1 Many journalists (especially the social media ‘independent’ variety) intentionally produce content to emotionally agitate their watchers/readers/listeners. Often this is because journalists want to maximize exposure and interest of their content for the benefit of their personal carrier: emotional agitation is a tried and true method to get people to share a story and to pay attention to the journalist. A more nefarious reason for journalists to post agitating material is for the propagandistic purpose of nudging individuals ‘do stuff’ or to ‘fight stuff’ at the macro or political level.
2 The brain is wired to respond more intensely to negative stimuli than positive ones. This evolutionary trait, designed to prioritize survival by reacting swiftly to threats, translates into heightened attention for controversial or alarming content. Content that triggers strong emotions, particularly anger or fear, is more memorable and shareable. Political rants, shocking news stories, or contentious debates generate immediate emotional reactions: compelling users to engage.
3 If current events do sometimes need to be paid attention to then I think it’s best to privilege emotional investment towards local events where the most meaningful impact can be had. I read text-based long-form news articles over watching video-based social media news sources for the extra detachment that the long-form medium brings. I read the local paper before global news outlets. I generally stay off of social media entirely to avoid being bombarded with impulsive-repetitive-pointless whining of events. I try to not think about the news for over an hour a day ― unless what’s going on is directly connected to my work.
4 The world will continue to spin on and the sky is not falling. The sun will rise again tomorrow. Sensationalized coverage of recent events acts as brainwashing: it riles up people to fight things.
🤔Musings