THE "GOOD NEWS" PHENOMENON: WHY IT'S AVOIDED BY THE HUMAN BRAIN AND WHO BOYCOTTS IT?
Description: An analysis of our collective preference for negative and sensational news. Psychological investigations (negativity bias), media practices (clickbait), and possible “invisible influences” that undermine the spread of good news to keep the population in a state of controlled fear and anxiety.
Rare Light: Why Positive Truth Fades in the Online Noise
We navigate daily through a torrent of information. Beyond tumultuous political news and obvious catastrophes, there’s a less discussed reality: the overwhelming predilection for negative news at the expense of positive. The phenomenon of “good news,” of subtle progress, beneficial innovations, or acts of kindness, seems to be a faint echo in a room full of shouts. But why is this so? Is it a simple human preference, or are there forces orchestrating this gloomy media diet?
Psychological Anchoring in Negativity: The Inherent Bias
Evolutionary psychology offers us a first explanation: negativity bias. The human brain is programmed to pay increased attention to negative information. In prehistoric times, this meant survival – quickly identifying a threat (predator, disease) was vital. This ancestral mechanism persists. News about a natural disaster or a political scandal activates our amygdala, the brain’s emotional center, more strongly, generating a faster and more intense reaction than good news about a minor scientific discovery. Fear and anxiety are primal, powerful emotions that instantly capture our attention.
Here, “confirmation bias” also comes into play. Once we’ve formed a certain worldview – perhaps one where dangers abound – we unconsciously seek information that confirms this perspective, ignoring or minimizing contrary evidence.
Media Mechanisms and the Tyranny of Clickbait
Beyond individual psychology, the structure of the media industry plays a crucial role. Journalists and editors, no matter how well-intentioned, are under constant pressure to generate audience and clicks. And what brings clicks? Sensationalism, conflict, disaster. A headline like “Imminent Economic Catastrophe!” will generate infinitely more traffic than “A local company launched a successful recycling program.”
The algorithms of social platforms, which we increasingly rely on for news, amplify this problem. They are optimized for “engagement” – that is, to keep us glued to the screen. And what keeps us glued? Content that provokes strong emotions, content that generates indignation, fear, or anger. Thus, negative news goes viral much faster, creating a feedback loop where media produces more of what “works,” perpetuating a cycle of alarmism.
Invisible Influences: A Subtle Hand Behind the Curtain?
This media landscape, dominated by fear and division, raises uncomfortable questions: Who ultimately benefits from a constantly anxious, polarized, and hopeless population?
From historical narratives to contemporary discourse, there’s a tendency to emphasize human vulnerability. Scared people are easier to control, less willing to ask uncomfortable questions, more inclined to accept simplistic solutions offered by “saviors.” A society consumed by fear will never reach its full potential.
A centralized and visible conspiracy isn’t necessary for this phenomenon to be self-sustaining. It’s enough for media actors, influenced by the market and algorithms, to respond to the unconscious demand of the human brain for negativity, creating a system that, by its very structure, prioritizes anxiety. However, as we observe recurring patterns of disinformation and an insistent focus on fear-inducing aspects, we cannot ignore the possibility that there are also “invisible influences,” subtle interests that guide, even without explicit directive, the general direction of the informational flow.
If the world were flooded with news about success, harmony, and progress, it would be more difficult to exert control. An informed, optimistic, and self-aware population with collective power is a dangerous population for those who profit from chaos and confusion.
Redefining Truth: Seeking Light in the Labyrinth
Recognizing these mechanisms – be they psychological, media-driven, or with more obscure origins – is the first step towards balancing our informational diet. Actively seeking positive news, supporting sources that offer a balanced spectrum of information, and training our discernment in the face of emotional bombardment isn’t just a matter of preference, but an act of civic and mental hygiene.
Truth isn’t always sensational or tragic. Often, it’s found in slow progress, in acts of silent courage, and in innovative solutions. It’s up to us to seek it, to share it, and to ensure it isn’t boycotted, either by our own biases or by forces that prefer a society in twilight.