U.S. Headlines Expressing Anger, Fear, Disgust, and Sadness Increased Hugely Since 2000
Meanwhile more and more Americans say that they are avoiding news coverage.

About 42 percent of Americans now actively avoid news coverage, according to the Reuters Institute's 2022 Digital News Report. That's up from 38 percent in 2017. Nearly half of Americans who've turned away from the news say that they are doing so because it has a negative effect on their mood. As it happens, a new study in the journal PLoS One tracking the headlines in 47 publications popular in the United States reports that they have trended decidedly negative over the past two decades. Coincidence?
In their study, the team of New Zealand-based media researchers used a language model trained to categorize as positive or negative the sentiments of 23 million headlines between 2000 and 2019. In addition, the model was finetuned to identify Ekman's six basic emotions (anger, disgust, fear, joy, sadness, surprise), plus neutral, to label the headlines automatically. Using the 2019 Allsides Media Bias Chart, the publications were ideologically categorized as left, right, or center. For example, The New Yorker, the New York Times Opinion, and Mother Jones were identified as left; National Review, Fox News Opinion, and The New York Post as right; and A.P., Reuters, and The Wall Street Journal as center. (Reason was pegged as right-leaning.)

After turning their language model loose on the millions of headlines, the researchers found "an increase of sentiment negativity in headlines across written news media since the year 2000."

Overall, the researchers find that the prevalence of headlines denoting anger since the year 2000 increased by 104 percent. The prevalence of headlines denoting fear rose 150 percent; disgust by 29 percent; and sadness by 54 percent. The joy emotional category had its up and downs, rising until 2010 and falling after that. Headlines denoting neutral emotion declined by 30 percent since the year 2000. Breaking these down by ideology, headlines from right-leaning news media have been, on average, consistently more negative than headlines from left-leaning outlets.

Why are negative headlines becoming more prevalent? "If it bleeds, it leads" is a hoary journalistic aphorism summarizing the well-known fact that dramatic, even gory, stories engage the attention of news consumers. In other words, journalists are supplying news consumers with what they want. Given the global reach of modern news media, there is always some attention-grabbing horror that occurred somewhere that can be highlighted between weather and sports on your local TV news.
Journalistic catering to people's negativity bias ends up misleading a lot of their audiences into thinking that the state of the world is getting worse and worse. However, looking at long term trends, the opposite is the case. Yes, yes, there are wars in Ukraine, Ethiopia, and Yemen and, of course, a global pandemic during the past two years has killed around 6.5 million people so far. "For reasons I have never understood, people like to hear that the world is going to hell, and become huffy and scornful when some idiotic optimist intrudes on their pleasure," wrote economist Deidre McCloskey. "Yet pessimism has consistently been a poor guide to the modern economic world."
As one of those idiotic optimists, I have spent much of my reporting life refuting apocalyptic claims and pointing to the enormous amount of progress humanity has made since the Enlightenment. For example, my co-author Marian Tupy and I cite uncontroversial data in Ten Global Trends Every Smart Person Should Know showing the enormous and ongoing increase in human wellbeing that has occurred over the past 100 years. For example, global per capita income rose (in real dollars) from $2,000 in 1900 to nearly $15,000 by 2016. Consequently, the proportion of global population living in absolute poverty ($1.90 per day or less) has dropped from 84 percent to under 9 percent. In addition, global life expectancy more than doubled from an average of 30 years in 1820 to 72 years now. And deaths from natural disasters have declined by nearly 99 percent since the 1920s. With respect to the U.S. we document, among other trends, the steep decline in racist attitudes, e.g., between 1958 and 2002 the percentage of whites who said that they approved racial intermarriage rose from 4 to 90 percent. In addition, while the U.S. economy grew more than 250 percent since 1970, overall air pollution fell by 74 percent.
In any case, the New Zealand researchers ultimately say that their study cannot tell whether the increase in negative news media headlines expresses a wider societal mood or if they are instead reflecting sentiments being pushed by those creating news content. "Financial incentives to maximize click-through ratios could be at play in increasing the sentiment polarity and emotional charge of headlines over time," they speculate. "Conceivably, the temptation of shaping the sentiment and emotional undertones of news headlines to advance political agendas could also be playing a role." Both seem likely.
Of course, these trends and incentives are likely activating a pernicious positive feedback loop in which a sour social and political mood engenders dismal headlines which in turn further demoralizes people and so forth. No wonder more Americans are actively avoiding the news.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
“If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed. If you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed.”
-Mark Twain
What happens if I read the Reason comments?
You'll go blind from all circle jerks (see thread above).
Hairy palms are cool, man. Every had GG wave to you? It's beautiful!
I thought your palms grow hair?
Mark Twain should know about the inaccuracy of news - he was a reporter!
For example, The New Yorker, the New York Times Opinion, and Mother Jones were identified as left;
Correct.
National Review, Fox News Opinion, and The New York Post as right;
Correct
and A.P., Reuters, and The Wall Street Journal as center.
Incorrect. They are, at best, center left.
(Reason was pegged as right-leaning.)
Partially correct. Reason has moved left, just like the rest of the overton window, but they haven’t moved left enough. So, despite their best efforts, yes, they are right wing.
Embrace it, Reason. You’ve been warned by the better commenters for several years, no matter how many times you pepper your articles with “means well” and “is a good thing, but”, you won’t be their friends.
You would think people would ever learn. Right now Ben Sassee is likely going to be run out of his new job as President of the University of Florida because the far left hates him. Five years of being a “Never Trump” “One of the Good Republicans” hasn’t made the left like him any more than they did before. He might as well be Steve Bannon. He would be better off. At least Bannon has some friends. Sasse doesn’t have anyone. The right views him as a traitor and the left sees him as no better than anyone else on the right.
That little morality tale is told over and over again. Yet, people on the center left and center right continue to convince themselves that it is the dreaded “far right” that is the problem and they can somehow ingratiate themselves with the left by saying so.
You think the left should support Sasse simply because he didnt suck Trump's dick? Never mind that Sasse is Anti-LGBTQ and Anti-Choice, etc.? Sorry but only the cult members rule in or rule out a candidate based on their love for and/or submission to Trump.
To be sure, one day they will.
Right before the guard's bullet goes through their heads.
Far left, far left, center left
I quit reading when they put NPR in the middle.
A.P., Reuters, and The Wall Street Journal as center.
*And* NPR... *And* Al Jazeera... *And* the BBC... *And* Bloomberg.
Per the norm, getting an NPR as center and a WSJ as center is one thing. Getting NPR, BBC, Bloomberg, AP, the BBC, etc. as center clearly demonstrates a bias. Crystal clear 'All Things Considered' "BOWFSIDEZISM".
Journalistic catering to people's negativity bias ends up misleading a lot of their audiences into thinking that the state of the world is getting worse and worse.
Things have gotten objectively worse both in this country and the world at large since 2019. There is no denying that. There is no putting lipstick on the pig that is high inflation, anemic or negative growth, out of control cancel culture, and a war in Ukraine that has the real risk of turning into another World War.
"For reasons I have never understood, people like to hear that the world is going to hell, and become huffy and scornful when some idiotic optimist intrudes on their pleasure," wrote economist Deidre McCloskey.
If that is true, why are so many fewer people paying attention to the media even though it is more negative than it ever was? There is no question that the news media is more negative. The data shows it. And there is also no denying that fewer people pay attention to the media than ever before. Given those two facts, I think Diedre is full of shit here.
People are not avoiding the news because the news is negative. They are avoiding the news because the news has totally destroyed its credibility over the last 30 years and the public doesn't want to waste its time listening to lies and propaganda. The media has no one but themselves to blame for their declining audience.
People are not avoiding the news because the news is negative. They are avoiding the news because the news has totally destroyed its credibility over the last 30 years and the public doesn’t want to waste its time listening to lies and propaganda.
It can be two things (or more).
I'd suggest the study go back a little bit more to Gulf War I and the introduction of the 24 hour cable news cycle. That's when competition between news outlets really heated up, so it would make sense that they'd use more emotional headlines to grab peoples' attention.
Further than that. Go back to NYT v. Sullivan in 1961 or 1962 I believe. Sullivan gave the media a license to lie about anyone they deemed a "public figure". At first it didn't matter because the news media was set up to conform to the old standards and the checks against outright lying remained in place. Over time, however, those checks fell away as people realized they were no longer necessary. Then Craigslist came along and robbed most newspapers of their best and most dependable source of income. So, the license to lie combined with the general desperation of the industry to adapt to the post web world, made lying a very good business for a while. It was only a good business because people still trusted them. Over time the lies have eroded that trust and the whole media business model with it.
Good point about Sullivan. The media can create a "public figure" by lying about them. The rest of the media then gets immunity.
Yup. See above. It's rather overt social toxicity. I'd say toxic co-dependency but the two sides aren't necessarily or equally co-dependent. What started out as slights against someone's choice of more dubious friends or low-level semi-constructive criticism has progressed to general silence and avoidance with any verbalization by one party being met with a shouted "What's THAT supposed to mean?!?" slap in the face. Maybe both sides could be a little more conciliatory but at least one side is going to have to figure out how to hear or read a recitation of the water bill or phone book out loud as something other than a socially-motivated attack.
As per the norm of these sorts of situations, the coincidence of Sullivan and Johnson and the '64 CRA is notable.
EVERYTHING IS SO TERRIBLE AND UNFAIR!!!!!
That pretty much sums it up. Why watch the news?
Especially because it's trust fund journalists' ideas about what qualifies as terrible and unfair. The Overton window is the empty space in Taylor Lorenz's skull.
Best place for home & kitchen appliances About Best Home Appliances The aim of this website is to help people find the best Home & Kitchen Appliances for them. Kitchen Appliances are an important part of any household, and thus it’s important to do extensive research before choosing the ideal pick. https://besthomeappliances.in
NPR is in the center? What a joke.
Some people think NPR is center.
Others think NPR leans left.
No one thinks NPR leans right.
“Center” is not the average of “left” and “center.”
NPR is about as "centrist" as an Ivy League liberal arts faculty. Christ, how did anyone write that with a straight face?
NPR is pretty good at reporting news with minimal bias.
Their opinion and entertainment however openly mocks Republicans while assuming everyone listening is a Democrat.
No they're not. Here's a breakdown of the utterly batshit insane reporting they do daily.
Factually incorrect reporting.
Nonsensical conflation of unrelated points that have nothing to do with the story and reported as "patterns".
Reiteration of known lies.
Narrative pushing.
etc. etc.
Claims of presenting different views, but utterly failing, every time. A monoculture.
I'm not going to defend NPR, though I do stand by my original statement. Sometimes news and opinion overlap, like in the example you give. And when anyone on NPR gives their opinion it will be verbatim Democrat Party talking points. But when it comes to Ukraine, British politics, and other news that doesn't involve domestic politics, they do a pretty good job.
Do you say the same thing about Fox News? "Their news is pretty good, it's just their opinion that skews right."
No, I don't. Though I don't have cable so I don't watch it often. When I do though they manage to insert Republican talking points into every story I see.
Are you sure you’re watching the news or the opinion?
Because we can’t hold Sean Hannity responsible for the news at Fox News. That’s just opinion.
It wasn't Hannity. I would have thrown something at the tv if he was on.
I was a long time listener of NPR for over 20 years. I finally stopped listening around 2013/14 if I recall because their coverage on everything was getting so bad it was causing me blood pressure problems.
They’ve always been left-biased just like nearly all mainstream journalism is left-biased. But something started breaking as they became increasingly focused on identity politics from the most fringe, toxic elements of the left. As one NPR insider said about NPR’s coverage and stylistic shift, NPR has gone through a “Teen Vogue-ification” over the last decade, and it shows.
I listen to it in the car. Not something I seek out. I do enjoy their news. It's comparatively unbiassed. Can't say that about their opinion or entertainment.
This was my experience. Used to listen to them daily, then they became just insufferable. I think it was the end of Car Talk that did them in or Obama being elected.
Funny but what you describe is kind of like the story of why I stopped listening to talk radio. I remember it vividly. Trump had just won the Republican nomination and suddenly every personality that had previously been critical of his policies and such became total cheerleaders. He could do no wrong. It was pathetic. As if a gameshow host won a gameshow or something. Haven't listened since.
Their news used to be excellent, and one could ignore the small amount of obvious bias. You're spot-on, about a decade ago, the bias overshadowed the reporting. Now every piece is an op/ed, not a news story -there is no reporting.
A couple days ago I went to a Chinese restaurant where FOX News was blaring on the tv. Talk about biased reporting. All the assumed premises were almost comical. It was like reading the comments on Reason. Then came a commercial for material parents can buy to teach their children about all the great accomplishments of President Trump. I wanted to yell "People are eating here!" but restrained myself.
Right, and no one denies what Fox News is. But when NPR becomes the Ibram X Kendi News Hour, they're right dead in the middle.
I don't know what that means and it's not important enough to me to look up.
It’s almost as important as the commercials.
Was that “news” or opinion? Because if it’s just opinion, their news could be just as good as NPRs.
Which show was it?
I don't fucking know. It was in the neighborhood of 6pm EST. If it's that important to you you can figure it out. Mostly they were talking about Hershel Walker and some other nonsense that I tried not to pay attention to.
Why do you care about the distinction of news and opinion on NPR but not Fox News?
When did I say that?
What was on the tv looked like news. Usually you can tell the difference, and this looked like news instead of opinion.
Maybe I'm wrong.
I just think it's funny that you can carefully parse the news from opinion on NPR and endorse their news, but fail to do the same for Fox News.
Apparently NPR has solid reporting but biased opinions, while Fox News has biased news because fuck who can tell what's news or opinion on there?
That's not at all what I said. But thanks for trying to put words in my mouth.
Well, here's a news story: https://www.foxnews.com/us/european-union-gives-greenlight-provide-ukraine-18-billion-financial-support-next-year
It seems like good news. I don't see a republican talking point in it. So I guess Fox News is ok, it's just their opinion that skews right.
Take a sedative. I thought I made it clear that my experience with FOX is limited being that I don't have cable, and I tried to qualify my statements.
I'm not going to get into a pissing contest where you give me a link to a FOX story without bias, then I give an NPR story without bias, and back and forth it goes.
Not playing.
So take a deep breath. It isn't that important.
But how could I possibly calm down when your bias upsets me so?
THC laced melatonin gummies?
If only SQRLSY were here. He would calm things down.
Fine. A pre-roll and a pint. Will you calm down now?
How will a mint stop my constant diarrhea from your comments?
How will a mint stop my constant diarrhea from your comments?
Wow. No one has ever said that my comments gave them diarrhea before. That's really sweet.
I will give FOX credit for calling opinion opinion. MS
NBCLSD said Madcow and Olberfuhrer were news when they were straight-up opinion.Until they went to court, then it was all opinion.
Oh, and the New York Times went so far as to call their straight news reporting division "opinion" when they found themselves in court.
Hm. I did not know that that went to court. Got a linky? I'm curious, but not curious enough to look it up myself.
Motion to dismiss defamation lawsuit, New York Times v Project Veritas.
The above is a judgement decision based on a motion to dismiss by the New York Times where the defendants (in this case, the NYT) claimed that their straight news story was "just opinion" no reasonable reader would take the story as anything else.
Now, one may love Project Veritas, one may hate Project Veritas, but the fact of the matter is, the NYT was admitting that when it characterized PV's reporting as "a coordinated disinformation campaign" that their reporting on the subject was "just opinion" and every reasonable person knows it.
Basically, the authors (Hsu and Astor) found themselves staring into the Klieg lights and blinked. "We just say shit".
All of this goes back to those videos I was linking where yes, reporters did used to have very high standards, even avoiding the word "lie" when describing something a politician said... because it requires the reporter to be able to get into the head of the speaker, and know his or her intent.
Declaring something as "false" or "misinformation" is one thing, declaring it a lie is on another level.
Hard journalism has lost its way.
Straight news is for cis-y boys
"I wanted to yell “People are eating here!” but restrained myself."
Aww, you were close. Usually, these types of stories end with the person actually doing that and then they tell us how everyone at the restaurant clapped for their bravery.
My name is sarcasmic, not Karen.
So you are saying that it was actually rational and centrist, and your propaganda addled, uninformed brain just couldn’t handle it and you became angry.
“Pretty good”, eh?
Hilarious lionizing of people like Ibram X Kendi with literally no coverage from anyone critical of his views, or even the views that he shares with a whole host of other people that NPR pushes uncritically.
It's a complete joke. NPR is by any reasonable account "far left".
They're so far out now that even leftists I know are over it. They're tired of everything being spun to be about Trump, racism, gender/queer ideology, or some combination of the three.
A.P., Reuters, and The Wall Street Journal as center
Throw Bloomberg in this group. These four are the best.
Conservative sources are liars. They need to lie to prop up conservative mythology.
Figures that a pedo likes the pedophiles.
It's absurd that NPR, AP, and theHill are listed as center. Biggest joke is that Reason is listed as being to the Right. Should be in with CNN but if the current trend continues, they will need to add another column to the left of CNN, just for Reason.
I like The Hill, they do good reporting, but yeah, they're not in the center.
IMO, a decent part of the problem is continued insistence that they aren’t center. Per my references to toxic relationships (and usu. underlying insecurity and narcissism) above, it’s like the 40-something housewife with two kids complaining about how you don’t take her out and act like you did when you first met. We aren’t 20, Bush or Reagan or Carter or Nixon isn’t president, and there are two kids, two cars, and a mortgage in the picture now. An occasional gaffe about Weinstein or #itshertime might be OK, but we can’t be out on the lawn burning our bras (no matter how much I want you running around without a bra on), running up $50K worth of credit card debt going out drinking 3 nights a week, and throwing fists and getting punched in the face every time some punk kid smirks in a way that makes you feel uneasy. If the kids were more self-sufficient, we slept every night on a pile of money, and I could get drunk the night before, wake up the next morning, hit the gym, and show up for 8 hours of factory work like I did in my 20s, we could go back... to a degree.
But right now, shit’s real and payments are due. So either develop a drinking habit we can afford and keep a tidy house or learn to code or get a job or something. Either way, you need to admit to yourself that your days of twerking on a checkout counter as some sort of socio-political statement are over.
For example, The New Yorker, the New York Times Opinion, and Mother Jones were identified as left; National Review, Fox News Opinion, and The New York Post as right; and A.P., Reuters, and The Wall Street Journal as center. (Reason was pegged as right-leaning.)
Queue up the laugh track, Johnny!
Today I learned that NPR, BBC and The Hill are not left wing mouthpieces. GTFO with this bullshit.
In related news, MSNBC is simply so neutral that it defies classification.
U.S. Headlines Expressing Anger, Fear, Disgust, and Sadness Increased Hugely Since 2000
We have to thank Reason for doing all they can to promote Anger, Fear, Disgust, and Sadness.
Please do GIVE UP the bad work.
Huh, the complaints around here are usually that Reason isn’t emotional enough. More diatribes!
Cite?
Who the fuck has ever said this in the history of the world.
The complaint around here is that Reason has become a progressive magazine pretending to be libertarian.
That chart is all f’ed up. NPR center, NYT left leaning? If leaning means falling over!
Not sure why they publish this article it is not based on anything real
Yep. Unfortunately, NPR has gone full Leftie.
They've been leftie my entire life and I'm no spring chicken anymore.
NPR used to be progressive but attempted to be truthful and present the other side.
What has changed is that they have gone full fact-free propaganda.
Are you new here?
Jeff Bezos is hurt that the Washington Post isn't shown as full Left. All involved in this study lose their Amazon privileges.
Man does not live by bread alone. The state of the world is getting worse, as the world is being pushed into a progressive, globalist direction, destroying the communities, cultures, social networks, job prospects, and financial futures of generations, pushing bizarre forms of propaganda, and depriving people of determining their own futures and governing themselves.
Gallup Poll this month showed: “This is the first time that the percentage of Americans with no trust at all in the media is higher than the percentage with a great deal or a fair amount combined,” noted the poll’s summary.” The issue with not wanting the negativity is certainly an issue–especially with the hyperbole from the leftist politicians and media claiming the Republicans are a threat to democracy or America. However, the more pressing issue is trust. With the pushing of the fake Trump/Russian collusion and hotel urine story while hiding the real story of Hunter Biden’s laptop, the intentional trump Charlottesville misquotes, the calling of semiautomatic rifles “weapons of war,” and all of the numerous inaccuracies; we have lost faith in the media.
The AP as center? They capitalize Black but not white when referring to a person's race and culture. The AP is as far left as the N.Y. Times.
Selfish criminally minded irresponsible people realized that through massive amounts of political propaganda and indoctrination....
They could legalize theft/crime using Daddy-Gov GUN-THEFT to ENSLAVE massive amounts of productive people to supply them with stolen wealth.
You see; Pumping B.S. to create Full-On "democratic" [WE] gangs-of-the-hood to go out and steal with legalized-GUNS for a living can prove at first to be far EZ'ER to make a living from than actually having to be responsible in a land of the Free (liberty) and Justice for all.
And of course; such criminalistic minds don't consider the fact that PEOPLE not GUNS make their wealth so either their supply chain runs dry or they end up with a monarchy of whipped slaves and genocide.
It's a repeating history as old as the hills and repeated so many times it's an embarrassment to human knowledge. The more people rely on GUNS (Gov-GUNS) the worst things get.
The only 'tool' in governments toolbox is a monopoly of GUN-Force.
Are you bitching and moaning, or are you whining and crying? I can't tell.
Move the reply button
I'm serious. Are you bitching and moaning that Reason isn't libertarian enough, or are you whining and crying about how you don't like Bailey? Ahh, maybe it's both.
Ron Bailey did NOT point out the OBVIOUS scientific FACT that all of this downerism in the headlines is the fault of Joe Stalin-Biden!!! AND that if we'd all listened to Trump, NONE of this would be happening! Therefor, Ron Bailey is a LEFTIST unscientific ultra-leftist like ALL of the other Reason writers!!!
(There, did I do that right?)
Nope. Didn't say "leftist" enough.
Ron Bailey is a leftist who believes in leftist climate science which means he supports leftist government solutions because that's what leftists do.
Something like that.
"Hey, faggot"
The 80s called. They want their insult back. Along with your mullet and acid-washed jeans.
They want you to give back your Members Only jacket as well.
*rimshot*
[insert Austin Powers joke here]
How dare the proles stop reading Pravda!
The news is insiders speaking over everyone else's heads to other insiders. It's irrelevant to what normal people want or need to hear. The old debate about the problem of good news that informs its audience being crowded out by news as entertainment doesn't apply to most of the current media landscape because most news is not informative or entertaining.
*in James Earl Jones voice*
The Projection is strong with this one.
It demonstrates that the media is engaged in a propaganda war to influence the decisions of the masses.
In propaganda, emotion overrides facts and misinformation coerces people.
Left and right are artificial constructs you think you need to categorize and divide people into.
Both groups lie to coerce and upset the other but have some tenets that are true to keep their side enthusiastic.
It’s a formula for perpetual conflict that only the lying waste of skin propagandists, politicians, media and their crony’s win.
You don’t have to choose to drop yourself into their bucket. You can discern right from wrong with the irrefutable evidence of correctly applied logic and science.
Discerning truth takes more effort than jumping into a bucket of shit, but for some of us, it’s the only rational choice.
Even one drop of shit contaminates a bucket of water. Why do you drink it?
If you didn’t, and valued truth, reality instead, as much as your bigoted and brainwashed minds currently hate to, you would have to accept what you have never refuted and agree with me.
Or eat shit.
To be fair, some sockpuppets have trouble telling if you are faking a sarcasm.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35400 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot (ks-11) of greenbacks online from $28000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs
...
Just open the link——————–>>> http://Www.TopCityPay.Com