users skewed younger (with 48% of respondents between 18 and 29). However, it does highlight many of the elements of filter bubbles and confirmation bias that exist within social media, particularly if individuals are receiving their news via sharing from others. What are their friends and connections on social media saying when they are sharing this news? Similar to a clickbait headline, their statement while sharing the news could have a major impact on the perception of the reader even if the content of the story and the statement do not match. When it comes to social media, not only could the content of the story be biased, but the person delivering the biased story could also be biased!
We are drawn to bad news. Many, if not all of us, say that there is too much bad news in TV and print today, but we are still drawn to it. Researchers at McGill University asked participants to select news stories to read for what they thought was an eye‐tracking study. They were told to select whichever stories they liked, positive or negative, and read them carefully for the purpose of the eye‐tracking study. They found that participants were drawn to the negative news far more than the positive news, even though they said that they preferred positive news. Kalev Leetaru used sentiment mining, a technique that analyzes the nature of text, whether positive or negative, on New York Times articles between 1945 and 2005, as well as a variety of other news sources from 130 countries between 1979 and 2010. Outside of the influence of major news events, the tone of the stories progressively became more negative, beginning in the 1960s. Although there were a few periods, such as the 1980s, where the stories became a bit more positive, the overall trend over the past several decades has been towards events and even tone that highlights threats, suffering, and controversy. As Sundar says, “The saying goes, ‘If it bleeds, it leads.’ This has been a mantra for even traditional newspapers and local TV channels for several decades now.”
The tiny part of the brain called the amygdala kicks into gear anytime we may sense danger. It is our warning signal when we might see a snake, a fire, or anything else that might be perceived as a threat. When the amygdala senses information that might indicate danger, it can increase heart rate and breathing, essentially activating hormones that prepare you to fight or flee. The amygdala is really important for our survival; think about centuries ago when we saw a wild animal approach us. The amygdala automatically activates our fight or flight response, triggered by emotions such as fear, anxiety, or anger. Regarding the news, the amygdala senses danger when it hears of bad news – even it that danger is far away, it draws our attention towards it. It can be difficult for that part of our brain to distinguish the difference between a real threat and one that is on a screen in front of us. Even though the rest of our body helps us rationalize, nevertheless the amygdala helps direct our attention towards bad news. Media sources take advantage of this by bringing more graphic videos, sensationalism, and breaking news (with that “doomish” music and the serious announcer voice: THIS IS BREAKING NEWS!).
Over time, regular exposure to negative news, and all of the sensationalism that accompanies it, gradually desensitizes viewers to the point of needing more and more outrageous, sensational, fear‐evoking content to keep them engaged. This is an entertainment industry. In order to keep your attention, news outlets need to continue to push the envelope on our emotions to get a rise out of an increasingly numb consumer base. As we will discuss in a later chapter, this desensitizing of the viewer also has implications when it comes to compassion fatigue. Watching vivid images or hearing specific stories of horrific events on a daily basis that are sensationalized for the purpose of high viewership ratings can impact our ability to be compassionate towards victims of the events we regularly view. Whether explicitly or not, we can start to see bad events as normal or mundane, limiting our ability to respond to them in some tangible way.
There is also a natural tendency for us to take on a distorted view of the world via the news due to the availability heuristic. Psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky suggested that people estimate the probability of an event based upon how easily an instance of it comes to mind. That has particular implications for sensationalized news because stories that are particularly vivid or gruesome will obviously be remembered longer, making it more available in our minds and thus impacting our perception regarding the likelihood of it occurring again. In the 12 months following the September 11 terrorist attacks, many people opted to drive and not fly, even though statistically we all know that there are far fewer deaths from flying (40,000 a year driving in the U.S. compared to a few hundred on average flying). However, the images of the terrorist attacks or other plane crashes are front of mind for many, creating a bias and altering behavior in a potentially irrational way. Regular exposure to sensationalized, horrific events that are remembered for a long time due to their graphic nature can create this distorted view of the world.
Public distrust of the media is an ongoing issue. A 2019 Gallup poll found that 41% of Americans have a “great deal” or “fair amount” of trust in television, radio, and newspapers with regard to “fully, accurately, and fairly” reporting the news. Historically, that same poll, which dates back to 1972, found that 68% of Americans stated they trusted the media. Given the filter bubbles that exist within social media and even cable news, it stands to reason that there would be distrust of news outlets that are at least perceived to have some sort of bias that would prevent them from being a trusted news source. Illustrating some aspect of partisanship is a great way to attract loyal viewership. As Sundar says, “In the current political climate, news organizations have discovered that an easy way to evoke strong emotions and get more eyeballs is to stoke up partisan feelings. As a result, news sites and cable channels have become more extreme in their bias toward the left or right, resulting in great distrust of the media in general.” Sensationalism, whether in the form of outrageous headlines designed to, well, invoke outrage, or clickbait designed to get more clicks on stories, also erodes public confidence in the media. In the short term, media outlets might get the viewers or clicks that they desire, but in the long term, these sensationalist practices can erode public trust.
Being Our Own News Editor
Steven Stosny, PhD, author of nine books and courses on healing and relationship repair, identifies four red flags as it relates to headline stress disorder: “First, you experience a raised pulse rate just before you check the news, and it increases the longer you're viewing or reading. Second, you think about news headlines repeatedly throughout the day and sometimes have trouble sleeping. Third, you're irritated with loved ones after the headlines. Finally, you only read or view articles that make you angry or resentful.” There are lots of things we can do to address headline stress disorder. As Stosny says, “Aristotle pointed out that the only virtue is moderation. It's the ubiquity of headlines that does the damage. Limit exposure to a couple of times per day. Connect to your loved ones. Appreciate beauty in nature, arts, and crafts. Focus on what you can control, that is, your response. Focus on what you like and want more of, rather than what you don't like and don't want.” It might even be just reminding yourself of the blessings or good things that are currently in your life, whether your family, your work, your health, or any other component of your life that you value, as well as realizing that the anxiety we are experiencing because of the news is not required. We do not have to subject ourselves to cable news or social media. Other peoples' hysteria or focus should not dictate where we direct our attention. Engaging in endless back and forth on social media or discussion boards is likely not going to solve anything. Focusing on the positive aspects of our lives, and engaging in them, can be far more valuable than stewing over the news.
We also have a great deal of power in addressing many of the challenges that come from the current news landscape. We can be cognizant of where we are getting our news, ensuring that we are relying upon trusted sources that are presenting an objective view of current events. As Griffin suggests, “A healthy consumption of news and information necessarily involves attention to multiple sources. But consuming multiple sources in and of itself will not necessarily help a person stay well‐informed. And choosing sources based on one's perception of ‘left‐leaning’ vs. ‘right‐leaning’ is not helpful, in my opinion. The perceived political slant of a news source is not a good criterion on which to begin to plan a news diet. Instead, one should seek out news sources that have a reliable track record of responsible
