3 ms·

They are reporting mostly negative news because "positive" news is not newsworthy, and it has always been like that since newspapers have been invented. Nothing

They are reporting mostly negative news because "positive" news is not newsworthy, and it has always been like that since newspapers have been invented. Nothing has changed in that respect, and, frankly speaking, I'd be wary about people who want to hear more positive news just to feel a bit better about the world. As for TV channels, yes, they are all crap.

mercer 9y ago
Your point seems unrelated to that of the OP. NYTimes might be reporting negative news for good reason (I agree), but it might still be a cause for increased anxiety and perhaps consumed more sparingly. Personally I strongly agree. A lot of news consumption serves little purpose, and might very well have all sorts of negative effects. My solution is to avoid most news sources most of the time, read some updates occasionally or, ideally, use sources that write longer articles (that have the added benefit of context and filtering). Here in Holland we have one paper that has this as their mission statement (De Correspondent). For other perspectives or updates on other areas I mostly rely on a few newsletters and 'bigger picture' articles from various sources. Also my feed reeder for skimming.
- JohnStrange 9y ago
  My first point was that newspapers have not changed their reporting in any substantive ways over the past decades, so any perceived or measured increase of anxiety cannot have been directly caused by their reporting. Selectively picking news or overexposure to news sources could be part of the problem, though. Nytimes is not a major pusher of crisis. My second point was that the OP did not differentiate between newspapers and TV channels, but that their reporting is substantially different. I have no doubt that exposure to an abundance of 'news' TV channels such as Fox News or CNN, and their online services, can increase anxiety and maybe even distort people's views of the world. For example, the overall conditions for mankind is continuously improving in terms of standards of living, hygienic and medical standards, equality, absence of wars and major conflicts, etc., conditions have generally even improved in the worst regions of the world, but this is not commonly perceived that way. But the claim is that this effect is mostly due to TV, not due to newspapers and other news sources. Of course, I could be wrong about that, just wanted to clarify what I've meant. Finally, neither this nor any other statement I have made has anything to do with politics.

mercer 9y ago

Your point seems unrelated to that of the OP. NYTimes might be reporting negative news for good reason (I agree), but it might still be a cause for increased anxiety and perhaps consumed more sparingly. Personally I strongly agree. A lot of news consumption serves little purpose, and might very well have all sorts of negative effects. My solution is to avoid most news sources most of the time, read some updates occasionally or, ideally, use sources that write longer articles (that have the added benefit of context and filtering). Here in Holland we have one paper that has this as their mission statement (De Correspondent). For other perspectives or updates on other areas I mostly rely on a few newsletters and 'bigger picture' articles from various sources. Also my feed reeder for skimming.

JohnStrange 9y ago
My first point was that newspapers have not changed their reporting in any substantive ways over the past decades, so any perceived or measured increase of anxiety cannot have been directly caused by their reporting. Selectively picking news or overexposure to news sources could be part of the problem, though. Nytimes is not a major pusher of crisis. My second point was that the OP did not differentiate between newspapers and TV channels, but that their reporting is substantially different. I have no doubt that exposure to an abundance of 'news' TV channels such as Fox News or CNN, and their online services, can increase anxiety and maybe even distort people's views of the world. For example, the overall conditions for mankind is continuously improving in terms of standards of living, hygienic and medical standards, equality, absence of wars and major conflicts, etc., conditions have generally even improved in the worst regions of the world, but this is not commonly perceived that way. But the claim is that this effect is mostly due to TV, not due to newspapers and other news sources. Of course, I could be wrong about that, just wanted to clarify what I've meant. Finally, neither this nor any other statement I have made has anything to do with politics.