for me.
The price of oil goes up causing pain at the pump. Bad News.
The price of oil goes up and my oil company shares are paying higher dividends. Good News.
I'll always remember a scene in an old western of a happy undertaker measuring up people for after the coming shoot out. The more dead the happier he was. Sudden death was very good news for him. Very bad news for those who were about to die.
Editors may not be aware of it but they work with Newton's Third Law of Motion every day: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."
It's the same with "good" news and "bad" news.
They don't favour bad news over good news because it will always be up to the consumer on whether the news is good or bad, from their individual perspective.
So there is danger in every attempt to define amorphous concepts in journalistic endeavour.
There cannot be hard and fast rules in journalism as defining lines are constantly moving and social mores are constantly evolving.
(An individual wins $50 Million in a lottery. "Good News." I don't think so. "Bad News" for the millions of ticket holders who didn't win especially me!)
This may appear to be a simplistic approach, but the question is simplistic.
Editors would rarely consider in their daily routine if news is "good" or if it is "bad."
They consider news against a series of criteria which differs from editor to editor, culture to culture, medium to medium.
At the end of the day "good" and "bad" aren't words that come into final decision making.
They don't favour "bad" news over "good" news, they just don't take it into consideration.
It is up to the consumer to decide if news fits their own perspective on "good" and "bad" if it is an issue for them, and reject the media that doesn't fit.
There are millions of options.
Learn more about this author, Stewart Richmond.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- News Industry
- Can journalists in countries that are engaged in conflict be truly objective?
- Can media exposes on government abuse lead to reform?
- Does the media cause crime?
- Should cell phone text messaging be part of the Emergency Broadcast System?
- Should the government control talk radio to make it more "balanced"?
