Logo
    Search

    Podcast Summary

    • Is the media causing unnecessary anxiety with negative COVID-19 coverage?Limit news consumption from a variety of sources to maintain a balanced perspective on the pandemic and avoid unnecessary stress.

      The coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic in major US media outlets may be overly negative, causing unnecessary anxiety and stress among the public. Economist Bruce Sacerdote believes that useful information about the pandemic is being overshadowed by the media's focus on deaths and infection rates, resulting in a lack of perspective. The Centers for Disease Control advises limiting news consumption for our mental health. The economic setup of the media industry may also be playing a role in driving this negative tone. Therefore, it is essential to consume news from different sources and maintain a balanced perspective on the pandemic.

    • The Power of Pessimism and Optimism in Media and Tech MarketsDespite media bias towards negative news, the U.S. economy is growing and even poor people are better off. High-tech companies are subsidized by investors' optimism. Optimistic voices can have more impact than isolated critics. Media outlets shape public perception with their negativity bias.

      Major media outlets thrive on pessimism, while tech markets thrive on optimism. Despite the negative news bias, there is economic growth in the U.S. and poor people are becoming better off, albeit at a slower rate than rich people. Investors subsidize high-tech companies like Tesla and Amazon with optimism for future payoffs. Cable TV, particularly Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC, continue to see revenue growth and massive profit margins. Sacerdote suggests that a group of optimistic voices could be more effective than one or two voices crying in the wilderness. The medium is the message, and media outlets shape public perception with their negative bias and emphasis on bad news.

    • The Negative Bias in US Media and Covid CoverageUS media tends to focus on negative stories, with 87% of Covid coverage being negative. Profit maximization and catering to existing fears contribute to this trend. Be critical of media sources and seek out balanced reporting.

      The media has a tendency to produce negative stories that cater to people's existing fears, and this is particularly strong in the US. A research project analyzing Covid news coverage in major US media, local and regional US media, international media outlets, and scientific journals shows that negative stories outnumber positive ones by a significant margin, and this trend is not necessarily driven by the trend in cases. The share of negative coverage in national US media was 87%, which is significantly higher than international media (51%), US regional media (53%), and scientific journals (64%). While journalism spans a wide spectrum, the most crowd-pleasing outlets follow the mantra "If it bleeds, it leads," indicating that profit maximization plays a role in the coverage of news stories.

    • The Overlooked Positive News on Covid-19Not all news on Covid-19 is negative. Seek out balanced reporting from various sources to get a full and accurate picture of the situation.

      Mainstream media tends to focus on negative news regarding Covid-19, but there actually is positive scientific news out there that doesn't get as much attention. President Trump's vaccine efforts were often portrayed critically in major US media outlets, while foreign media outlets focused on the progress being made by scientists in developing vaccines. The New York Times and other major US media outlets tend to have high levels of negativity in their Covid-19 related articles compared to regional and local papers or TV channels. It's important to seek out balanced and accurate reporting to get a full picture of the situation.

    • The Self-Reinforcing Cycle of Negative News in the MediaOur inherent negativity bias causes media outlets to deliver negative news to maintain their audience. However, we should be mindful of this bias and actively seek out positive news in order to balance our perspective.

      Negative news may be a self-reinforcing cycle perpetuated by media outlets, as people tend to have a built-in negativity bias. The New York Times is just one example of how the media has increasingly delivered negative news to maintain its audience. Academic studies have shown that humans are more likely to pay attention to risk and negativity, as it can serve a valuable function. The English language itself is also influenced by this negative bias, with more words for negative emotions than positive ones. While it remains unclear whether news outlets create or meet our demand for negative news, we should be mindful of our biases and actively seek out positive news as well.

    • The Influence of Language and Media Biases on Our Perception of the WorldLanguage lacks specific words for positive emotions and experiences, leading to lengthy descriptions. Media headlines focus on negativity, creating a skewed view of the world. Being aware of these biases can help us form a more balanced understanding of the world.

      Language lacks specific words for positive emotions and experiences, leading to lengthy descriptions to convey meaning. Negativity in media headlines creates a heightened state of awareness and urgency to take action, shaping our perception of events. Profit-maximization drives American media outlets to focus on negative news, contributing to a skewed view of the world. Tolstoy was right in his claim that unhappy families are unique in their suffering, but language limitations prevent us from naming specific types of happiness. The absence of a verb for 'telling the truth' also highlights how language often focuses on departures from the norm. We need to be aware of these language and media biases to form a more balanced understanding of the world and our experiences.

    • Why does the American media focus on negative stories?Major media outlets in America focus on negative stories for profit, while public players in other countries prioritize truth over profit. Political bias does not necessarily correlate with negative news coverage. Negativity in American media has decreased recently.

      The American media has a tendency to focus on negative stories, as it drives viewership and clicks. This is not because Americans have a taste for negativity, but rather due to the profit motive of major media outlets. Other countries with public players, such as the B.B.C. or the Canadian Broadcasting Corp., are less motivated by profit and more motivated by the truth. Despite this, there was no relationship found between political bias and negative news coverage. However, the negativity in American media seems to have decreased over the past few months, suggesting that part of it was due to the political environment.

    • The impact of media and social media on public opinionMedia and social media can shape public opinion on important issues, but consumers must be critical thinkers and fact-checkers to avoid misinformation and polarization.

      The media's negativity towards various issues, including climate change, poverty alleviation, and unemployment, can lead to individuals feeling hopeless and less likely to believe that these problems can be solved. Social media, despite its reputation for being a positive space, is actually reliant on capturing attention to sell advertising, and can often perpetuate misinformation and polarization. More than half of Americans get their news from social media, making it a powerful tool for driving engagement and selling advertising. This emphasizes the importance of critical thinking when consuming news on social media, and the need for reliable fact-checking.

    • The power of outgroup references on social media engagement.Referring to the outgroup on social media generates more engagement but also perpetuates animosity. Posts about the ingroup receive more positive reactions.

      Posts on social media that refer to an outgroup, someone who is on the other side of the political aisle, receive significantly more engagement in terms of shares, comments, and reactions, according to a study that analyzed posts from conservative and liberal media platforms and Republican and Democratic members of Congress from 2016 to 2020. Each additional word referring to the outgroup increased the number of retweets or shares of the post by 67 percent. However, posts about the ingroup receive more like or heart reactions. The study emphasizes the significant role that outgroup animosity plays in social media engagement.

    • The Perverse Incentives of Social Media: Amplifying Negative MessagingSocial media uses our instinct to pay attention to negative content and amplifies it. Politicians suggest reducing amplification of negative content about outgroups. Understanding social media psychology can help navigate its effects.

      Moral words such as 'evil' or 'hate' lead to increased social media virality, reflecting the perverse incentives of social media. While social media regulations vary globally, politicians on both sides suggest less amplification of negative content about outgroups for a potential solution. Social media takes advantage of an ancient instinct to pay attention to negative, polarizing, or divisive messaging, but algorithmically amplifies it. The impact of social media regulation remains to be seen, but understanding the psychology behind social media engagement can help individuals and businesses navigate its effects.

    • The Double-Edged Sword of Social Media AttentionWhile negativity towards outgroups can bring attention, it may not improve one's brand image. Individuals should take responsibility for their actions online and be aware of the potential consequences.

      Politicians like Donald Trump who use social media to get attention may face a double-edged sword. They may get more visibility at the cost of appearing more unlikable. In non-political realms, being negative towards outgroups may also bring attention, but it may not necessarily make people like one's brand more. The phenomenon of outgroup negativity is powerful, but it is not advised that everyone should engage in it. Instead of blaming social media platforms, individuals should take responsibility for their actions and be aware of the consequences of their actions online.

    • The Amplification of Negativity on Social MediaSocial media platforms tend to focus on negative content, but studies suggest that people are happier when they step away from them. Platforms could promote positivity through subtle algorithm changes and emphasizing positive news like the Olympics.

      Social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter claim that they are just a mirror of society, but research shows that they amplify the bad and the ugly. Negative content captures our attention more than positive content. Although people might want to share negative stories, research shows that when we leave these platforms, we often are happier. Facebook could make subtle algorithm tweaks to encourage more positive reactions and emotions rather than angry reactions, which could lead to more viral positivity. The coverage of events like the Olympics, which focus on positivity rather than negativity, shows that positivity has more value than negativity.

    • The Power of Bad and Negativity Bias in Social Media and Local NewspapersSocial media and local newspapers have different levels of negativity due to their business models. Inconsistent positive messaging may lead to vaccine hesitancy. Media highlighting solutions can have an upside.

      Social media's business model of constant engagement has led to the power of bad being a strong bias, but it is not equally powerful in all domains. The New York Times has a higher negativity number compared to local papers, which tend to focus on local happenings. Local newspapers may not be profit-maximizing, which could be why they don't promote negativity as much. However, media coverage that doesn't just highlight problems but also explores solutions could have an upside. One example is how inconsistent positive messaging about vaccines may have contributed to vaccine hesitancy.

    • Americans' Negativity Hinders Progress on Major IssuesFocusing on solutions and progress, rather than past failures, is crucial to tackling challenges like Covid, climate change, inequality, and poverty. The media can help by promoting practical solutions and optimism.

      Many Americans are too pessimistic about their ability to tackle issues such as Covid, climate change, inequality, and poverty. This negativity is holding society back instead of looking at solutions and progress. There should be a market for sensible moderates who acknowledge that government can work while also caring about deficits, but this perspective is not being widely promoted. It is crucial to focus on what can be done rather than what has been done poorly. The media has a powerful role to play in promoting positivity and practical solutions rather than constant negativity.

    Recent Episodes from Freakonomics Radio

    597. Why Do Your Eyeglasses Cost $1,000?

    597. Why Do Your Eyeglasses Cost $1,000?

    A single company, EssilorLuxottica, owns so much of the eyewear industry that it’s hard to escape their gravitational pull — or their “obscene” markups. Should regulators do something? Can Warby Parker steal market share? And how did Ray-Bans become a luxury brand? (Part one of a two-part series.)

     

    • SOURCES:
      • Neil Blumenthal, co-founder and co-CEO of Warby Parker.
      • Dave Gilboa, co-founder and co-CEO of Warby Parker.
      • Jessica Glasscock, fashion historian and lecturer at the Parsons School of Design.
      • Neil Handley, curator of the British Optical Association Museum at the College of Optometrists.
      • Ryan McDevitt, professor of economics at Duke University.
      • Cédric Rossi, equity research analyst at Bryan Garnier.
      • Tim Wu, professor of law, science and technology at Columbia Law School.

     

     

    Freakonomics Radio
    en-usJuly 18, 2024

    EXTRA: People Aren’t Dumb. The World Is Hard. (Update)

    EXTRA: People Aren’t Dumb. The World Is Hard. (Update)

    You wouldn’t think you could win a Nobel Prize for showing that humans tend to make irrational decisions. But that’s what Richard Thaler has done. In an interview from 2018, the founder of behavioral economics describes his unlikely route to success; his reputation for being lazy; and his efforts to fix the world — one nudge at a time.

     

    • SOURCES:
      • Richard Thaler, professor of behavioral science and economics at the University of Chicago.

     

     

    Freakonomics Radio
    en-usJuly 15, 2024

    596. Farewell to a Generational Talent

    596. Farewell to a Generational Talent

    Daniel Kahneman left his mark on academia (and the real world) in countless ways. A group of his friends and colleagues recently gathered in Chicago to reflect on this legacy — and we were there, with microphones.

     

    • SOURCES:
      • Maya Bar-Hillel, professor emeritus of psychology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
      • Shane Frederick, professor of marketing at the Yale School of Management.
      • Thomas Gilovich, professor of psychology at Cornell University.
      • Matt Killingsworth, senior fellow at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.
      • Barbara Mellers, professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania.
      • Eldar Shafir, director of the Kahneman-Treisman Center for Behavioral Science & Public Policy at Princeton University.
      • Richard Thaler, professor of behavioral science and economics at the University of Chicago.

     

     

    Freakonomics Radio
    en-usJuly 11, 2024

    595. Why Don't We Have Better Candidates for President?

    595. Why Don't We Have Better Candidates for President?

    American politics is trapped in a duopoly, with two all-powerful parties colluding to stifle competition. We revisit a 2018 episode to explain how the political industry works, and talk to a reformer (and former presidential candidate) who is pushing for change.

     

    • SOURCES:

     

     

    Freakonomics Radio
    en-usJuly 04, 2024

    594. Your Brand’s Spokesperson Just Got Arrested — Now What?

    594. Your Brand’s Spokesperson Just Got Arrested — Now What?

    It’s hard to know whether the benefits of hiring a celebrity are worth the risk. We dig into one gruesome story of an endorsement gone wrong, and find a surprising result.

     

    • SOURCES:
      • John Cawley, professor of economics at Cornell University.
      • Elizabeth (Zab) Johnson, executive director and senior fellow with the Wharton Neuroscience Initiative at the University of Pennsylvania.
      • Alvin Roth, professor of economics at Stanford University.

     

     

    Freakonomics Radio
    en-usJune 27, 2024

    593. You Can Make a Killing, but Not a Living

    593. You Can Make a Killing, but Not a Living

    Broadway operates on a winner-take-most business model. A runaway hit like Stereophonic — which just won five Tony Awards — will create a few big winners. But even the stars of the show will have to go elsewhere to make real money. (Part two of a two-part series.)

     

     

     

    Freakonomics Radio
    en-usJune 20, 2024

    EXTRA: The Fascinatingly Mundane Secrets of the World’s Most Exclusive Nightclub

    EXTRA: The Fascinatingly Mundane Secrets of the World’s Most Exclusive Nightclub

    The Berlin dance mecca Berghain is known for its eight-hour line and inscrutable door policy. PJ Vogt, host of the podcast Search Engine, joins us to crack the code. It has to do with Cold War rivalries, German tax law, and one very talented bouncer.

     

    • SOURCES:
      • Lutz Leichsenring, executive board member of Clubcommission Berlin and co-founder of VibeLab.
      • PJ Vogt, reporter, writer, and host of the podcast Search Engine.

     

     

    Freakonomics Radio
    en-usJune 17, 2024

    592. How to Make the Coolest Show on Broadway

    592. How to Make the Coolest Show on Broadway

    Hit by Covid, runaway costs, and a zillion streams of competition, serious theater is in serious trouble. A new hit play called Stereophonic — the most Tony-nominated play in history — has something to say about that. We speak with the people who make it happen every night. (Part one of a two-part series.)

     

     

    Freakonomics Radio
    en-usJune 13, 2024

    591. Signs of Progress, One Year at a Time

    591. Signs of Progress, One Year at a Time

    Every December, a British man named Tom Whitwell publishes a list of 52 things he’s learned that year. These fascinating facts reveal the spectrum of human behavior, from fraud and hypocrisy to Whitwell’s steadfast belief in progress. Should we also believe?

     

     

    Freakonomics Radio
    en-usJune 06, 2024

    EXTRA: The Opioid Tragedy — How We Got Here

    EXTRA: The Opioid Tragedy — How We Got Here

    An update of our 2020 series, in which we spoke with physicians, researchers, and addicts about the root causes of the crisis — and the tension between abstinence and harm reduction.

     

    • SOURCES:
      • Gail D’Onofrio, professor and chair of emergency medicine at the Yale School of Medicine and chief of emergency services at Yale-New Haven Health.
      • Keith Humphreys, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford University.
      • Stephen Loyd, chief medical officer of Cedar Recovery and chair of the Tennessee Opioid Abatement Council.
      • Nicole O’Donnell, certified recovery specialist at the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Addiction Medicine and Policy.
      • Jeanmarie Perrone, professor of emergency medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.
      • Eileen Richardson, restaurant manager.

     

     

    Freakonomics Radio
    en-usJune 03, 2024

    Related Episodes

    Silly season spectacular — plus, will Kane play for Germany?

    Silly season spectacular — plus, will Kane play for Germany?
    We read the papers so you don’t have to… Today: Summer news panic sets in! How will the papers respond? With emergency tales about Harry Kane, the appalling French, and how Labour is turning the NHS Welsh (?). Plus, the exam grades nightmare… and who won FixTheHeadline? Jonn Elledge of the New Statesman and stand-up comic Athena Kugblenu join Rob Hutton for today’s newsprint throwdown. Follow Paper Cuts: Twitter: https://twitter.com/papercutsshow Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/papercutsshow Illustrations by Modern Toss https://moderntoss.com Written and presented by Rob Hutton. Audio production: Alex Rees. Design: James Parrett. Music: Simon Williams. Managing Editor: Jacob Jarvis. Exec Producer: Martin Bojtos. Group Editor: Andrew Harrison. PAPER CUTS is a Podmasters Production Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

    Ep. 225 - Outrageous Miscarriage Of Justice In The Smollett Case

    Ep. 225 - Outrageous Miscarriage Of Justice In The Smollett Case

    Today on the Matt Walsh Show, in an outrageous development, Jussie Smollett, who staged a fake hate crime against himself, has been let go. All charges dropped. We will discuss this incredible miscarriage of justice. Also, the president of CNN makes a stunning admission, and a video of Pope Francis that you have to see to believe.  03-26-2019

    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

    Ken Lindner, the founder of Positive Life Choice Psychology, talks about his book Aspire Higher.

    Ken Lindner, the founder of Positive Life Choice Psychology, talks about his book Aspire Higher.

    Long time friend and best selling author Ken Lindner joins me to talk about his book 'Aspire Higher'. Ken speaks of self help, spiritual growth, self esteem, and self care, and how we can affect positive change in our lives with self love and by filling our "heart of hearts".


    Follow me on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/itsmejuliemoran/?hl=en

    A New Cancer Diagnostic Tool & No Kids? No Problem!

    A New Cancer Diagnostic Tool & No Kids? No Problem!

    Today's good news: Summers and Kristy discuss why deciding not to have children can be empowering and expansive, and there's an exciting new kind of diagnostic tool that can rapidly predict blood cancer relapses!

    If you'd like to lend your voice to the Optimist Daily Update, send an email to: editorial@optimistdaily.com.

    Listen to the Optimist Daily Update with Summers & Kristy - Making Solutions the News!

    Pelosi And Schiff Make a Catastrophic Mistake (Ep 1098)

    Pelosi And Schiff Make a Catastrophic Mistake (Ep 1098)
    In this episode, I address the catastrophic decision by Nancy Pelosi to move forward with her fraudulent impeachment and the real reasons she’s doing so. I also address the media freak out over the killing of al-Baghdadi and the reason they can’t give Trump a win. News Picks:Breaking: Nancy Pelosi is authorizing a vote on her fake impeachment.   Here are the real reasons the media are freaking out over Trump’s Baghdadi mission.    How the FBI trapped Mike Flynn.   How media lunatics found fault with the killing of our number one enemy.   The Washington Post is a disgrace to journalism.   Trillion dollar deficits are going to destroy our country if we don’t change course quickly.   We raised record tax revenue and we are still running massive deficits.   Confiscating the wealth of all billionaires wouldn’t even pay for 3 years of government run healthcare.    Here are all of the options to pay for government run “Medicare for all.” They options aren’t pretty.   Copyright Dan Bongino All Rights Reserved.     . Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices