Why Is the News Depressing?

Writing a blog is a funny thing—sometimes you have so much to write about and, other times, nothing. I guess a nice thing about blogging on the topic of critical thinking is that there are always examples of "why we need it" to be found in the news. So, if I’m ever faced with a bout of writer’s block, I figure I can always open a paper, turn on the television, or scroll through my newsfeed for some inspiration.

The problem, though, is that I hate doing this because I can’t stand the news. Why? Personally, I find the news depressing: (1) It often seems that there’s more bad news than good, and (2) data, figures, and other information are often misrepresented, either as a result of bias or by trying to explain things so simply that they wind up getting misinterpreted during this "translation."

My perception regarding the first reason is not just an opinion—there often is more bad news reported than good. The human bias towards negativity is not a new concept in psychology. Attitudinally speaking, we may not want to engage with negative news, but behaviorally, we are inclined to do so—for a variety of reasons—perhaps, to some extent, as a means of self-preservation and learning of what to be wary. So, accounting for our propensity to focus on negative news (see, for example, de Hoog & Verboon, 2019; Soroka, Fournier & Lir, 2019; Trussler & Soroka, 2014), it’s no wonder that this is what generally makes headlines.

I recall reaching a point in 2011—still in the midst of an economic crisis following the 2008 crash—where I made the decision to avoid watching the news altogether because it was a constant downer. All the news in Ireland discussed at the time was the economy, job losses, politics, and the sad anecdotes of Joe Everyman. At this point in time, I was trying to finish up my Ph.D.—that was my priority. So, after three years of hearing about such negativity every day, I decided not to let the news unnecessarily bring me down anymore, and I haven’t really watched the news since (bar extenuating circumstances).

Here we are 10 years later and out of the economic crisis, only to find ourselves struggling to get out of a pandemic! Yes, things are tough now, I know that—but I don’t need the news constantly reminding me about how tough—which is often quite subjective. Personally—and yes, I know I am very lucky—the pandemic hasn’t been particularly tough on my family. My wife and I work from home and get to spend more time with our young daughter—much more than we would if we were commuting to work every day—and so, we will be forever grateful for this time. On the other hand, my parents—who are retired and in their 70s—are finding it much tougher to cope, as are many others. With that, hearing other people talking out about how tough they have it on the news won’t help anyone. So, I’m happy to avoid all of that.

The second reason I find the news depressing is the way it’s often reported, with information being misrepresented or cherry-picked—be it for the purposes of enhancing the sensationalism of their headlines, bias, or even trying to simplify complex topics to such a degree that they wind up getting misinterpreted during this "translation." This is a genuine problem, as evidenced in a recent study published earlier this month (Lyons et al., 2021), wherein it was found that 3 out of 4 Americans overestimated their ability to distinguish legitimate news headlines from false ones and that there is a link between this overconfidence and consequential beliefs and behaviors.

Sure, we’ve discussed misinformation and fake news on this blog before, why we fall for it, and how to spot it, but that’s not the real issue here. Anyone can share fake news, particularly on social media. However, I’m more concerned when the actual news presents information that is, though not entirely wrong, just inaccurate or poorly interpreted. This is problematic because it’s not just one person on social media; rather, this is supposed to be our reputable news outlet reporting. Now, I’m not saying that this an issue all of the time, and I’m not saying that the news is purposefully feeding you false information—but when it does present inaccurate or poorly interpreted information, its effects are much further reaching than some random post on Twitter or Facebook.

For example, the problem with this type of reporting is that it can create an availability cascade. According to Kuran and Sunstein (1998), an availability cascade is a cyclical process of belief formation through which information (or a perspective) gains attention in the public domain and triggers a chain reaction that gives the information or perspective plausibility simply through its rising availability in public discourse. The process gets its name based on how information "cascades" through the public by enhanced sharing and repetition. The availability aspect of the term comes from the concept that people are more likely to engage, use, and believe information that is more readily available to them—a concept with mechanics consistent with Tverksy and Kahneman’s (1974) availability heuristic.

So, if readily available information (which is more likely to be believed) cascades through public thought, the information is more likely to become part of the public’s "belief" system. The more people discuss that information, the more people it reaches, the more it becomes accepted, and the more available it becomes (correct or otherwise); hence, the availability cascade’s cyclical nature.

Cognition Essential Reads

Left-Handedness and Cognition: New Insights

Men and the Hidden Costs of Overthinking

One of the most famous examples of an availability cascade is addressed in the highly recommended book by Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow (2011). Kahneman discusses the "Alar scare" of 1989, in which a chemical that was sprayed on apples to regulate their growth and improve their appearance was shown to be correlated with cancer growth in rats and mice after consumption in large doses. When the story hit the news, people got scared, which only justified further news coverage—so much so that Meryl Streep even spoke in front of the U.S. Congress about it. The apple industry suffered losses due to fear over their products, so Alar was withdrawn and banned. Later research on Alar indicated that it actually posed a low risk as a possible carcinogen, suggesting that all the uproar was largely unnecessary and, in the long run, had the negative effect of people eating fewer good apples. Kahneman further uses this example to address how people assess small risks—either ignoring them altogether or completely overreacting.

As I write this, we are still struggling with COVID-19. The information exchange between medical institutions and the public has been extraordinarily useful, such as through informing people how best to take care of themselves and others. However, availability cascades regarding other topics, such as in the example above, may just make things in the public domain worse—by causing overreaction or unwarranted panic or simply just spreading misinformation.

All in all, I try to avoid the news as much as possible because it’s depressing to me—be it in terms of negativity or misrepresentation—neither of which is good for my mental well-being. Sure, it’s in my social media news feed, and it’s on the headlines of papers staring me in the face as I queue in the shop. But that doesn’t mean I have to engage it further than that, and so I don’t.

If you find the news depressing, don’t bother with it. Now, that may seem like a terrible contradiction to the point that I make throughout my blog—that being informed is crucial to being able to think critically. However, I also stress the notion that you should only apply critical thinking to topics that you care about or are important to you (e.g., in an effort to avoid decision fatigue [e.g., Baumeister, 2002; Vohs et al., 2014]).

So, if the news brings you down, but isn’t presenting you information on issues relevant or important to you, then why bother? If it turns out that "news information" out there is important to you, then "tune in," but make sure you get it from a credible source… and then double-check that with another credible source!