Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Behind the scenes
    Joined
    27 Jun '16
    Moves
    1401
    18 Apr '18 22:49
    Since most news outlets dwell on bad news, this begs an interesting question:



    Would things get better or worse if humans focused on what was going well rather than what’s going wrong?
  2. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    18 Apr '18 23:53
    Originally posted by @mchill
    Since most news outlets dwell on bad news, this begs an interesting question:



    Would things get better or worse if humans focused on what was going well rather than what’s going wrong?
    Why don't we list them and see if the question can be satisfied.
  3. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    19 Apr '18 04:05
    Originally posted by @mchill
    Since most news outlets dwell on bad news, this begs an interesting question:

    Would things get better or worse if humans focused on what was going well rather than what’s going wrong?
    In the Third Reich, would it have been better to focus on the success
    of delousing prisoners taken to concentration camps?
    Would it have been to focus on meeting production targets than deaths?

    History does not necessarily unfold as a coherent didactic narrative.
  4. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    19 Apr '18 15:41
    Originally posted by @mchill
    Since most news outlets dwell on bad news, this begs an interesting question:



    Would things get better or worse if humans focused on what was going well rather than what’s going wrong?
    A country where your what-if were the norm would be different in so many ways (say, commitment to education) that it would be hard to identify cause and effect.

    OTOH an enterprising group could start a blog where they report with the focus you suggest, and see how it goes. It should report on longer-term cooperative efforts, not fireman saves cat up tree. IMO
  5. Standard memberHandyAndy
    Non sum qualis eram
    At the edge
    Joined
    23 Sep '06
    Moves
    18031
    19 Apr '18 15:57
    Originally posted by @mchill
    Since most news outlets dwell on bad news, this begs an interesting question:

    Would things get better or worse if humans focused on what was going well rather than what’s going wrong?
    In the news business, the rule is bad before good. If it bleeds, it leads.
  6. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52853
    19 Apr '18 16:07
    Originally posted by @mchill
    Since most news outlets dwell on bad news, this begs an interesting question:



    Would things get better or worse if humans focused on what was going well rather than what’s going wrong?
    IMHO there would be no difference since hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes and other natural disasters would still take place.

    If no bad news happened, then despots like Pol Pot or Trump would get away with literal murder so if bad news was suppressed, they would love that situation.
  7. Standard memberuzless
    The So Fist
    Voice of Reason
    Joined
    28 Mar '06
    Moves
    9908
    19 Apr '18 20:521 edit
    Originally posted by @mchill
    Since most news outlets dwell on bad news, this begs an interesting question:



    Would things get better or worse if humans focused on what was going well rather than what’s going wrong?
    Sounds like some kind of utopia you'd find in a Juicy Fruit gum commercial.....
  8. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Mr. Wolf
    at home
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    19 Apr '18 23:16
    Originally posted by @mchill
    Since most news outlets dwell on bad news, this begs an interesting question:



    Would things get better or worse if humans focused on what was going well rather than what’s going wrong?
    No adverse weather conditions across the country


    Headlines like this do not sell newspapers.
  9. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    35841
    19 Apr '18 23:41
    Originally posted by @wolfgang59
    [b]No adverse weather conditions across the country


    Headlines like this do not sell newspapers.[/b]
    Just like reporting things as they are don't get Republicans votes, either, so that's why outlets like Fox News exist, so that they can lie and propagate fear and get Republicans elected because "only they can see the problems that exist". Plain old fear-mongering at its worst.
  10. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    20 Apr '18 00:281 edit
    Originally posted by @mchill
    Since most news outlets dwell on bad news, this begs an interesting question:

    Would things get better or worse if humans focused on what was going well rather than what’s going wrong?
    Would Mchill prefer to live in a country with completely state-controlled media in which
    every news story was framed within the context of glorifying the state and its leader?
    If so, then Mchill could enjoy reading about record harvests and industrial production,
    never having his complacency disturbed by reports of mass starvation.

    That said, many, if not most, people apparently would prefer a censored media (in some ways)
    that propagates falsehoods rather than reporting facts. I suspect that many, if not most,
    white Americans here would embrace a media in which white people are never depicted
    as guilty of racism, and racism would be mentioned only if white people are its alleged victims.
  11. SubscriberWajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    Provocation
    Joined
    01 Sep '04
    Moves
    65518
    20 Apr '18 01:07
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    Would Mchill prefer to live in a country with completely state-controlled media in which
    every news story was framed within the context of glorifying the state and its leader?
    If so, then Mchill could enjoy reading about record harvests and industrial production,
    never having his complacency disturbed by reports of mass starvation.

    That said, many, ...[text shortened]... as guilty of racism, and racism would be mentioned only if white people are its alleged victims.
    That said, many (vague), if not most (vague), people apparently (vague) would prefer a censored media (in some ways) (vague)
    that propagates falsehoods rather than reporting facts. I suspect that many (vague), if not most (vague),
    non-white citizens here would embrace a media in which non-white people are never depicted
    as guilty of racism, and racism would be mentioned only if non-white people are its alleged victim
  12. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    56279
    20 Apr '18 04:111 edit
    Originally posted by @mchill
    Since most news outlets dwell on bad news, this begs an interesting question:



    Would things get better or worse if humans focused on what was going well rather than what’s going wrong?
    Not sure.

    In a work environment and raising children it’s been proven that positive reenforcement works better than punishment.

    However, as pointed out, it does seem to be that despots and dictatorships rule by using the same tactics in the media.

    All in all, I think a shift of focus may be better.
    Say there’s 10 important stories 3 of which are good news and 7 which are bad.
    And the news has time for 8 stories.
    They’ll generally pick 7 bad news stories and end with one good news story.

    Perhaps they could add an extra good news story and drop one of the bad news ones?

    Not sure if that would make things better though.

    Trump scandal
    Syria bombing
    Israeli soldiers kill Palestinian teenager.
    Charles the kitty saved from tree.
    Hurricane detroys 2000 homes.
    Burning crosses found in pro-abortionist’s garden.
    Thw flowers are sweetly blooming in Scotland.
    Brexit economic nightmare

    Well, could work.
  13. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    20 Apr '18 04:19
    http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potemkin_village
  14. Joined
    24 Apr '10
    Moves
    14639
    20 Apr '18 07:081 edit
    Originally posted by @Duchess64
    That said, many, if not most, people apparently would prefer a censored media (in some ways)
    that propagates falsehoods rather than reporting facts. I suspect that many, if not most,
    white Americans here would embrace a media in which white people are never depicted
    as guilty of racism, and racism would be mentioned only if white people are its alleged victims.
    Why is this kind of racist diatribe still accepted on this website?

    Replace white with black and No1, Zahlanzi, Shav, Suz and various others would be rolling over themselves declaring "racist!" Quite likely, by now such a poster would've been banned after multiple warnings - as it should be.

    Why is this acceptable? It boggles my mind.
  15. Joined
    18 Jan '07
    Moves
    7290
    20 Apr '18 09:46
    Originally posted by @js357
    A country where your what-if were the norm would be different in so many ways (say, commitment to education) that it would be hard to identify cause and effect.
    It'd be dead. Our wariness of bad things is a survival mechanism. If our ancestors had never assumed that there might be a lion lurking behind each bush, or accepted that lions eat people, we'd all have been killed.

    Of course, we mustn't focus only on the negative, or exaggerate real dangers into fantasies, like Fox; let alone make up non-existent threats, like Alex Jones. But mentioning only, or even predominantly, the positives, and downplaying real dangers such as plastics pollution, or Facebook spying and tax fraud, that would be suicidal for any society.
Back to Top