The System that Fuels Media Negativity

Lehan Edirisinghe and Elle Trump March 21, 2023

Watch Facts Elle's

Key takeaways

- A study of approximately 20,000 COVID-19 news articles found that 87% of American coverage was negative, compared with roughly 50% internationally. Published in early 2021, the research also found that America's most popular news outlets were even more negative than average, consistent with the idea that audience competition rewards alarming coverage.

“the nation’s most popular news sources trend even more negative than average performers.” — Narrator

- COVID-19 news coverage often remained negative regardless of whether infections were rising or falling. The research described found little, and sometimes inverse, correlation between case counts and negative reporting, potentially preventing audiences from recognizing when conditions were improving.

“Things always felt at their worst, so it never felt like the moment for a reprieve.” — Narrator

- Persistently alarming pandemic coverage may have contributed to poorly timed public-health restrictions. The narrator argues that limited public tolerance for mask mandates, school closures, and border restrictions could be exhausted during relatively safer periods, making it harder to sustain precautions when hospitalizations and deaths were rising.

- Commercial journalism can amplify negativity because both reporters and audiences favor threatening information. Journalists gravitate toward alarming stories, editors approve them, and audiences reward them with attention, creating competitive pressure for increasingly negative coverage even when individual reports are accurate.

“It is mostly accurate, it mostly conveys the truth, but weighting matters.” — Narrator

- Negative news can receive priority over positive discoveries offering much greater benefits. The narrator illustrates this with a hypothetical choice between a vaccine improving survival chances by 50% and a crime wave reducing them by 5%, arguing that the more frightening crime story may win audience attention.

“In our heads, problems feel far more significant than potential” — Narrator

- American presidents seeking reelection face greater electoral punishment for economic deterioration than rewards for comparable improvement. The narrator cites research demonstrating this asymmetry and proposes that disproportionate attention to economic problems may leave voters less informed about improvements achieved during a president's term.

“making the economy 5% worse matters a lot more to the electorate than making the economy 5% better” — Narrator

- Public broadcasters in Britain and Australia face weaker commercial incentives toward negative reporting than American news organizations. The BBC and ABC rely on public funding rather than primarily competing for advertising attention, but dependence on politically authorized funding creates a different threat to editorial independence.

“there’s really no perfect option” — Narrator

- Negativity bias may be an evolutionary survival mechanism operating in a modern information environment. The narrator cites stronger negative responses among women than men as consistent with differing ancestral survival pressures, while acknowledging that researchers cannot directly prove whether the bias originated through evolution or cultural learning.

All points

2299 words

- Humans react more strongly to negative information than equally significant positive information. This psychological tendency, known as negativity bias, has been repeatedly demonstrated in academic research. Unpleasant experiences, threats, and embarrassing memories tend to attract more attention and provoke stronger reactions than comparable positive experiences.

- The human threat response rapidly redirects the body's resources toward survival. When someone encounters danger, hormones including epinephrine and cortisol trigger increased heart rate, faster breathing, heightened visual attention, muscle tension, and reduced digestive activity. These changes prepare the body to assess, confront, or escape a threat.

- Negativity bias may have developed through natural selection. The video proposes that prehistoric humans who responded more strongly to danger were more likely to survive and reproduce, passing on traits associated with heightened threat sensitivity. This is presented as an evolutionary explanation rather than a directly proven account of the bias's origins.

- Researchers cannot conclusively establish whether negativity bias is inherited or culturally learned. Although the bias itself is well documented, the narrator acknowledges that social experience could explain some of its development. Negative experiences might receive greater attention because they genuinely have stronger social consequences, encouraging people to respond accordingly.

- The video argues that prehistoric fathers and mothers faced different evolutionary pressures. Its proposed model suggests that fathers benefited from taking risks to obtain food, while mothers faced stronger immediate pressure to survive pregnancy and protect their children. These different survival requirements are offered as a possible explanation for differences in threat sensitivity.

- Men are described as exhibiting a weaker negativity bias than women. The narrator cites research indicating that both sexes respond disproportionately to negative stimuli, but that the effect is generally stronger among women. The video interprets this as supporting its evolutionary hypothesis, although the reported difference does not independently establish its cause.

- Human threat sensitivity developed long before modern information technology. The narrator argues that biological responses suited to prehistoric survival now operate in an environment dominated by television, the internet, and constant information exposure. Human psychology has not necessarily adapted at the same pace as the technologies delivering information.

- Negativity bias influences journalists before stories reach the public. Reporters may be more inclined to pitch negative developments because these appear more important, urgent, interesting, or likely to engage an audience. The narrator suggests that this preference can operate subconsciously rather than through deliberate manipulation.

- Editorial institutions can reinforce negative story selection. Editors deciding which stories to approve, publishers determining what receives attention, and journalism awards recognizing particular work may all be influenced by the same preference for negative information. The resulting selection process can favor negative coverage at several institutional levels.

- Audiences financially and socially reward negative journalism. Bad news attracts clicks, views, engagement, outrage, and attention. News organizations therefore have commercial incentives to produce more of the material their audiences respond to most strongly.

- Negativity in journalism results from both human psychology and media-system incentives. Biological sensitivity to threats helps explain why people produce and consume negative information, but it does not fully explain why news organizations in some countries publish substantially more negative coverage than others.

- Journalists do not share a universally accepted definition of news. Some use identifiable criteria to determine newsworthiness, others apply different criteria, and some rely primarily on professional judgment. The absence of a consistent operational definition leaves considerable discretion over which events receive coverage.

- The purpose of journalism remains contested. The narrator identifies unresolved questions about whether news primarily provides entertainment or a public service, whether governments or independent organizations should provide it, and whether news institutions ultimately serve the public, the state, shareholders, or other stakeholders.

- A country's media institutions reveal its practical understanding of journalism. Regardless of abstract definitions, the stories organizations repeatedly choose to publish demonstrate what their society and media system treat as newsworthy and what purposes journalism is expected to serve.

- American journalism operates within a predominantly private, competitive, for-profit media environment. The narrator identifies this structure as a likely contributor to American news coverage being especially negative, with commercial pressure rewarding stories that attract and retain audiences.

- Observers have long argued that American news is unusually negative and becoming more so. However, the narrator notes that proving the extent of this difference across countries was historically difficult because countries experience different events and interpret their importance differently.

- The COVID-19 pandemic created an unusual opportunity to compare international news coverage. Because the pandemic affected nearly every country simultaneously, researchers could examine how different media systems reported on the same broad crisis rather than comparing unrelated national events.

- A study published in early 2021 examined approximately 20,000 English-language COVID-19 news articles. Researchers compared reporting from American and international news sources, using the prevalence of negative words and expressions to assess the tone of pandemic coverage.

- Approximately 87% of American COVID-19 coverage was classified as negative. The study reported this figure across the American sources it examined, suggesting that negative framing overwhelmingly dominated their reporting during the period studied.

- International COVID-19 coverage was approximately 50% negative. Across much of 2020, the international sources examined remained around that level, compared with the substantially higher 87% reported for American sources. The difference suggests that coverage of the same global emergency varied significantly between media systems.

- The most popular American news sources were even more negative than the average American outlet. The study found greater negativity among leading sources, which the narrator interprets as evidence that audience attention rewards and reinforces negative reporting.

- A competitive news industry can amplify even a small audience preference for negative stories. The narrator proposes a hypothetical situation in which negative news attracts just 10% more attention. Competition for limited audience attention could push publishers toward increasingly negative coverage, producing a much larger shift in editorial output than the original attention advantage.

- Negativity can create a self-reinforcing cycle between audiences and publishers. News organizations produce negative coverage because it attracts attention; audiences encounter more negative material and continue rewarding it. The narrator argues that this feedback loop can make an entire news environment increasingly negative without requiring deliberate coordination.

- Negative reporting can also serve a constructive purpose. The narrator acknowledges that publicizing problems can encourage people to confront them and seek solutions. Negativity is therefore not necessarily harmful in every circumstance; its value depends partly on whether it helps society respond to genuine problems.

- Attention-driven journalism may prioritize relatively minor dangers over major positive developments. The narrator illustrates this with a hypothetical choice between reporting a medical breakthrough that improves survival chances by 50% and a crime wave that reduces them by 5%. The crime story may attract more viewers despite the breakthrough potentially offering substantially greater benefits.

- Excessive negative coverage can carry an opportunity cost. If positive discoveries receive insufficient attention, people may fail to learn about treatments, improvements, or opportunities that could materially benefit them. The narrator argues that this imbalance could even cause preventable deaths in the hypothetical medical example.

- The public may become more focused on solving problems than capturing opportunities. The narrator suggests that potential gains often feel less urgent than existing threats, even when the gains could have a much larger practical impact.

- The tone of COVID-19 reporting did not consistently reflect the severity of the pandemic. Research discussed in the video found that negativity in pandemic news sometimes had little correlation, or even an inverse correlation, with contemporary case counts. Coverage could remain intensely negative even when conditions were improving.

- Constantly negative COVID-19 coverage may have distorted public perceptions of changing risk. Although infection levels rose and fell, audiences receiving consistently alarming news might not have felt that conditions were becoming better or worse. The narrator argues that this made it harder to distinguish periods of particularly high danger from periods of relative improvement.

- Pandemic precautions involved costs as well as protective benefits. The narrator identifies mask mandates, school closures, and border restrictions as interventions whose usefulness depended partly on the timing and duration of their implementation. He argues that these costs became clearer in retrospect.

- Public tolerance for prolonged restrictions may have been a limited resource. In a hypothetical 36-month pandemic, the narrator imagines a community willing to tolerate only 12 months of mask mandates. Under those conditions, concentrating restrictions during periods of rapidly rising hospitalizations and deaths might have been more effective than implementing them early and maintaining them until public tolerance declined.

- Restrictions applied during periods of falling infections may have reduced the ability to sustain them when risk increased. The narrator suggests that insufficiently differentiated news coverage contributed to this problem by making every stage of the pandemic feel equally dangerous. He acknowledges that determining the optimal timing of interventions is easier retrospectively.

- A failure to distinguish changing levels of danger can undermine rational public-health decisions. If news remains equally alarming regardless of actual conditions, governments and citizens may struggle to judge when precautions should be strengthened, relaxed, or reintroduced. The video presents distorted risk perception as a possible contributor, not a proven sole cause, of poor pandemic decisions.

- American presidents seeking reelection are penalized more for economic deterioration than rewarded for comparable improvement. The narrator refers to research suggesting that a 5% worsening of economic conditions carries a greater electoral penalty than the benefit associated with a 5% improvement.

- Uneven economic coverage may contribute to how voters assess presidential performance. The narrator proposes that improvements receive less attention than deterioration, leaving voters less aware of positive accomplishments. This is offered as a possible explanation for asymmetric electoral responses rather than as a conclusively established cause.

- Negativity bias may distort democratic accountability. If voters give substantially more weight to failures than achievements, they may not consistently reward the politicians who produce the greatest overall improvement. The narrator suggests that elections can become contests over which candidate appears less damaging rather than which has delivered better results.

- News can communicate individually accurate facts while presenting a distorted picture of society. The narrator compares journalism to a distorted mirror: stories may be truthful, but their selection, frequency, and relative prominence can misrepresent the broader balance of events.

- The quantity and repetition of negative stories influence public perceptions of reality. Audiences draw conclusions not only from individual reports but also from how often particular developments appear. Repeated emphasis on danger and failure can make those developments seem more representative of society than they actually are.

- A consistently distorted information environment can influence both personal and political decisions. The narrator argues that inaccurate perceptions of the relative importance of events can affect how individuals assess risk, evaluate opportunities, judge governments, and make choices.

- People may gradually lose their ability to judge how distorted the news is. Extending the mirror analogy, the narrator argues that audiences exposed primarily to negative coverage may recognize that it is imperfect without understanding the scale of the distortion. Without alternative perspectives, the negative picture becomes their main reference point for reality.

- British and Australian media are presented as substantially less negative than American media. The narrator highlights the United Kingdom and Australia as culturally comparable countries whose different news environments suggest that institutional arrangements can influence the tone of journalism.

- Public broadcasting is identified as a major difference between the American, British, and Australian media systems. The BBC in Britain and ABC in Australia are described as influential institutions that operate under different financial incentives from heavily advertising-dependent commercial news outlets.

- Public broadcasters can prioritize informational value over maximum audience attention. Because their funding is less directly dependent on clicks, ratings, and advertising revenue, these organizations have greater room to provide coverage based on perceived public benefit rather than immediate commercial appeal.

- Public funding changes the definition of success for a news organization. The narrator argues that publicly supported broadcasters must demonstrate that they provide a service the public considers worthwhile, rather than simply maximizing the number of viewers attracted to individual stories.

- Government-funded journalism faces a different conflict of interest. Public broadcasters depend on political institutions to maintain or authorize their funding, potentially creating pressure to avoid aggressively criticizing those institutions.

- Public broadcasters can face accusations of insufficient scrutiny of political leaders. The narrator points to recurring controversies over whether publicly funded news organizations properly challenge the governments responsible for their financial support.

- The trade-off between commercial and public broadcasting involves editorial balance and institutional independence. The video argues that advertising-supported journalism faces pressure to become more negative, while publicly funded journalism faces risks to political autonomy. Neither arrangement is presented as a perfect solution.

- The realistic goal is to reduce negativity bias rather than eliminate it entirely. The narrator concludes that some degree of bias is unavoidable because journalists, audiences, editors, and institutions all operate under human psychological tendencies and structural incentives. The central question is how much distortion a media system produces.

- Access to information is increasingly affected by national restrictions on the internet. The narrator describes a trend toward geographically fragmented access through government censorship, legislation, and country-specific versions of websites, despite the internet's potential to provide globally accessible information.

- Geographic restrictions can prevent users from accessing news published in other countries. The narrator recounts encountering British news reports on YouTube that were blocked in the United States and American websites that were inaccessible while traveling in Europe because of restrictions associated with GDPR.

- The video presents location-based internet restrictions as another obstacle to accessing diverse information. Its discussion of censorship and regional blocking reinforces the broader importance of access to different sources, although the subsequent VPN segment primarily serves as sponsored promotion.