Time magazine has an end-of-the-decade issue with a cover, sent in by Dmitriy T.M., that summarizes what they consider major events between 2000 and 2010:
The stories illustrate the way that, as ESPN puts it, “only bad news counts as news.” Of the 118 items chosen by the editors as “what really happened” over the last ten years, a few are what most people would probably see as relatively positive or benign (such as achievements in sports and the rescue of the Chilean miners) and others would probably fall into the “neutral” category (“U.S. Election” doesn’t say anything about the election — or, for that matter, even indicate which of the various elections that occurred during that time frame it refers to). And a few are just…odd. “AOL-Time Warner Merger” is one of the most important events of the decade? And “The Dark Knight Release” was selected as the most significant pop-culture-related event? Um…okay.
But the majority of items are clearly negative/scary, or at least I think the editors assume they’d be seen that way: BP oil spill, a space shuttle disaster, various diseases, several bombings, “Disaster in Darfur,” the Haiti earthquake, a tire recall, and various topics related to economic problems. According to the ESPN post,
The Time selection says nothing about major positive trends such as declining international military spending (rising U.S. spending is the exception to the rule), declining teen pregnancy rates, declining crime, declining accidental deaths. “U.K. foot and mouth crisis” [a livestock disease]…was cited, but nothing said about declining cancer rates. “Shark attack” was cited, but nothing was said about the dramatic rise in living standards in most of the developing world. (“Overall, poor countries are catching up with rich countries” on nearly all central measures, according to this important new [United Nations] report.)
The post continues, “Yes, journalists have always loved bad news, and have long pretended good news doesn’t exist.” That’s going a bit far. For instance, local newspapers often take part in what Harvey Molotch described as the “growth machine,” a collection of organizations, institutions, businesses, political leaders, and influential community members that support economic growth. Media outlets may contribute to such boosterism by running positive stories and providing space (in op-eds, etc.) for predominantly rosy depictions of the community.
That said, media scholars do criticize news outlets for focusing so much attention on stories that are sensationalistic or that imply the world is an incredibly dangerous, scary place, and leading the public to have quite unrealistic perceptions of actual sources of risk. And Time‘s editors play into this with their selection of the most significant stories of the past decade.
Comments 24
R — December 30, 2010
Many reasons exist that cause our media to be negative focused. I think that a lot of it comes down to the fact that we has a society seem to be obsessed with the negative news stories. Time magazine being a profit oriented machine wants to sell as many copies as possible and putting scary and 'bad' events as the headlines sells more copies. That said, are we as a society obsessed with the negative news stories because sources like Time and every cable news channel and the vast majority of local channels all focus on the negative. We have been taught that these are the stories that we are supposed to be focusing on.
Also it is easier to put 'Shark Attack' on the cover as it cites a specific event (even though it doesn't) than 'declining teen pregnancy rates'. What picture should we included for 'declining crime' people want to see blood and guts.
Treefinger — December 30, 2010
Well, why wouldn't bad things make the news? In a piece of fiction, the conflict is the central point of the plot. If the conflict is resolved ("Chilean miners", "Saddam convicted"), the news reports it. That's happy. But "Great News: Rob Smith from Bristol has a new job and is happily married!" is obviously not notable enough, while "Economy remains strong in X country" is a pointless headline since it's nothing new, and there is limited space to talk about world events.
And why not? Informing people of conflicts helps them deal with them (in the case of something like severe weather), or inspire people to think about and invent new ways to circumvent or solve more large-scale problems. What purpose does informing people of good news serve most of the time? Sure, it's nice to hear, and knowledge is important in general, but it's not as pressing an issue. This doesn't mean I approve of sensationalism/exaggeration/bias; but honestly, none of that is needed. Pessimistic stories that are important and relevant to large numbers of people outnumber optimistic ones.
lentic — December 30, 2010
"Only bad news counts as news.”
True. But here's a catchier way of phrasing it: "If it bleeds, it leads." So true, especially for news broadcasts.
jfruh — December 30, 2010
The AOL-TW merger was in fact huge news at the time, as it was seen as a sign of the Internet (and Internet-based companies) coming of age in the corporate world. The rather quick revelation that Time Warner had made a terrible mistake in letting itself be acquired by AOL was similarly huge business news, as it indicated that a lot of what had seemed like an inevitably ascendance of Internet company was based on myths and dodgy accounting. Sure, it's just one story, but it says a lot about the trajectory of big business in the '00s. (And big business stories are important news! They affect millions of people's lives.)
Of course, the fact that Time Magazine is the "Time" in "Time Warner" might make the merger loom even larger in the minds of Time staffers, many of whom might have found their Time Warner stock exchanged for worthless AOL stock.)
Andrew — December 30, 2010
At what point does an incremental trend become news? Most of the topics in the image were stories that evolved daily over the course of weeks or months, or events whose impact reverberated through a long stretch of time. But how would, say, a gradual decline in crime rate produce a steady stream of breaking news throughout the course of a month? Where is the urgency in alerting the public first thing on Tuesday morning that teen pregnancy rates are down?
These trends are useful information for contextualizing the news, but they don't give reporters terribly much to do.
And really, what possessed you to dismiss the emphasis on urgent major world events - humanitarian catastrophes, genocide, warfare, disease pandemics - as "negative/scary?" I'm terribly sorry if these things scare you, but somehow I think you'd have plenty more criticism for Time if they simply refused to cover them, or artificially balanced them out with "positive/happy" stories reassuring us that everything is OK.
I have yet to read a decent media scholar criticizing the MSM for reporting too much on Haiti or Darfur, but I'd love to hear why you find those stories sensationalistic.
Andrew — December 30, 2010
Oh, and the inclusion of "The Dark Knight" is rather predictable, considering that it was released by Warner Bros. Follow the money, as always...
Anna — December 30, 2010
Since when are presidential elections bad news?
katerina — December 31, 2010
There are years marked on the left chronologically from top to bottom, it's right next to '08.
larrycwilson — December 31, 2010
There's an old saying that goes "No news is good news."
Syd — December 31, 2010
Plenty of those things are not bad by definition. Also, as far as 'The Dark Night?' Being THE most relevant pop-culture event is totally arbitrary, but I don't know of any single movie that had the same effect in the last 10 years. As a movie it was not terribly relevant, but as a pop-culture event, it certainly was.
Larry — December 31, 2010
I could probably write a book in response to this post but I'll defer for now and say: Is there no bad news on ESPN? Nothing about athletes using performance-enhancing substances? Nothing about NCAA violations and teams being sanctioned? No word on football players being injured or partially paralyzed by hard tackles? Not a peep about Michael Vick?
Please.
This is a cheap shot from ESPN, which is no better (and no worse) than any other major media outlet. (And yes, I work for a major media outlet).
Jeff Schmitz — January 3, 2011
The biggest story in my mind is that 2000-2010 appears to be the first 11 year decade in human history. You heard it first from Time Magazine!
deb — January 3, 2011
exactly why I do not watch local news anymore. here in houston it's nothing but brutal murders (usually involving children), sex crimes, robberies, fires...I'll pass.
Taking the Bad Taste out of Bad News « Science Is Everyone's Story — February 1, 2011
[...] Taking the Bad Taste out of Bad News Filed under: framing, journalism, storytelling by Kat F. — Leave a comment February 1, 2011 My friends often tell me they avoid reading news because reporters select negative stories. But a report from the Pew Research Center also shows readers in the United States seek out shocking or upsetting topics related to crime, wars, weather and disasters. Sociological Images analyzed Time Magazine’s 2010 issue listing the top newsworthy events of t.... [...]
Kat — February 1, 2011
I wrote a blog post related to this (with a link). http://katfriedrich.wordpress.com/2011/02/01/taking-the-bad-taste-out-of-bad-news/
Taking the Bad Taste out of Bad News - Kat Friedrich — September 27, 2015
[…] My friends often tell me they avoid reading news because reporters select negative stories. But a report from the Pew Research Center also shows readers in the United States seek out shocking or upsetting topics related to crime, wars, weather and disasters. Sociological Images analyzed Time Magazine’s 2010 issue listing the top newsworthy events of t…. […]
Idle Breakout — March 30, 2023
great idea
Brandon23 — September 19, 2024
The selection of predominantly negative events by Time magazine highlights a troubling trend in media slice master game, where sensationalism often overshadows positive developments and creates a skewed perception of reality.