Two-Part Question Essay — Answer every part of the task.
Exam practice · minimal scaffoldingNews editors decide what to broadcast on television and what to print in newspapers. What factors do you think influence these decisions? Do we become used to bad news? Would it be better if more good news was reported?
Editors wield great power in choosing which stories reach the public. This essay will consider the factors behind their decisions before addressing whether audiences grow desensitised to bad news and whether more positive reporting would be preferable.
Several factors shape what editors select. The strongest is commercial pressure: dramatic, shocking or negative stories attract more readers and viewers, and therefore more advertising revenue, than routine good news. Editors are also guided by news values such as relevance, proximity and the prominence of the people involved, so an event affecting their own country or a famous figure is far more likely to be published than a similar event elsewhere.
It does seem likely that constant exposure to bad news dulls our response to it. When reports of disasters, conflict and crime appear daily, audiences can become desensitised, feeling detached from suffering that once would have shocked them, or simply switching off in fatigue.
For this reason, I believe a greater proportion of good news would be beneficial. Stories of scientific breakthroughs, community kindness or environmental recovery would offer a more balanced picture of the world and could counter the anxiety and cynicism that relentless negativity breeds. Bad news should certainly not be hidden, but a fairer balance would leave audiences better informed and less despairing.
In conclusion, editorial choices are driven largely by commercial and news-value considerations; audiences do appear to become inured to bad news; and a greater share of positive reporting would, in my view, serve society well.