We know how much information is passing through into our unconscious on a daily basis – right! So how is it that some people (or dare I say the majority) are so attracted to bad / sad news? All that negativity being sucked in and processed and then stored to trigger wrong states / emotions at a later time cannot be a good thing!

Just wondering how much life would improve for planet Earth if we all read the Jolly Times, listened to Radio Giggle and watched the Blue Sky Happy News Channel on TV.

Or simply switch off and except that - No news is good news!

Martin

Martin Rayner wrote:

Just wondering how much life would improve for planet Earth if we all read the Jolly Times, listened to Radio Giggle and watched the Blue Sky Happy News Channel on TV.

The direct result of burying one's head up one's own arse is suffocation.

Michael_DeBusk wrote:

The direct result of burying one's head up one's own arse is suffocation.

Yes of course! – But it’s better to taste your own shit than someone else’s being rammed down your throat.
Martin

Michael_DeBusk wrote:

The direct result of burying one's head up one's own arse is suffocation.

Burying one's head is a result of not wanting to do anything about it. Worrying about not being able to do anything about it is a pointless waste of energy

Martin Rayner wrote:

So how is it that some people (or dare I say the majority) are so attracted to bad / sad news?

Schadenfreude.

More generally, people just don't seem to get the same emotional rush from good news that they do from bad news. A story about a dog saving its owner's life gets a quick, "Aw, how nice." A story about a dog chewing its owner's face off gets a much bigger and longer-lasting emotional reaction. Granted, the latter emotional reaction is "bad," but still, it's feeling something, and a lot of it.

What about fiction? When's the last time you read or watched a piece of fiction that didn't have conflict or sadness in it? A lot of popular fiction seems to be 95% "bad" emotions, with a 5% "good" emotional payoff at the end.

I'm pretty sure it's genetic. Even at the basal level, we seem to be driven by "bad" feelings (hunger, thirst, anger, etc.) that can last for hours or longer, but we're rewarded with "good" feelings (satiation, satisfaction, happiness, etc.) that usually wear off after a few minutes.

Martin Rayner wrote:

Yes of course! – But it’s better to taste your own shit than someone else’s being rammed down your throat.

I guess it's a good thing for me that those aren't the only two choices available.

Enjoy your shit.

Chris Johnson wrote:

Schadenfreude.

I doubt that. Schadenfreude is the taking of pleasure in others' misfortune. Do you define it differently?

I'm pretty sure it's genetic.

It is. Our survival depends on being responsive to threats, and we have to be aware of them to respond to them. Those of our species who did this well lived long enough to procreate. Those who didn't, didn't.

My personal choice is not to watch the news any more. Being aware of an earthquake on the other side of the world doesn't help me do much except feel powerless to help the people I can clearly see suffering. Same with the train wreck, the old people's home on fire and the missing five-year old. What can I do? The stories are real, gripping... and they rarely get resolved. As soon as you've started to digest one, we're onto the next. A conveyer belt of new and improved tensions, conflicts, problems, emergencies... and any decent person will feel emotional responses, but I agree with Martin - it's all pretty weird when you stop and think about it. Why do we keep tuning in?

I worked at Newsnight for a while and it was fascinating to learn about how a big news operation works and how they choose what is newsworthy. It's true that "good news" doesn't engage most people as much as "bad news". The viewer panels consistently show that people say they want happier stuff but they respond more - tune in more - for what we currently get... mostly doom and gloom.

I remember Jeremy Paxman saying that people want stories that put their own lives in context. If we see someone else drown, we are reminded that we aren't drowning. And, as Michael hints at above with the evolution reference, maybe we learn to swim better too... just in case.

It all depends what you want and how response-able you want to be. I think choosing the context and framing of your own life is probably the most powerful thing that anyone can do. That's why I'm picky about who I hang out with, what I read, what I watch, etc. It's not really about having a head in the sand. It's about realising that our experience of life can be pretty much whatever we make it be, so what kind of life do you really want?

chris_morris wrote:

It all depends what you want and how response-able you want to be. I think choosing the context and framing of your own life is probably the most powerful thing that anyone can do. That's why I'm picky about who I hang out with, what I read, what I watch, etc. It's not really about having a head in the sand. It's about realising that our experience of life can be pretty much whatever we make it be, so what kind of life do you really want?

Exactly!

You’ve tuned into my station!

C>E is in the Media in a negative way too much - but I guess bad / sad news sells.

Just let me know when ENGLAND wins the world cup!

Martin

Anyone short of good news could do well to read this, which just brought a happy tear to my eye.