If you turn on the television and watch a news channel, or pick up a newspaper or open a news website, you will always find that negative news predominates over positive stories. Journalists and correspondents, like scavengers, are ready to feed off the misfortunes of others, and the moral and ethical aspects of this profession have long been a subject of public debate. But in reality, they are simply fulfilling a societal demand.
The viewer’s nerves are tingled by the story of the widow of a man who has just been shot. They find it interesting to feel safe while listening to tears, moans, and wails, and watching footage of wars and hurricanes. But the viewer, consuming such information, doesn’t even consider what the widow herself feels as she is surrounded by vultures chasing after sensational facts. They are indifferent. A beer and chips, crumbs on a greasy t-shirt, a remote control in hand, and empty eyes craving new spectacles.
From the perspective of humanitarian values, we should remove graphic content from the airwaves just as we do with pornography. But no. This state of affairs has become so normalized that we can watch movies filled with blood, guts, and dismemberment, while agreeing that showing porn on TV is definitely inappropriate. Wait a minute? Sex is a natural aspect of human behavior, unlike murder. Yet, showing genitals is off-limits, while guts and dismemberment are acceptable.
The source of this hypocrisy lies in the fact that the fear of death drives consumption. Instinctively trying to suppress the fear of death and thoughts about the transience of existence, a person will shove another slice of pizza into their mouth, buy new cosmetics, or finally decide to purchase a more expensive car—after all, life is short. The most thoughtful among them might take out a life insurance policy, but that’s still an impulsive reaction. Television networks know when advertising time is the most expensive. It’s right after the evening news broadcast, precisely when people are bombarded with stories of wars, hurricanes, murders, and uprisings in neighboring countries.
Conclusions: The prevalence of negativity can be easily explained by two factors: A) instinct and B) marketing. a) A monkey is more likely to scream “Tiger!” than “Banana!” It will eat the banana itself. We react more strongly to a murder in the neighboring building than to the fact that twins were born there. b) Media operators know that the most effective advertising comes right after a news segment (bad news, of course). Because the more often you remind a person of their mortality, the less they will… awareness and more stress, more impulsive actions, and more consumption. The skulls and bones on cigarette packs are just meant to benefit tobacco companies 🙂 In general, it’s profitable for people to consume bad news. And since the media operates for the money of advertisers, then…