Who decides what's reported on the News and why is it mostly negative?

By the BeAwakeAwareAlive.com team

Turn on your television, scroll through your social media feed, or glance at the front page of any major newspaper. Within seconds, you are likely to encounter a cascade of crises: a political scandal, a violent conflict overseas, a looming economic recession, a fatal car crash on the interstate, and a warning about a health crisis. It is a relentless tide of gloom, leaving many viewers feeling anxious, cynical, and overwhelmed. If you have ever asked yourself, “Is the world really this terrible?” you have probably also asked a follow-up question: “Who decides to tell me all of this, and why is it always so negative?”

The answer is complex, involving a web of economics, human psychology, and a media landscape fundamentally altered by technology. It is not simply a case of a “conspiracy” or the personal cynicism of journalists. Rather, the negativity bias in the news is the result of a systemic, transactional relationship between our brains, corporate profit motives, and the gatekeepers who decide what constitutes a "story."

The Gatekeepers: Who Really Decides?

Before we dive into the negativity, we must understand the chain of command. The news does not just magically appear. It is curated by a series of gatekeepers, each with distinct priorities.

At the top of the pyramid are the Editors and News Directors. These are the generals of the newsroom. They decide the overall tone and focus of the outlet. They attend morning meetings where they review wire services (like the Associated Press or Reuters), local press releases, and pitches from their reporters. Their decision on what leads the 6 PM broadcast or graces the front page is based on a simple, albeit brutal, calculus: "Will people watch this? Will they share this?"

Just below them are the Producers and Assignments Editors, the lieutenants who assign specific reporters to specific events. They are the ones who decide that a plane making an emergency landing is a top-priority story, while a school board passing a new budget is a secondary one, unless a riot breaks out at the meeting. Their day-to-day decisions are heavily influenced by the "news hook" - what is new, dramatic, and immediate.

Then there is the Management and Corporate Ownership. In the modern media landscape, most news outlets are not philanthropic institutions; they are businesses owned by massive conglomerates. These corporations have shareholders to satisfy. Their primary interest is the bottom line. If a specific story generates high ratings or page views, it validates the editorial decisions made at the lower levels. Consequently, management creates an incentive structure where editors and producers are rewarded for delivering audiences, not necessarily for delivering nuance.

Finally, there is the Reporter. While often seen as the face of the news, the reporter is frequently the least powerful link in the chain. They are tasked with gathering information and writing the script, but their work is subject to heavy editing. An investigative piece that is "too boring" or "too complex" might be cut down to a 90-second segment that oversimplifies the issue. They are the artists forced to paint in 140 characters, often losing the shades of gray.

The Algorithm: The New, Invisible Gatekeeper

In the 21st century, a new, non-human gatekeeper has emerged: the Algorithm. Platforms like Google News, Facebook, and Twitter (now X) decide what you see based on complex code designed to maximize engagement.

The algorithm rewards content that triggers an emotional reaction. Shock, anger, and fear are high-engagement emotions. When you read a terrifying headline, your pulse quickens, you click the link, you read the comments, you share it with your friends to warn them. This activity generates data, which generates ad revenue. The algorithm learns that "bad" news keeps you on the platform longer, so it feeds you more of it, creating a feedback loop that amplifies the innate negative bias of the human brain.

The "Why": The Four Pillars of Negative News

So why is it mostly negative? The answer can be broken down into four distinct pillars: human psychology, commercial incentives, journalistic ease, and structural bias.

1. Human Psychology (Negativity Bias)

The root cause of the negativity in the news is not the media; it is us. Humans are hardwired with a "negativity bias." From an evolutionary standpoint, our ancestors were much more likely to survive if they were acutely aware of threats. A rustle in the bushes might be the wind, but if it was a tiger, the person who ignored it was eaten. We evolved to pay more attention to negative stimuli than positive ones. This is why a bad experience with a restaurant sticks with you longer than a good one, and why you remember a criticism more than a compliment.

Journalists and editors are acutely aware of this. They know that death, destruction, and danger will grab your attention faster than a story about a functioning bridge or a peaceful treaty. Media outlets are not creating negativity; they are simply meeting a demand we didn't even know we had. News anchors often say, "We have some good news for you tonight," but this is usually relegated to the final two minutes of the broadcast - the "kicker" - because they know you aren't tuning in to watch happy stories; you are tuning in to see if the world is still spinning.

2. The Commercial Imperative (Ratings vs. Revenue)

As mentioned earlier, the news is a product. In a 24/7 news cycle, there is an insatiable need for content. Panic sells. A smooth-running economy or a peaceful day is not a "story." In journalism school, they teach a maxim: "Man bites dog is news; dog bites man is not."

This economic reality drives the "if it bleeds, it leads" philosophy. Local news is the most prominent example of this. Crime stories are cheap to produce. You can send a camera crew to a police station, get a "perp walk," and fill three minutes of airtime with very little investigative work. Contrast that with an in-depth piece on zoning laws or public health policy, which requires hours of research, interviews, and editing. One is a "low-hanging fruit" that drives ratings; the other is expensive and risks boring the audience.

3. The "One Bad Apple" Effect (Ease of Sourcing)

It is significantly easier to report on a corrupt politician than to explain why the political system is functioning. Investigating failure or malfeasance is a concrete task. You can uncover documents, find whistleblowers, and point to specific moments of wrongdoing. Conversely, explaining success is often abstract and difficult.

For example, reporting that "The economy added 200,000 jobs last month" is a positive headline, but that might not impact the viewer's life immediately. It feels distant. However, reporting that "Inflation is raising the price of milk and eggs" is tangible and hits the consumer directly in the pocketbook. The news focuses on the specific pain points because they are easier to quantify, understand, and empathize with.

4. The Structural Incentive (The "Fourth Estate" Role)

There is a philosophical reason for the negativity that is often misunderstood. Journalists are traditionally taught to be the "Watchdogs" of society - the Fourth Estate. Their role is to hold the powerful accountable. This inherently means they are looking for problems.

We do not need the press to tell us that the government is working; we expect the government to work. We need the press to tell us when the government is breaking our trust. The problem arises when this watchdog mentality becomes the only lens through which the news is viewed. When accountability journalism becomes the only journalism, the world appears to be nothing but a collection of scandals, failings, and crises. There is no incentive to say, "We are doing okay." There is every incentive to say, "We are on fire!"

The Result: A Skewed Reality

The combination of these factors creates a "Mean World Syndrome." Developed by communication theorist George Gerbner, this theory posits that viewers who consume a high volume of violent or negative news are more likely to perceive the world as a dangerous and frightening place than it actually is.

Statistically, violent crime has been on a general downward trend in many Western countries for decades. Yet, if you watch the local news, you might think we are living in a war zone. Global poverty is at an all-time low, life expectancy is rising, and literacy rates are higher than ever. But you would never know this from reading the daily headlines because "things are mostly fine" does not sell.

Can We Break the Cycle?

The question remains: are we stuck in this cycle of doom, or can we change it? The power is shifting. Independent journalists and content creators are finding success by offering "solutions journalism" - reporting that not only identifies problems but also discusses potential solutions. Platforms like The Good News Network or Reasons to be Cheerful are trying to carve out a niche away from the negativity.

However, for the major networks, the change must start with us. We must be conscious consumers. If we stop clicking on fear-bait headlines, the algorithms will stop prioritizing them. If we stop tuning in to sensationalist coverage, the ratings will drop, and the format will change.

We need to recognize that the news is a distorted mirror held up to the world. It reflects the worst of us, not the sum of us. The world is a complex place filled with both tragedy and triumph. The news chooses to amplify the tragedy because it is louder, easier to film, and more profitable to sell.

It is up to us, the audience, to remember that the news is a selection of events, not the entirety of reality. By becoming more skeptical of the media's structural and psychological incentives, we can reclaim our peace of mind and view the world with a more balanced, nuanced perspective. The world is not as bad as the news makes it seem - and we would do well to remember that.

With thanks to Jakub Zerdzicki at pexels.com for the great image

Don’t forget to sign up to our mailing list, follow our social channels, donate if you’re able, and question everything, with more free blogs, and life-changing books at BeAwakeAwareAlive.com