Why do we only get the bad news?

Take the Iraq thing for example. Everytime somebody dies, we here about it. But you don't see much about the good things going on.

Some people think it's the "liberal media", but I don't think so. It's the "corporate media". Bad news = ratings. It's not about a political agenda. There is no conspiracy. It's about the $.

(note: this is not an Iraq thread per se, it's just the most obvious example)

 

On the whole, people just aren't interested in good news as much as they are bad news (of course, one person's bad news can be another person's good news).

If you take a room of one hundred people and 95 are positive, most of the attention will be focused on the five who are negative.

Same goes for the world in general.

 

Some people think it's the "liberal media", but I don't think so. It's the "corporate media". Bad news = ratings. It's not about a political agenda. There is no conspiracy. It's about the $.

So very true. Could also explain why shows like Jerry Springer are so popular - for some reason, one person's pain/anguish is another's entertainment.

 

"If it Bleeds, it Leads!!"

I forget where I heard that, but unfortunately, lets face it, bad news is always more newsworthy then good news.

 

The media thrives off of bad news due to ratings. Certain networks are, I'll say, 'selective' in which stories take prominence and how they are presented.

I'm a skeptic of broadcast and print journalism, especially in New York and L.A.

 

Well, not to break up the hugfest or anything, but we don't get all the bad news.

Take for example the number of troops injured during the war in Iraq. I believe it is over 2000 people. People that have lost arms or legs or have severe brain injuries. You never hear about them on the news.

 

Well, not to break up the hugfest or anything, but we don't get all the bad news.

Take for example the number of troops injured during the war in Iraq. I believe it is over 2000 people. People that have lost arms or legs or have severe brain injuries. You never hear about them on the news.

Lost limbs and brain injuries are good news?

Although I guess you mean that it is "less worse than death.."

What I think people mean by "good news" is something to put the action into perspective..

Something like:

2 soldiers were killed or injured, but their sacrafice wasn't for nothing, because 3 new schools were built for the poor..

Or that after listening to people's concerns, the Marines built the first ever woman's center in Iraq.. The center helps battered women, and provides childcare..

Everyone should realize that this is a sacrafice, but we aren't regularly shown a sense of scale...

 

"Why do we only get the bad news?"

Because people won't watch otherwise.
People say they don't like seeing all the bad news, people say put more good news on, but plain numbers show that not what people tune in for. If a newscast has a lot (I don't mean the whole show) of feel good, happy stuff you can hear the millions of TV sets being changed to another channel.

This is similar to what people say about the porn industry. It bad, get rid of it. No one admits to buying the stuff but it is a multi-million dollar industry.

 

Mr.44, I think you misunderstood me. I was saying all the injuries and stuff were bad news that we never here about, basically replying to the question that we don't actually here all the bad news.

 

Speaking as someone who works in the news media, I can say most of you are right.
Good news doesn't sell. but also know that most news media are owned by people. And most of those people are liberals.
If there were a Democratic president, there would be more stories of the good coming out of Iraq then the bad.
Do you know how much it sucks to sit here and listen to first hand accounts on the good the army is doing, only to have to program the bad?
It SUCKS! But, people wouldn't tune in if it was all...
"We established more schools in Iraq than they previously had."
Iraqi's now have running water in more places then before the war."
"Most of the weapons being used in Iraq came from France and russia, not us."

Nobody wants to hear that. Especially as it gets closer to election time.

 

Sometimes you just gotta look for the good news. I have a friend that works at the Auburn Journal named Steph Swanburg. Her writing is a good example of how bad news can be delivered in such a way that positive things come out of it.

 

You can't totally blame the media for it. It's human psychology. Hearing good stuff about somebody else makes people envious, and hearing bad stuff makes them feel better about themselves. "Oh, J.Lo can't keep a man, either, so it must not be my hideous personality and complete lack of hygeine that keeps me single". So they don't want to hear that something's improved for somebody else - it reflects badly on them, in their minds.

This is why the nation is so quick to forgive things a politician's sexual indiscretions or overlook their past substance problems, and so on: it brings them down a notch. Suddenly, by being in the position to "forgive" or "overlook" the indiscretions of someone as powerful as a politician, we imagine ourselves more important than they are.

Which is a joke, of course. But it ain't the media's fault we think that way.

 

Theres also the issue that, well most of this "good news" isn't especialy "news" per say......can anyone make an argument that we should have "Hurrah! We weren't bombed today" on the front page of every newspaper?...

What sort of comparison between news-worthy-good-news and news-worthy-bad-news are we looking at here? Just today two more helicopters were downed, but we're also continuing to rebuild the same buildings we demolished just months ago.

Its not simply a matter of the "If it bleeds, it leads" mentality, but actualy which is more significant...and personaly, i see it as more significant that we loose a dozen or more troops in a day, than being told that "all is going acording to plan"...

 

I wouldn't blame it on the media. The reason they give the bad news is because it sells, which is a sad fact. For instance, the NY Post is one of those "spit out your coffee upon reading the headline" publications. In fact, anything scandalous, controversial, or wild and exciting will easily sell, which can lead media people to distorting their stories in order to get ratings/profits.

On the flip side, sometimes we get only the good news and not much of the bad. Example--showing war in the media. Sometimes when you read papers or watch the evening news, you'd think that nothing bad happened. Sure, you hear about X number of soldiers killed and things like that, but hardly anything more. A lot of that is because of the Vietnam War, when people saw every little thing, good and bad, that was happening. The government realized that wasn't good for its image, so now we don't even see the caskets coming back from Iraq. This is all just one example of seeing more good than bad, though, so I don't know if it really holds up as a general fact.

 

Good news sell well, but they had better be really good ones, like those, for the most recent example, show the victories of the allies against Saddam.

Or the whole Jessica Lynch fiasco.

 

I admittedly don't watch much TV news, but the last good news I remember seeing on TV concerning the situation in Iraq was the tumbling of the statue.

I don't really count the Lynch thing cause that was mostly a propoganda situation.

 

SoK: I don't really count the Lynch thing cause that was mostly a propoganda situation.

Now thats interesting commentary. What characteristics of the Lynch media fenzy makes it propaganda? Why is it not just good news? Could such a story be told without being interpreted as propaganda? The question really: is not all good news essencially propaganda?

 

I think the Lynch thing would be considred good news if the story died shortly after it developed. Instead it lingered on and on, she has her own movie, been on tv interviews, has her picture everywhere. Face it, its propaganda.

 

It was exaggerated beyond belief. The reports given were misleading. And I could swear I heard they taped the rescue operation.

"POW rescued" is good news. "OMG this chick went down fighting and we even TAPED her rescue and there's gonna be a movie and everything lol!" is propoganda.

 

The mass media over sentionalized the PFC Lynch rescure operation to be sure, but to claim that it was propaganda is a tad misleading, I believe.

On the whole, Saint, I think I agree with your point about only being granted widespread access to bad news because it typically sells better.

I recall reading an article in Reader's Digest about a newspaper entitled Good News that had an overt objective of only reporting 'good' stories.

It went belly-up after less than a year...

 

"POW rescued" is good news.

If you remember though, that's all the government offcially released. (and about 15 secs of grainy night vision footage)

All the other media speculation was just that..

"OMG this chick went down fighting and we even TAPED her rescue and there's gonna be a movie and everything lol!" is propoganda.

The market then developed for her story, which the networks bidded on, etc... It was never forced by the government..

Now, I would agree that her story was encouraged by the government, but I wouldn't say it was manufactured..

 

Could it be that when you get the bad news, you feel elevated because you can see how good you are in comparison, and when you get good news it makes you feel bad about yourself because you are not there?

 

I'm just going to pop in and try not to be controversial. I used to be a journalism major (I'm a film major now) and the one thing drilled into our heads was that it's the unusual things that make a news story. "Dog Bites Man might be ok for your Tuesday headline but for Sunday, you want Man Bites Dog." Basically, as a race, human beings tend to run towards good things. We go about our lives, donate money, time, etc. and generally don't do evil things. So when bad things happen, it's not the common occurance. Most people don't leave their houses in the morning planning to kill someone. So those rare people that do make the news because they've done something different. That's not to say that they SHOULD make the news, just that they do because people aren't going to read or watch if they hear "John went to work today. Nothing out of the ordinary happened." And a lot of times, good things happen when something bad happens. Like that Jessica Lynch rescue. That wouldn't have happened if the war hadn't happened and regardless of whether or not you support the war, it's still a "bad thing." When a man saves someone from a burning house, it happened because the house caught on fire, which would be considered a "bad thing." I'm sorry if I'm rambling and don't make much sense right now. It's late and I've been up since 4 this morning. :-x I hate early crew calls. I'll have to pop back in here when I feel like I'm making more sense.

 

I hate America media and news programs most of the time. They only focus on things that will give them ratings. I also notice how some reporters don't care at all. The best example I can give is from the documentary Bowling for Columbine by Michael Moore. Near the end of the documentary, there was the mention of the death of an elementary schooler who was accidentally shot by one of her classmates who brought in a gun for "show and tell". Obviously, news reporters from many channels were there. One in particular Moore focused on was this one guy (I don't know his name nor what news channel he works/worked for), but when he was on camera to report the news he was very somber and meaningful. The minute the camera went off, he was joking it up with his colleagues and talked about how his hair looked. People like that are why I hate the general media. Nobody gives a damn other than scoring ratings.

But escaping that subject, just once, I'd like to watch the news and have there be as many "happy" stories as "tragic/bad" stories. But I doubt that will ever happen.