Bad News is Good News: Who's Choice is it?

Photo Credit: Mohammed Al-Sharifi.

2015 has been a busy year for news.  We have seen numerous terrorist attacks, namely those on Paris, extreme weather conditions such as the recent floods in North-West England and violent protests like the one against the Cereal Cafe in London.  But did you hear about the peaceful Muslim protest against terrorism? What about the new homeless walking tours around London, or the 'other side' to the Migrant crisis story?  No, I didn't hear about them either because sadly, only bad news makes good news.

Realising this has raised an interesting yet difficult question, is it the media's fault that bad news sees
the most publicity, because they're the ones to choose the story? Or do the journalists only report on bad news due to consumer demand?

I am aware of the fact that if you compare two newspapers, one which reports on a murder and the other a peaceful protest, the murder would gain more interest and as a result, sell more copies.  It has always been said that humans have a natural morbid curiosity which is why we are so attracted to bad news, however it still shocks me that some amazing, positive news stories receive little or no coverage at all.

Shortly after the terror attacks on Paris, there was a huge Muslim protest in Hyde Park, London.  The premise of the protest was that there is no place in the Islamic religion for terrorism, and that they are against ISIS.  I asked 25 people whether they had heard about the protest, 22 of whom admitted they hadn't.  The three people who said they had heard about it, also mentioned that they found out through a video on Youtube by "The Michalaks", not an official news outlet.  After putting a search into Google, I discovered that not one media channel had covered it.

"Hundreds of Muslims flooded the streets of London to condemn terrorism.  Media's response: Silence."

Funnily enough, media outlets are now beginning to recognise that they missed out on a very good story, and have started reporting on just that.  The headline of The Independent article reads "Muslim anti-Isis march not covered by mainstream media outlets, say organisers" and The Mirror, "Hundreds of Muslims marching against terrorism in London 'ignored by British media'".  Isn't this just a little bit ironic?! The media are now covering a story on the fact they didn't cover a story...

The Independent headline 9/12/15

The Mirror headline 10/12/15

This is what has made me begin to debate whether bad news is driven by journalists or consumer demand.  My immediate feeling is that biases and stereotypes are reinforced by the news, and they could easily be the catalyst to begin changing the human nature of morbid curiosity.  On the other hand, I feel that consumer habits are what push journalists to source bad news; they report on what sells.

"Positive News" is the world's first publication dedicated to reporting positive developments and aims to 'inform, inspire and empower its readers, while helping create a more balanced and constructive media'.  It is so refreshing to see an entire publication devoted to reporting positive stories and instantly makes you wonder why these types of stories aren't reported on more often.  To read about people helping others, or the 'other side' to heavily reported negative stories, makes a person come away feeling enlightened, rather than sad and disheartened.

The premise of Positive News need to be replicated in all major news outlets.

Yes, it is important to hear about the negatives to ensure solidarity is offered to those in need, but by creating a balance with more coverage on positive stories, it may be possible to condition the human mind into being attracted to 'good' news just as often.

Do you think it is the journalists fault for choosing 'bad' news to cover? or is it down to consumer demand?  Do you think it would be possible to condition humans to search for 'good' news just as often?

Ellie