more good news...

[powder]

I think that the news (media) deliberately focuses on bad news, the tragic and the unfortunate, to brainwash us into believing the lie that humans are inherently evil and destructive and we need to be controlled and subdued by the state (church) or absolute chaos and mayhem will ensue.  

 

It is perhaps the most ardent argument against a stateless society.  

 

I remember being disgusted with the news when I was a kid and refused to watch it, even to this day I don't go there.  It seems clear to me that over 95% of the people in the world are good folks with the best of intentions just trying to do their best to do the right thing.  Yet the news focuses exclusively on the dark stuff.   

I am happy to learn more about a stateless society and I think Stefan is doing great work.  I must say though, I am disappointed to see all the negative news reports about all the crazy stuff happening in the world posted on this site - like so many other conspiracy/alternative news sites and forums.  

 

We get it, the system is messed up, the oligarchs are psychopathic control freaks.  It is one thing to learn about and understand the current system to better learn to detach from it.  

 

Still, I really think that energy follows thought, what you focus on expands....  I would like to hear more about the positive stuff that is happening.  

[jpahmad]

Another way to look at it would be to admit that everything on television is entertainment, including the news.  Bad news seems to be more entertaining than good news.  Therefore, people will watch it more if the focus is on the negative and absurd.  Look at reality television.  Very entertaining for people. And it is all bad news; messed up people doing messed up things to each other. 

[powder]

 

 

Why do you think that people prefer bad news over good, jp?  or negative or positive stuff for entertainment?  It does not fit my understanding of human nature or my experience with people in general.  I hear that a lot and it reminds me of the frequently repeated argument/assumption that we need government because people are stupid and violent and must be controlled.  We have never been offered much of a choice in the media, just like, historically, we have rarely had the freedom to live without a ruling class.  

 

I remember watching a short docu on a TV news channel, in Texas I think it was, and the producer decided that they would only report on negative news if it was relevant and helpful/informative.  At the time, all the other channels in the city were focused on a court case of a mother who had killed her child, the produced argued, rightly, that it was the business of the family and no good could come from exposing it, so they left it out.  

 

the ratings of their news program topped all others within a few months.  that was a few years ago and don't know what became of it though...  

[jpahmad]

You bring up some good points.  That is an interesting bit about the TV news channel in Texas.  I'd like to know which station that was.  I actually did fantasize about starting an only "good news" website about 6 years ago.  It was just a fleeting thought.  However, I did feel the need to hear about some inspiring/exciting stories.  I was going through a bit of a doom and gloom phase and wanted to get that feeling, that sense of excitement that the future has something for us, that we're going somewhere.  I think someone beat me to it though.

 

Concerning your question about preference.    You're right, we can't be so sure that people prefer one way or the other; they really are only given one choice when it comes to news.  But, people have a plethora of choice when it comes to other non-news television programing.  And they usually choose either fantasy affair stories, sadistic crime stories,  or junk reality television.  Crime show series, for example, are not up-lifting or positive.  The story usually revolves around the discovery of a gruesome crime.  And it seems, the more gruesome and horrifying, the more hyped the show is.  Shows like Desperate House Wives, Scandal, and Mistresses, all depict morally repugnant individuals who have somehow screwed up their own lives and are in the process of screwing up someone else's.  Am I being to critical?  Reality television can be summed up using my previous sentence but of course it's "reality."

 

What is entertaining about all this?  I think people are drawn to it because it accomplishes one of two things for them.  Either the shows make them feel better about their own lives, or, the shows vindicate their own lives.  I mean, imagine having television show that glorifies your own vices and makes them seem, well, normal.

 

Can this analysis be applied to news as well?  From what I see these days, the news is not that distinguishable from reality television. 

[carlip]

I stopped viewing about a year ago. It was just so obviously wrong to see one station give this view point and another station two channels over give an opposing view point, of the same situation. Fact are facts are facts.

 

It seems like our whole society is geared towards public displays of negativity. For instance the police. They pull you over for breaking the law, and then ticket you. There is a huge public display of it. It's not like anyone knows who you are sitting your car with flashing lights and sirens behind you. It's all a show to get you to feel bad in front of others. They issue you a ticket to appear in court, public court, where you will be lectured by a judge, possibly even in front of a jury of your peers. It's not enough they take your money, they want to shame you.

 

I feel like this goes a long way to show a decayed society. Just think how much better out road would be if police also pulled people over for doing good things, like letting someone in front of them so they didn't have to wait 10 minutes for an opening. Or if someone actually stopped at a yellow! In general people would drive significantly better. Which goes to show that humans base learning and behavior on rewards more than punishment.

 

Take this to a media source and you see the public shaming at a much higher level. You see the "jury" expanded to thousands if not millions. It is definitely a tool of the statist mindset to show this on the news, sort of like the head on a pike outside of town.

[powder]

I see your point jp, there are some positive and uplifting shows on TV, and even though I don't watch TV, I think you would be hard pressed to say that it represents even a significant percentage of it, esp during prime time.  It seems to me it is mostly social drama (like Desperate Houswives), crime, lawyer and police stuff, or sitcoms which are like Desperate Housewives with comical situations and laugh tracks - none it of my idea of positive and uplifting programming.  

 

I have coached and taught for many years and I found it is simple human nature that if you only focus on the positive, you get much better results and people feel much better about themselves and their endeavors.  You never have to point out what is wrong, people get it.  

 

If you are teaching someone to hit a tennis ball you can coach them with:  "No, your swing is late" or; "Take the ball earlier, there you go!"  the difference is profound.   Like carlip says.  Point people in the positive direction, and give positive reinforcement when progress is made towards that end.  

[2bits]

People in general will tell you they want positive stories if asked, but then turn right around and prioritize the most sexual and violent content. Producers and publishers have learned over decades from their consumers that if it bleeds, it leads. I'm not a psychologist, but I've heard of studies on this behavior. It's a complex behavior from what I understand.

[powder]

People in general will tell you they want positive stories if asked, but then turn right around and prioritize the most sexual and violent content. Producers and publishers have learned over decades from their consumers that if it bleeds, it leads. I'm not a psychologist, but I've heard of studies on this behavior. It's a complex behavior from what I understand.

I won't contest that unhealthy, heavily programmed people will make unhealthy choices, especially when given little or no options.  That is a no brainer.  It still does not jive with my experience or understanding of basic human goodness.  

 

To me, the idea that producers and publishers exploit that sickness for profit is like saying it is OK to abuse a child because that is what they grew up with and all they understand.  

[2bits]

I won't contest that unhealthy, heavily programmed people will make unhealthy choices, especially when given little or no options. That is a no brainer. It still does not jive with my experience or understanding of basic human goodness. To me, the idea that producers and publishers exploit that sickness for profit is like saying it is OK to abuse a child because that is what they grew up with and all they understand.

I see where you are coming from, but I disagree. Every time traffic slows down near an accident scene we see one of many indicators that, human goodness or no, people are interested in the misfortune of others. I don't believe it's fair to assume they are just 'programmed'. I do wish it were so, but it's probably not that easy. I will look for some studies I seem to recall on this topic. Might add something to the conversation.I don't believe it's been established that wanting bad news, or providing bad news, is immoral in the same way that it's immoral for a parent to abuse a child. News producers are not in a paternalistic relationship with the public where they need to present or withhold certain news for our own good. As free individuals, they can present the program of their choosing, and the viewing public is free to vote with their attention. The change you want comes from the bottom up, not the top down.

[powder]

good points 2bits.  Curiosity is one thing, but I would like to learn more about how humans are drawn to the tragic and negative.  

It really is true that the changes come from the bottom up, just like we want the state to change and fix everything or a new 'master' that will treat us better, we just need to stop agreeing to be lorded over.   That is why I am not trying to influence the producers anymore than an anarchist wants to influence a politician.  

[2bits]

I agree. While I catch myself curiously looking into coverage of tragic events, I always try balance things out to keep perspective. To many people interpret the apparent imbalance of negative and positive in the news cycle as reflecting a decaying world. The truth is that violent crime has never been lower, and transportation has never been safer, for examples. You certainly wouldn't get that impression from watching the news.

[jpahmad]

good points 2bits.  Curiosity is one thing, but I would like to learn more about how humans are drawn to the tragic and negative.  

It really is true that the changes come from the bottom up, just like we want the state to change and fix everything or a new 'master' that will treat us better, we just need to stop agreeing to be lorded over.   That is why I am not trying to influence the producers anymore than an anarchist wants to influence a politician.  

let's not assume that human beings are "naturally" attracted to tragedy and scandal.  I know that there is a large population, probably the majority today, who thrive off the stuff.  However, I'm not sure what the reason is.  And yes, the news and media in general exploits this fact for ratings.  We know that is true.  We also know that there are people who exist that don't care for it, don't own a television, and are only concerned with their immediate reality, as they should be. 

 

Remember, there are millions of people out there who don't own televisions, don't watch movies, probably don't use the internet that much, and don't care.  They are probably wrapped up in day-to-day survival though.  What's my point?  Well, I think there is an issue of boredom in the country I live in (usa). 

[Daniel Chambers]

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200306/our-brains-negative-bias

 

"The brain, Cacioppo demonstrated, reacts more strongly to stimuli it deems negative. There is a greater surge in electrical activity. Thus, our attitudes are more heavily influenced by downbeat news than good news."

 

_________________

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativity_bias

 

"Negativity bias is the psychological phenomenon by which humans pay more attention to and give more weight to negative rather than positive experiences or other kinds of information.

 

"In the brain, there are two different systems for negative and positive stimuli. The left hemisphere, which is known for articulate language, is specialized for positive experiences; whereas, the right hemisphere focuses on negative experiences. Another area of the brain used for the negativity bias is the amygdala. This specific area of the brain uses about two-thirds of its neurons searching for negative experiences. Once the amygdala starts looking for the bad news, it is stored into long-term memory.

 

"Positive experiences have to be held in awareness for more than twelve seconds in order for the transfer from short-term memory to long-term memory to take place. We remember more after we hear disapproving or disappointing news than before; this shows how the brain processes criticism.

 

"As a result, Cliff Nass, professor of communication from Stanford University has suggested managers offer praise after criticism, not before, so that the praise actually makes an impression on the receiver. Implicit memory registers and responds to negative events almost immediately. It takes five to twenty seconds for positive experiences to even register in the brain.

 

"Emotional information revolves within the limbic system. Therefore, the limbic system ties perfectly into the negativity bias."

[jpahmad]

 Well, according to Daniel's citations we're hardwired for it. From an evolutionary stand point, that would have something to do with survival in a hostile environment, like, the jungle, or tribal warfare.  Even dissidence and unrest within your own tribal community would be something that our ancestors would have to be keenly aware of in order to survive. 

 

But, that doesn't change the fact that some of us want to hear good news.  The only question then becomes: what do we consider good news, and why do we consider it good?  There is also a third category; irrelevant news.  You can find that on CNN all day long.

 

Let me ask a provocative question.  Was the news of Detroit's bankruptcy good or bad?

Wait, it's not that provocative of a question on these boards.  Unless you live or own property in Detroit.

[powder]

let's not assume that human beings are "naturally" attracted to tragedy and scandal.  I know that there is a large population, probably the majority today, who thrive off the stuff.  However, I'm not sure what the reason is.  And yes, the news and media in general exploits this fact for ratings.  We know that is true.  We also know that there are people who exist that don't care for it, don't own a television, and are only concerned with their immediate reality, as they should be. 

 

Remember, there are millions of people out there who don't own televisions, don't watch movies, probably don't use the internet that much, and don't care.  They are probably wrapped up in day-to-day survival though.  What's my point?  Well, I think there is an issue of boredom in the country I live in (usa). 

You claim the 'majority' of the population thrives on the negative and that the media exploits this for ratings and profit.  How can we be sure that the majority thrives on it when they are offered little or no alternative.  Its like saying people prefer pasta when that is all that is offered.  

The study simply shows that from a neurological standpoint the brain reacts more strongly to negative news, perhaps a biological survival imperative like jp points out.  

 

Still, the study does nothing to address the central question and certainly does not indicate that we somehow prefer negative information over positive or that it is a 'healthier' option when given the choice.   

 

I read an interesting book a couple of years ago called "Zebra's Don't Get Ulcers" where the author demonstrated that, unlike animals, we have the capacity to create the physiological effects of the 'fight or flight' response in our bodies simply by thinking ourselves into a state of fear, anxiety or panic.  He goes on to site all the negative health effects of prolonged exposure to that state.   The gist of the metaphor is that if a Zebra narrowly escapes capture by a lion, it would simply return to its normal routine when out of danger.  A human response would more involve years of post traumatic anxiety issues with all the kinds of blood pressure rising thoughts like:  WTF was that?  How can I avoid that again? etc.  

 

bottom line, like I said above.  energy follows thought.  Like with your diet, I think it is important to 'consume' healthy and relevant information as much as possible.  

[jpahmad]

Ok, "thrive" was the wrong word. I meant "watch."Whether they prefer it or not? Well Daniel posted something about that. But I do think conscious preference and that which we're conditioned to be attracted to through evolution, are not always the same thing. It depends on the circumstances. In your circumstance, you want to hear good news right now. You should check out the article posted on the other board about how some entrepreneurs are starting to pick up the pieces in Detroit. That's good news.I really do think that bad news has entertainment value. That's why it's around. I mean, people can sit there and laugh all day about guys getting hit in the balls on video. Getting hit in the balls is bad news.You do have a choice when it comes to the news programs. You can turn the TV off. You don't have to be watching TV. There are plenty of people who don't. If its junk, turn it off.

You claim the 'majority' of the population thrives on the negative and that the media exploits this for ratings and profit.  How can we be sure that the majority thrives on it when they are offered little or no alternative.  Its like saying people prefer pasta when that is all that is offered.  The study simply shows that from a neurological standpoint the brain reacts more strongly to negative news, perhaps a biological survival imperative like jp points out.   Still, the study does nothing to address the central question and certainly does not indicate that we somehow prefer negative information over positive or that it is a 'healthier' option when given the choice.    I read an interesting book a couple of years ago called "Zebra's Don't Get Ulcers" where the author demonstrated that, unlike animals, we have the capacity to create the physiological effects of the 'fight or flight' response in our bodies simply by thinking ourselves into a state of fear, anxiety or panic.  He goes on to site all the negative health effects of prolonged exposure to that state.   The gist of the metaphor is that if a Zebra narrowly escapes capture by a lion, it would simply return to its normal routine when out of danger.  A human response would more involve years of post traumatic anxiety issues with all the kinds of blood pressure rising thoughts like:  WTF was that?  How can I avoid that again? etc.   bottom line, like I said above.  energy follows thought.  Like with your diet, I think it is important to 'consume' healthy and relevant information as much as possible.  

Ha, ha! What about flies? I think about that a lot. I mean how manny near death experiences does a fly have when it's annoyingly buzzing around a group of people sitting outside on the patio. But the thing never seems to get traumatized. It just keeps coming back for more swats. Real short term memory.

[MysterionMuffles]

I totally agree. Even pre philosophy the news always disturbed me

How they can flatly say that people are dying then onto the weather! Its so desensatizing to watch. What I am disturbed by is when my family watches to have their collective gasps of concern but can barely summon any real empathy towards anyone in our immediate world. I have always thought that the news is just a soul and mind crusher to increase our dependance on state power by making us feel helpless about all the troubles in the world.

 

News casters talk like heartless robots, and it is scary how anyone can take them seriously.

And on the tip of how our brains are hardwired to retain negative news more for survival reasons...its an attempt to keep us in the primitive state of simple die or survive mentality.

 

For Canadians, I dont know if youve heard of a show called The Hour hosted by George Strombolopoulous, but its very different late nightv. Unlike Letterman or Leno (lamewads!) George conducts REAL interviews getting to the REAL person within the celebrity he interviews. Like instead of focussing on tabloid semantics or anything else mundane they focus in late night, his line of questioning iss geared towards what drives people to fulfill their aspirations. Also he used to have a segment called The World of Good News for the same reason what we're talking about here. And man was it refreshing to hear about hero stories and advancements in science rather than yet another person getting shot or house burning down nearby.

 

There really needs to be more positive news programs out there. A wayy to determine if its good news if it doesnt cause negative emotion in the viewers like feeling sorry or sad for the victims

Instead it should rouse ambition in the viewer to follow in the example of the good news portrayed. Like how great would it be to see a soup kitchen volunteer story and you get testimonials from the houseless folk as to how grateful they are for being helped out? Hell why havent they televised the Google Science Fair contestants and do a huge piece on all of their inventions?

 

Conventional news SUCKS!!!

[jpahmad]

What I am disturbed by is when my family watches to have their collective gasps of concern but can barely summon any real empathy towards anyone in our immediate world.

 

 

This is so true.  It's like nurses who are all concerned about patient care and then they treat people they work with like shit. 

 

 

 

 

 A wayy to determine if its good news if it doesnt cause negative emotion in the viewers like feeling sorry or sad for the victimsInstead it should rouse ambition in the viewer to follow in the example of the good news portrayed.

 

Yeah, I think what we're talking about is motivational news.  I prefer that term.  Good news could be something like, "oh look, a dog paddled itself to safety in a flood" or "gas prices are going down...blah, blah, blah."  But motivational news is not only good, it's interesting as well. 

 

Stefan just put up a video featuring a doctor in Oklahoma talking about the real price of healthcare and how medical services should be a lot cheaper in a free market.  I was very excited by this.  Imagine if healthcare was cheap enough so as not to necessitate insurance!  But then again, Stefan isn't the news.

[Daniel Chambers]

The following links are sites that don't always update daily, but they have an overall positive tone.

http://www.dailygood.org/

http://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/

http://positivepsychologynews.com/

[powder]

cool, thanks Daniel!  

[STer]

It's interesting to see this topic discussed in a place so dedicated to markets. The networks show these sensationalized stories for ratings which directly leads to advertiser revenue. They do lots of research. I'm sure if they believed they'd get higher ratings showing more "positive" stories, they'd do that. Or if you believe they are wrong and missing an opportunity, then jump on it and start promoting positive stories and stealing away their advertisers. Isn't that how free marketeers believe it works? Or am I missing something.

[PatrickC]

STer is quite right, the MSM only gives stories that the market will respond too with increased revenues for them. I've heard it said that the MSM is just a propaganda tool, when for the most part it merely reflects the values and judgements of everyday people and mainstream culture.

[STer]

Remember, what we should be calling it is "the corporate media." They are corporations whose primary goal is to make a profit, not to improve society. If those things can go together great, but wherever they clash, we should expect the profit motive to usually win out.

 

And one of the most insightful things I ever heard was when someone mentioned that when you watch the news, you tend to think you're the audience. But you're not. You are the product. You are what is being sold...to their advertisers.

[powder]

It's interesting to see this topic discussed in a place so dedicated to markets. The networks show these sensationalized stories for ratings which directly leads to advertiser revenue. They do lots of research. I'm sure if they believed they'd get higher ratings showing more "positive" stories, they'd do that. Or if you believe they are wrong and missing an opportunity, then jump on it and start promoting positive stories and stealing away their advertisers. Isn't that how free marketeers believe it works? Or am I missing something.

STer is quite right, the MSM only gives stories that the market will respond too with increased revenues for them. I've heard it said that the MSM is just a propaganda tool, when for the most part it merely reflects the values and judgements of everyday people and mainstream culture.

 

I don't think it is like the free market, certainly not the kind of free market discussed here, anymore than the oil or pharmaceutical companies are that offer the same product and service at the same price, protected by gov policy.  I don't see any real competition in the media either, and I believe there is another motive besides profit.  

[PatrickC]

Well I think that was what STer later alluded to with his 'corporate media' statement, which I would agree with for the most part. However, whilst it's not a fully fledged 'free market' as such, it is still a market all the same. It's just that topics and stories that might interest us are of little value to these corporate entities, because we would be considered as a niche market. They prefer to plunge into cultural mediocity because it tends to garner the larger audience for them that way.

[Daniel Chambers]

And in the More Good News department...

 

A little Colorado girl, Charlotte, develops seizures so bad that she loses the ability to speak, and has up to 300 grand mal episodes weekly (averaging 1 seizure every half hour). Her parents exhaust the available treatment options, then turn to a medical marijuana strain known as R4 that's low in THC but high in cannabidiol (CBD).

 

Today, the 6-year-old Charlotte thrives. Her episodes reduced from 300/wk to 1 or 2 per month. The R4 strain has been renamed "Charlotte's Web" and it's being used to treat epilepsy and cancer in 41 others.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/07/health/charlotte-child-medical-marijuana/?hpt=us_c2

[jpahmad]

That is great news. Thanks Daniel.

[LovePrevails]

I think that the news (media) deliberately focuses on bad news, the tragic and the unfortunate, to brainwash us into believing the lie that humans are inherently evil and destructive and we need to be controlled and subdued by the state (church) or absolute chaos and mayhem will ensue.  

 

It is perhaps the most ardent argument against a stateless society.  

 

I remember being disgusted with the news when I was a kid and refused to watch it, even to this day I don't go there.  It seems clear to me that over 95% of the people in the world are good folks with the best of intentions just trying to do their best to do the right thing.  Yet the news focuses exclusively on the dark stuff.   

I am happy to learn more about a stateless society and I think Stefan is doing great work.  I must say though, I am disappointed to see all the negative news reports about all the crazy stuff happening in the world posted on this site - like so many other conspiracy/alternative news sites and forums.  

 

We get it, the system is messed up, the oligarchs are psychopathic control freaks.  It is one thing to learn about and understand the current system to better learn to detach from it.  

 

Still, I really think that energy follows thought, what you focus on expands....  I would like to hear more about the positive stuff that is happening.  

Thanks for posting! I love hearing good news

 

Why don't you post good news sotries you find up on the forum?

 

Maybe you could start a blog posting a "good news" story each day - you'd definitely have my subscription!

[STer]

Most people on this forum agree that society is devastatingly screwed up. You'd think they'd want this message getting out there so as to encourage people to wake up and become eager to make changes. Instead, what we see is that despite endless amounts of bad news, they still mostly support the system and go along with it. So now the solution is to show good news?

 

I think good vs. bad news isn't the issue. The issue is whether they are focusing on leverage point issues or not. I don't think people would complain in this thread as much if they showed important "bad news." But what they show is often trivial sensationalized bad news or bad news disconnected from the underlying causes.

[powder]

Most people on this forum agree that society is devastatingly screwed up. You'd think they'd want this message getting out there so as to encourage people to wake up and become eager to make changes. Instead, what we see is that despite endless amounts of bad news, they still mostly support the system and go along with it. So now the solution is to show good news?

 

I think good vs. bad news isn't the issue. The issue is whether they are focusing on leverage point issues or not. I don't think people would complain in this thread as much if they showed important "bad news." But what they show is often trivial sensationalized bad news or bad news disconnected from the underlying causes.

I totally agree with this STer, I am not as concerned about whether the news is 'negative' or not.  Relevant, important information can be a useful tool to help people wake up and move forward.  Just read Stefan's book 'Everyday Anarchy', not what I would call happy and uplifting but a darn good eye opener.  

Thanks for posting! I love hearing good news

 

Why don't you post good news sotries you find up on the forum?

 

Maybe you could start a blog posting a "good news" story each day - you'd definitely have my subscription!

Right on LP, I'm gonna check out the links Daniel gave above.  

[LovePrevails]

here is 5 videos you can use as "good news"  posts for your good news blog

 

http://reasonspiritandesthetics.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/hope-for-us-yet.html