In our contemporary society, bad news has, undeniably, become more pervasive than ever. From my perspective, this trend can be ascribed to a number of factors, and there should be an equivalent distribution of positive and negative reports instead of biasing either side.
To begin with, there are two major reasons for this phenomenon. The first contributing driver is that readers or watchers have a tendency towards serious and urgent words in the headlines of newspapers or televisions. This is due to the fact that negative events and thoughts often provoke feelings of curiosity about how much these can pose an adverse effect on communities and individuals, therefore people may learn certain mistakes and experiences through news with a negative bias. Furthermore, newscasters and journalists can achieve more revenue and profit from a negative focus of news, hence producing more and more content which brings a high rating from followers.
It is undeniable that a balance of collaborative news on social channels are more beneficial for the public, regardless of the gravitation towards bad news. Proponents of positive news argue that it fosters the potential sense of optimism about the world outside. For instance, information reported about effective usage of vaccines against coronavirus make them more relaxed and less worried about their health during Covid-19 pandemic. Moreover, advocates for negative news are the literally realistic picture of public society, thereby necessitating citizens’ attraction and appropriate action to mitigate other problems, such as pollution.
In conclusion, the allure of negative words in headlines and the more expenditure for reporters are the two main causes of the prevalence of bad news. Nevertheless, I contend that both positive and negative reports are necessary to appear on social platforms, thanks to a sense of optimism about life and a consciousness about critical and urgent concerns around the world.