Why Does Society Pay Attention To The Bad News Rather Than The Good News?

Of course this is all speculation on my behalf so I admit that I my hypothesis could be entirely wrong. As I mentioned earlier though, there has to be some psychological reason behind all of this. Now Im no psych expert, but I think its reasonable to assume that my argument has some merit to it.

Because people want to feel more fortunate or better than others. People would rather hear about someone who's life is much worse than theirs, so they can take pride in their life and feel like they have accomplished living or been "better" in a sense. Everyone is selfish as fuck and just wants to be top dog, so we would rather hear about the competition doing bad than doing well, makes us seem like we are in the lead

I am also not expert but maybe its because they want to get bad new into the new so we can try to fix it ?

chris.weinandI am also not expert but maybe its because they want to get bad new into the new so we can try to fix it ?

I agree with this in some sense. Don't get me wrong, some of the bad news out there is important to know about. But you can't tell me that the main reason why bad news is published is because it would help resolve what ever happened. Im sure there are some articles out there that have that intention, but I highly doubt that the majority of the news has that same intention. The major media outlets intention is to make as much profit as they can regardless of there story fixing a problem. I can guarantee the execs at these outlets are talking about that. There job is to make money for the company, its most certainly not that of a community relief worker. They could care less about that.

People like to be scared and angered, nice news wouldn't get half the ratings terrifying news gets. Notice how some news stories start off like: "did you know that doing (miscellaneous everyday activity) is killing you?"
But then again it is good to be aware of the worst of the worst so you won't assume that everyone is a kind and loving civilian when you speak your mind- that thinking can get you killed.

it is because when you hear good new you respond "oh isnt that great" and when you hear bad news you respond "what?! i need to know more"

which response would you prefer if you were in the business of selling news

I think you're reading way too much into this. Pretty sure it's simply because what would you report as good news? Someone getting up on the subway so a pregnant woman could sit down? Someone helping an old lady cross the street? Someone letting someone change lanes so they can make a turn they need to during rush hour traffic? Even people doing really good things (donating a bunch of money to charity, saving someone from a fire or something), generally has less repercussions than bad news. I think bad news is reported more simply because it makes a bigger impact on society than good news does, as well as brining up more complex, complicated issues. Nobody would debate that finding a cure for AIDS or something would be a good thing, but there is plenty of debate to be had about what to do about school shootings.

Its not all bad news u hear. Some of it is good

My mom does this too, I got a 33 on my ACT but all she can talk about is how I fell asleep driving or tore my face apart skiing

Media Corporations are just like any other business. They provide a service or product and in return receive profit. I think they like to report on bad news because that is what draws a crowd and starts controversy. And the more people talk about such things the more money the media makes. ABC news really shows this. They talk about the most depressing and controversial subjects that are in no way relevant to our lives but like I said will spark controversy and therefor they can talk about it for a week and people will listen. I feel the media is a good example of how dumb of a society we are as a whole. Just go on a news outlets Facebook page and read the comments on the stories. It will truly make you want to cry.


They don't care about us, they care about how full their wallets are.

bad news sells more. its shitty, but CNN/MSNBC/FOX love tragic shit, i think. they know everyones gonna be glued to their TV's whenever tons of people get killed, or anything tragic and major happens. it makes them lots of money.

Because humans are, by instinct, really fucked up.

If you need any sort of help shaping your perspective of the human race, listen to Rust Cohle:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LejnTJL173Y

good news is nice to hear for about 5 seconds but you're never gonna get anywhere in life if you don't focus on fixing what's wrong. not paying attention to the bad news is generally regarded as ignorance, and ignorance is bliss, and bliss isn't productive. maybe your life is so fucking great that you don't have to solve problems, but chances are that not paying attention to problems is the biggest thing holding you back. that guy who never did anything because he thought everything was perfect, well nobody else thought he was worth mentioning.

k-robgood news is nice to hear for about 5 seconds but you're never gonna get anywhere in life if you don't focus on fixing what's wrong. not paying attention to the bad news is generally regarded as ignorance, and ignorance is bliss, and bliss isn't productive. maybe your life is so fucking great that you don't have to solve problems, but chances are that not paying attention to problems is the biggest thing holding you back. that guy who never did anything because he thought everything was perfect, well nobody else thought he was worth mentioning.

If ignorant because you don't pay attention to the bad news then wouldn't that mean that everyone who doesn't isn't productive? That doesn't seem possible IMO. If thats what made you ignorant were than you'd have to be informed on every single piece of bad news to not be ignorant and that quite frankly is impossible. That is unless everyone is ignorant and if thats the case then you do have a point.

Society as a general population likes to hound on other peoples misfortunes. That and in addition to the medias agenda. Media today is all about driving ratings >>>$$$$$$. They need to put out what gets people to watch. Thats why many things fly under the radar which should actually be news. Its pathetic statement on the current way the media operates.

source: family works for NBC/CNBC and she tells me this all the time

WoldsWorldIf ignorant because you don't pay attention to the bad news then wouldn't that mean that everyone who doesn't isn't productive? That doesn't seem possible IMO. If thats what made you ignorant were than you'd have to be informed on every single piece of bad news to not be ignorant and that quite frankly is impossible. That is unless everyone is ignorant and if thats the case then you do have a point.

wut

did OP just do molly for the first time?

Very good questions OP. I think some of your conclusions are very accurate. We do compare our lives to what we see in the news. Bad news can make us feel good (depending what the "bad news" is), and good news can make us feel bad (depending on what the "good news" is).

But your line of reasoning gets a big muddled when you make the point about people feeling that they're morally straight people because they're not in the "bad news".

Sure, "bad news" provides us with "bad guys" who we can use as counterpoints to strengthen our image of ourselves as "good": dictators, war criminals, pederasts, and those dirty, dirty drug dealers, for example. People love to point fingers at "evil", "bad" people, and this is definitely a big reason why we see so much news about them.

But remember, "bad news" isn't just about "bad guys" - though they are a powerful trope. "Bad news" is also about hurricanes, floods, diseases, earthquakes, plane crashes, car accidents, and other acts that don't implicate a "bad guy" or any other moral judgement-making.

The truth is that "bad news" is simply more sensational; and sensational, eye-catching, attention-demanding news is what sells; and the media is a marketplace. Ergo: if it bleeds, it leads.

Humans are hard-wired to respond to a few different things. Sex is one of them. Fear is another. Stories about tragedies captivate us. They stimulate our adrenaline, our fear, our sympathy.

"Good news" just doesn't seem to have the same effect. If the stories are sensational, maybe they have a chance: Long-lost lovers separated by war reunited after 60 years. Missile blows up Palestinian nursery, everyone survives unscathed. The Berlin Wall has fallen. Good news can definitely move us, too. But it often lacks the sensationalism of the bad news.

Another appeal of "bad news" for humans is our fascination with transgression. Have you noticed the proliferation of mystery and crime novels? Or all the crime shows on TV? Culturally we are transfixed by acts that cross the lines in our society. Our cultural conditioning or moral foundation may make us look upon rapists, pedophiles, gangsters, corrupt politicians and so on with condemnation or disgust; but at the same time, we are shocked (sometimes, it seems, almost with admiration) at the boldness of their crimes.

Finally, on a totally different tangent, in our free-press society it's the job of the media to be the watchdog of the state. If someone anywhere is up to no good, it's the job of the media to know and report about it. If a white cop has shot an unarmed black kid, or if the educational systems of the country are failing, or if a politician is getting some under-the-table kickbacks from a businessman who profits from the politician's policies, then these are things that the media should and will report. Will those reports still be influenced by all of the above factors, including the sensationalism of the story, the demands of the market, and the political and personal interests of the writer, the editor, and the publisher of the story? Yes.