Negativity Drives Online News Consumption (nature.com) 57
Abstract of a paper on Nature: Online media is important for society in informing and shaping opinions, hence raising the question of what drives online news consumption. Here we analyse the causal effect of negative and emotional words on news consumption using a large online dataset of viral news stories. Specifically, we conducted our analyses using a series of randomized controlled trials (N=22,743). Our dataset comprises ~105,000 different variations of news stories from Upworthy.com that generated 5.7 million clicks across more than 370 million overall impressions. Although positive words were slightly more prevalent than negative words, we found that negative words in news headlines increased consumption rates (and positive words decreased consumption rates). For a headline of average length, each additional negative word increased the click-through rate by 2.3%. Our results contribute to a better understanding of why users engage with online media.
Sad (Score:4, Interesting)
It's a sad human trait.
A) You can make good news and sell it and have a good life.
B) You can make bad news and sell it for 2.3% more per bad word, and you have slightly more money but you have a negative impact on the world.
Anybody who picks B should be thrown in a volcano to fix global warming.
Re: (Score:1)
You can make good news and sell it and have a good life
No such thing as good news. It is just bad news with a positive spin to it.
I can see why people don't like it as much. Why read the bullshit version?
Re: (Score:3)
There are lots of good news. Like the world being more peaceful than in the past (in average), the number of deaths or new infections from deadly diseases is constantly decreasing (Malaria, AIDS), there are new treatments for certain cancer, etc. Of course there are other bad news like some other deaths from other cancers are increasing, but it's not at all that there is a real and a "bullshit" version of the reality, because these news items are presented independently and news outlets can choose the balan
Re: (Score:1)
Too few choices in the original post:
Re: (Score:3)
Worth the read if I am bored. But that is about it.
That's the whole point. Good news drive less views.
Re: (Score:2)
I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. 'When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast. There goes the shawl again!”
Lewis Carroll
https://ourworldindata.org/muc... [ourworldindata.org]
Re: (Score:2)
It's worse than that. People want to find bad news that reinforces their existing biases. It's the reason why the most awful outlets get the most traffic, but it's also the reason the vast majority of people consume virtually zero news, because those extremist views are repellent to the common person.
The word bandied about a decade ago was 'low-information voter'. i'd change that to 'low-propaganda voter'.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, I clicked on this post because of the negative word in the headline ("Sad")...
Re: (Score:2)
What can be done about this, I am not sure, though. Should anything be done about this at all?
Re: (Score:1)
The #AttentionEconomy works by hacking our human brains which pay an inordinate amount of attention to the things we fear, and the things we hate (things we want to have sex with come closely behind those two).
The net result is that any free market in the #AttentionEconomy will inevitably maximize fear and hatred.
The only antidote I've seen to this are those cultures which focus on decreasing resentment and increasing gratitude. You'll typically find this amongst religious folk.
Ultimately, all victims of t
Re: Sad (Score:2)
Really? (Score:2)
If it bleeds it leads (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the greedy no-morals, no-integrity scum has taken over most places these days.
Re: (Score:3)
And when it's not politics, it's fires, vehicle/plane crashes, shootings, and bad weather.
There's a catchy 80s song [youtube.com] about it.
We got the bubble-headed bleached-blonde, comes on at five
She can tell you 'bout the plane crash with a gleam in her eye
It's interesting when people die
Give us dirty laundry
Re: (Score:3)
So you're telling me (Score:2)
Time to embrace my inner pessimist. #WhoNeedsPuppiesAnyway
Re: (Score:2)
And the "the world is doomed" article will be things like "In 5 billion years the sun will consume the earth!". Ahhh, I'll mark it on my calendar.
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot: "Negativity drives online..." is followed by "memories are made of..." about a treatment for Alzheimer. It's already clear the bad one has more "online consumption" (more comments). It does not need to be "the earth will be scorched" kind of bad news.
Re: (Score:2)
Avoid the hidden danger which may be lurking right now in your food pantry, single mom discovers this one weird trick that could keep your family safe!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
my urge to click on '10 Reasons the World is Doomed' instead of 'Puppies Learning to Swim' is backed by science?
To be fair, the World ending is probably going to affect you more than puppies learning to swim, unless the oceans rise and you can't swim.
We have bad news! (Score:2)
Fear and outrage sells (Score:5, Insightful)
This has probably been the case since people told horror stories about hunting woolly mammoths. "If it bleeds it leads" and ragebait articles always get the most clicks. Titles are deliberately worded vaguely to inspire fear or outrage. Social media sites, like Reddit, thrive on outrage. Even if the article isn't ragebait the comments will steer the discussion in that discussion.
We have been trained from birth (Score:2)
to be addicted to outrage and fear.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Who is this "we", kimosabe? This is a relatively new phenomenon, it started during the Vietnam War, when media started transitioning from journalism to activism. This was the start of the "church of eternal outrage". Now, today, journalists see it as their highest calling to challenge any authority, not because of any specific issue they have, but because they see their primary job as uncovering malfeasance, either real or imagined - or invented out of the clear blue sky.
I was certainly not
Re: (Score:3)
Your ignorance of history is astounding. Go back and look at the polemics of Protestants and Catholics during the Reformation and Counter-Reformation when both sides regularly accused the other side of eating babies. And that's far from the only example.
Re: (Score:3)
I was referring to the modern media era of outrage.
What you are talking about was a completely different phenomenon - so I would suggest you are the one who does not understand history.
Re: (Score:2)
You really have no clue.
Note, that is a statement of fact, not a question.
Re: (Score:2)
Or the earliest. Choosing a group to be "the enemy" and making the population afraid of them to the point of being genocidal has been a go to tactic for tyrants throughout all of human history.
Re: (Score:2)
Evolution is much older than religion.
The person crying tears of joy and wonder at rainbows and sunsets is less likely to reproduce than that crazy dude that is paranoid about getting eaten by a sabre tooth tiger.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. The Pentagon Papers. Watergate. All The Presidents Men.
Journalism students from that point didn't want to report the news, they wanted to make the news.
Re: We have been trained from birth (Score:1)
Tracks. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I avoid most news because I'm an optimist
That and the fact that it is too difficult for you to read.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. (Score:2)
Consumers have no stake in or influence on the supply chain for mass media. They're not even capable of effectively manufacturing consent by convincing people of falsehoods anymore. They're just saying they did and pointing to the numbers under a tweet.
Thank goodness for Slashdot (Score:1)
...where the worst news on a typical day, is about how AI is going to lead to the extinction of humanity.
Re: (Score:2)
The day ain't over yet. There's still time for a cryptocurrency story or two.
Re:Sarcasm (Score:2)
Whoever modded the post "Troll" doesn't apparently understand sarcasm.
So, they add "negative" and "emotional" together? (Score:2)
Does sound like junk-science to me. Probably paid for research that had a conclusion right from the start.
Nature SLAMs online news in exposive report (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They probably guessed there was an effect, like you did, based on common wisdom. This is why they decided it was worth to make a study to quantify the effect. This is how science works.
If you check the paper, there are graphs of correlations between click-through rates (CTR) and number of positive/negative words. The value of the correlation coefficient, or the slope of the curves, is not something you could have guessed by just saying "no kidding". It's actual science.
Re: (Score:2)
Curate's egg (Score:2)
Schadenfreude (Score:2)
In other news, water is wet. (Score:1)
If it bleeds, it leads. (Score:2)
Good news is no news.
How about just straight facts? (Score:2)
What's the possibility of getting a news source that's giving me just straight and complete facts, not curated for emotion, not carefully crafted to enhance some bias, not cherry-picked for a convenient narrative? I'm an adult and have enough EQ to handle bad news if it comes along, don't need puppy posts to keep me happy....
But wait... here we have a /. post re. some negative human trait, and it got me riled up enough to reply with a rant. I've been played and I lost... again.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no one purely factual news source, you'll have to compare across multiple sources -- or just use Ground News, which does this for you.
Psychology? (Score:2)
Is it possible that we seek negative news because we are wired to look out for danger, anything that can affect us, even if on a remote/global scale?