Negativity drives online news consumption • Hacker News Board

Re: Negativity drives online news consumption

#121

Post by nonethewiser » Fri, Mar 17, 2023, 8:37 PM UTC

joegahona wrote: post #51

gwbrooks wrote: post #10

Former newspaper city editor here. With few exceptions, positive stories -- although readers clamored for them in surveys -- never drove newsrack sales the way negative stories did. That's why we had a whole section for feel-good features but they didn't usually get prime front-page real estate. In the age of infinite content, headlines have become a sort of drama arms race. But the basic dynamic of what works and wh…

I used to work at a food/recipe publication and had a similar experience -- users constantly complained that they wanted more healthy recipes, but those types of recipes always performed poorly. Meatloaf and other comfort foods dominated traffic. This has been a good opening for niche creators on Youtube and such -- i.e., there are plenty of people out there interested in vegan, oil-free recipes, and that audience ca…

Is meatloaf really unhealthy?

Re: Negativity drives online news consumption

#122

Post by mfuzzey » Fri, Mar 17, 2023, 8:41 PM UTC

Regardless of new worthiness it's logical to focus more on negative things.

Negatives are problems to be solved, if enough people care maybe they will be solved too. Whereas positives don't need solving (though can still be good to think about to avoid throwing out the baby with the bathwater when addressing a negative.

Of course not all negatives can be solved themselves. If it's "X was killed due to Y" then of course X is dead so nothing more can be done for X but maybe we can prevent issue Y killing someone else Z in the future.

Re: Negativity drives online news consumption

#123

Post by indymike » Fri, Mar 17, 2023, 8:42 PM UTC

nonethewiser wrote: post #119

gwbrooks wrote: post #10

Former newspaper city editor here. With few exceptions, positive stories -- although readers clamored for them in surveys -- never drove newsrack sales the way negative stories did. That's why we had a whole section for feel-good features but they didn't usually get prime front-page real estate. In the age of infinite content, headlines have become a sort of drama arms race. But the basic dynamic of what works and wh…

If the news is inherently skewed towards negativity then maybe it's not as valuable as we assume it is. This isn't an argument against the free press or anything. As bad as bias and fearmongering in news is, adding government oversight would make it way worse. It's just a thought experiment. To elaborate, if news is inherently skewed towards negativity (and I'm just taking that at face value), then maybe it shouldn't…

> If the news is inherently skewed towards negativity then maybe it's not as valuable as we assume it is.

I suspect discussing knowledge of the news is some kind of social signaling.

Re: Negativity drives online news consumption

#124

Post by api » Fri, Mar 17, 2023, 8:44 PM UTC

"If you mistake a bush for a lion, you are fine. If you mistake a lion for a bush, you are dead."

Your ancestors clicked on the article that said "lion."

Re: Negativity drives online news consumption

#125

Post by nonethewiser » Fri, Mar 17, 2023, 8:47 PM UTC

indymike wrote: post #123

nonethewiser wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the news is inherently skewed towards negativity then maybe it's not as valuable as we assume it is. This isn't an argument against the free press or anything. As bad as bias and fearmongering in news is, adding government oversight would make it way worse. It's just a thought experiment. To elaborate, if news is inherently skewed towards negativity (and I'm just taking that at face value), then maybe it shouldn't…

> If the news is inherently skewed towards negativity then maybe it's not as valuable as we assume it is. I suspect discussing knowledge of the news is some kind of social signaling.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. In particular what "knowledge of the news" is.

What I'm getting at is that the premise that news is mostly negative seems to pretty clearly dictate that we would be better off without most news. Yet this seems to contradict a pretty wildly held belief that getting rid of news is troubling.

Re: Negativity drives online news consumption

#126

Post by throw__away7391 » Fri, Mar 17, 2023, 8:48 PM UTC

nonethewiser wrote: post #119

gwbrooks wrote: post #10

Former newspaper city editor here. With few exceptions, positive stories -- although readers clamored for them in surveys -- never drove newsrack sales the way negative stories did. That's why we had a whole section for feel-good features but they didn't usually get prime front-page real estate. In the age of infinite content, headlines have become a sort of drama arms race. But the basic dynamic of what works and wh…

If the news is inherently skewed towards negativity then maybe it's not as valuable as we assume it is. This isn't an argument against the free press or anything. As bad as bias and fearmongering in news is, adding government oversight would make it way worse. It's just a thought experiment. To elaborate, if news is inherently skewed towards negativity (and I'm just taking that at face value), then maybe it shouldn't…

There's a whole category of widely believed and oft repeated historical myths that originated from journalists trying to sell newspapers, writing articles that were later cited as "contemporary accounts" once the truth had faded from living memory.

A few examples; the Titanic was never called unsinkable until after it sank, no one committed suicide on Black Friday as a result of the stock market crash, and there was no public panic caused by the original War of the Worlds radio broadcast. All of these things were reported by the media at the time.

Think of the stories you see day to day and imagine in 100 years if these are the go-to source for information about our time how skewed a picture you would have of how things actually were.

Re: Negativity drives online news consumption

#127

Post by t12hrow » Fri, Mar 17, 2023, 8:53 PM UTC

Define news. Is it the local gossip section or large social shifts or trends? Is the release of GPT-4 news? Was covid news? Any sufficiently important event will eventually knock on your door, so it's not like you can stick your head on the sand completely.

Ultimately, news is indistinguishable from information, and information is valuable if you're able to tell the signal from the noise, extract the meaning, and find the balance between getting the most value and not wasting time. You can use that information to make decisions over your own life: should I invest in X? Should I work in Y? Should I move to Z?

For example, amid the tech layoffs and the rise of AI tools to write code, I think one should reconsider starting a career path in software engineering

That is, unless you're completely self sufficient and living off the grid, in which case you don't need any of it.

Re: Negativity drives online news consumption

#128

Post by nonethewiser » Fri, Mar 17, 2023, 8:53 PM UTC

throw__away7391 wrote: post #126

nonethewiser wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the news is inherently skewed towards negativity then maybe it's not as valuable as we assume it is. This isn't an argument against the free press or anything. As bad as bias and fearmongering in news is, adding government oversight would make it way worse. It's just a thought experiment. To elaborate, if news is inherently skewed towards negativity (and I'm just taking that at face value), then maybe it shouldn't…

There's a whole category of widely believed and oft repeated historical myths that originated from journalists trying to sell newspapers, writing articles that were later cited as "contemporary accounts" once the truth had faded from living memory. A few examples; the Titanic was never called unsinkable until after it sank, no one committed suicide on Black Friday as a result of the stock market crash, and there was…

That's interesting. I'm not sure what you point is. I think it reinforces my point that news in the past wasn't necessarily more informative. I'm not really sure though.

Re: Negativity drives online news consumption

#129

Post by ragingrobot » Fri, Mar 17, 2023, 8:53 PM UTC

nonethewiser wrote: post #121

joegahona wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to work at a food/recipe publication and had a similar experience -- users constantly complained that they wanted more healthy recipes, but those types of recipes always performed poorly. Meatloaf and other comfort foods dominated traffic. This has been a good opening for niche creators on Youtube and such -- i.e., there are plenty of people out there interested in vegan, oil-free recipes, and that audience ca…

Is meatloaf really unhealthy?

I suppose that depends on the meat you use and how else it's prepared.

Use a high fat ground beef and bread crumbs that'll soak up that fat, and I'm sure many would consider that unhealthy.

Use lean meat and something else as filler (oatmeal is common when trying to fill out meat) and it would be less unhealthy, but far more prone to error, resulting in perhaps a tasteless brick.

Never read on meatloaf, but I'm sure a publication would go the "easier but fattier" route.

Re: Negativity drives online news consumption

#130

Post by MikeSchurman » Fri, Mar 17, 2023, 8:54 PM UTC

nonethewiser wrote: post #125

indymike wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the news is inherently skewed towards negativity then maybe it's not as valuable as we assume it is. I suspect discussing knowledge of the news is some kind of social signaling.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. In particular what "knowledge of the news" is. What I'm getting at is that the premise that news is mostly negative seems to pretty clearly dictate that we would be better off without most news. Yet this seems to contradict a pretty wildly held belief that getting rid of news is troubling.

I think what they mean is that, someone knowing what is happening in the world, and being able to discuss those things, could be seen as them being part of a certain level/caste in society. Being able to discuss issues, being seen as intelligent and knowledgeable.

Ie, you will be looked down on in some circles if you are not aware of what is going on. Knowing what someone else doesn't know is a way of being better than them. Or signalling that you are better than them.

It's not usually as overt as this, but it's there.