Introduction

Why So Much “Bad News”?

“In local news the only thing they report on are bad things, only negative things …They are not showing us how to change the community.”

“What I have to do is just block myself away from that. Shut the news up because it ain’t nothing but an ignorant box anyway.”

-South Los Angeles focus group participants

In a journalistic environment where the mantra “if it bleeds, it leads” continues to resonate—and is amplified ever more by the clickbait web—there is a professional bias in favor of reporting on violence, crime, police brutality, and other negative tropes.¹ But how do audiences process and react to stories about their communities presented within negative frames? How would stories that address these systemic problems—while also exploring their solutions—impact readers?

Looking at research about how audiences process negative information helps to contextualize negative journalism frames. Political science studies have found that negative stories largely have a greater influence on audiences’ perceptions of candidates and voting behavior.² Readers are more likely to click a hyperlink to a negative political story than a link with a positive headline.³

Several studies in psychology complement findings of a “negativity bias,” which suggests that people devote more attention to processing negative information,⁴ are more likely to think it’s true,⁵ and to remember it.⁶ Researchers argue that the strength of bad over good makes evolutionary sense and that humans are actually hardwired to be more psycho-physiologically aroused by negative news.⁷

However, bad news is only influential when people are willing to consume it. A 2008 study of young people’s media habits by the Associated Press found that many complained about the negativity of news. They reported turning to satirical “fake news” outlets like The Daily Show with Jon Stewart as an antidote to their “news fatigue.”⁸

Negative framing has also demonstrated itself to be a risky strategy in the realm of political, humanitarian, and social change campaigns. Research on the impact of negative political messages shows mixed results. While some defend the efficacy of negative messaging,⁹ others have found that negative messages cause audiences to stop seeking information.¹⁰ In the field of humanitarian campaigns, researchers document compassion fatigue—when messages trigger a sense of hopelessness—or even a boomerang effect—when audiences resent being subjected to messages that evoke guilt.¹¹ Boomerang effects have also been associated with climate change communication, where dire messages about global warming appear to make people more skeptical about the phenomenon.¹² In health communication, audiences that consumed media which framed health issues negatively were found to have lower perceptions of their own efficacy or behavioral intent around seeking preventative care.^{13 14}

The outcome is ambiguous. Negative storytelling may be highly salient to audiences, but what audiences do with this information depends on a more complex web of factors.