為應(yīng)對(duì)新冠疫情,美國疾控中心(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)向公眾提供了大量的建議,對(duì)象亦包括那些因此而倍感壓力的人群:“休息一下,不要去瀏覽、閱讀或收聽新聞報(bào)道?!?/p>
為什么這條建議對(duì)于那些閱讀美國主流媒體新聞報(bào)道的人來說尤為適用,一篇新鮮出爐的研究揭示了其中的原因。該研究的核心發(fā)現(xiàn)是:盡管疫情絕對(duì)不是什么輕松的事情,但美國瀏覽量最高、閱讀量最大的媒體對(duì)疫情的報(bào)道遠(yuǎn)比廣義美國媒體或非美國媒體的報(bào)道更加消極。
人們可能會(huì)問,對(duì)于這場(chǎng)致命的全球性疫情的報(bào)道,除了負(fù)面新聞之外還能有啥?然而,過去八個(gè)月中的日常進(jìn)展既有好消息也有壞消息。病例數(shù)有時(shí)會(huì)下降,也會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)新療法,疫苗研究亦有新進(jìn)展。然而自始至終事實(shí)證明,美國最受歡迎的媒體機(jī)構(gòu)尤為擅長在藍(lán)天中尋找烏云,并將其變?yōu)橐俗⒛康慕裹c(diǎn)。
這篇名為《為什么所有新冠疫情新聞都是負(fù)面新聞》的新研究論文由達(dá)特茅斯大學(xué)的布魯斯·薩瑟多特、蘭吉安·色格爾,以及布朗大學(xué)的莫里·庫克共同撰寫。他們分析了2萬篇與新冠疫情相關(guān)的文章和視頻文本,這些內(nèi)容來自于美國以及英國、印度、加拿大和澳大利亞等英語媒體。研究人員使用可靠的方法來衡量負(fù)面程度,并利用其基于兩字或三字詞語、結(jié)合機(jī)器學(xué)習(xí)的自有系統(tǒng),對(duì)這些結(jié)果進(jìn)行放大,“并找出某些詞語,來精準(zhǔn)預(yù)測(cè)會(huì)被人類讀者歸為帶有強(qiáng)烈負(fù)面消息的文章?!边@些文章和文本被劃分為三個(gè)子類,即疫苗、病例數(shù)量和重啟。
研究人員的報(bào)告稱:“最令人驚訝的事實(shí)在于,91%的美國新聞被歸為負(fù)面報(bào)道,而非美國新聞的比例只有54%?!痹诔掷m(xù)悲觀的美國媒體界中并不存在明顯的規(guī)律。無論新增病例是下降還是上升,報(bào)道都是負(fù)面的。這一點(diǎn)與特定媒體機(jī)構(gòu)的政治傾向也沒有關(guān)聯(lián);保守派的??怂剐侣劊‵ox News)要比自由派的MSNBC更負(fù)面,但自由派的《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》(New York Times)又比保守派的《紐約郵報(bào)》(New York Post)更負(fù)面。
總的來說,主流美國媒體機(jī)構(gòu)(14家瀏覽量和閱讀量最高的媒體)在所有媒體當(dāng)中的負(fù)面程度最高。例如,作者引用了疫情期間對(duì)學(xué)校的不同研究,這些研究發(fā)現(xiàn),學(xué)生的整體感染率十分低(0.14%),而且學(xué)校并未像很多人擔(dān)心的那樣出現(xiàn)超級(jí)傳播者。但在美國主流媒體有關(guān)學(xué)校重新開學(xué)的報(bào)道中,有90%都是負(fù)面的,而非美國媒體的比例僅有56%。
重要的問題在于,為什么美國媒體,尤其是主流媒體,竟如此義無反顧地悲觀。該研究的作者們認(rèn)為自己已經(jīng)找到了答案,這并非是因?yàn)槊绹囊咔楸绕渌麌腋鼑?yán)重,即便是在疫情在其他國家要嚴(yán)重得多的早期階段和其他時(shí)期,美國的報(bào)道依然更加負(fù)面。他們認(rèn)為,答案在于《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》最受歡迎文章的每日排行榜。研究人員發(fā)現(xiàn),在通常較為負(fù)面的美國媒體中,以及甚至更為負(fù)面的少數(shù)主流媒體里,《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》最受歡迎的文章依然更加負(fù)面,而且很明顯,讀者們喜歡這種負(fù)面程度的極端化。
或者就像研究人員所說的那樣:“我們的結(jié)果顯示,美國主流機(jī)構(gòu)發(fā)布異常負(fù)面的疫情新聞是為了迎合讀者的需求和興趣?!边@一發(fā)現(xiàn)與諸多有關(guān)人類心理負(fù)面消息的偏見不謀而合:人們傾向于閱讀和記住壞消息。
然而,新冠疫情新聞研究人員并沒有嘗試解釋隨之而來的另一個(gè)“問題”,也就是為什么美國人尤為喜歡報(bào)憂不報(bào)喜的新聞報(bào)道?;卮疬@個(gè)問題將需要開展更加深入的獨(dú)立研究。(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:馮豐
審校:夏林
為應(yīng)對(duì)新冠疫情,美國疾控中心(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)向公眾提供了大量的建議,對(duì)象亦包括那些因此而倍感壓力的人群:“休息一下,不要去瀏覽、閱讀或收聽新聞報(bào)道?!?/p>
為什么這條建議對(duì)于那些閱讀美國主流媒體新聞報(bào)道的人來說尤為適用,一篇新鮮出爐的研究揭示了其中的原因。該研究的核心發(fā)現(xiàn)是:盡管疫情絕對(duì)不是什么輕松的事情,但美國瀏覽量最高、閱讀量最大的媒體對(duì)疫情的報(bào)道遠(yuǎn)比廣義美國媒體或非美國媒體的報(bào)道更加消極。
人們可能會(huì)問,對(duì)于這場(chǎng)致命的全球性疫情的報(bào)道,除了負(fù)面新聞之外還能有啥?然而,過去八個(gè)月中的日常進(jìn)展既有好消息也有壞消息。病例數(shù)有時(shí)會(huì)下降,也會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)新療法,疫苗研究亦有新進(jìn)展。然而自始至終事實(shí)證明,美國最受歡迎的媒體機(jī)構(gòu)尤為擅長在藍(lán)天中尋找烏云,并將其變?yōu)橐俗⒛康慕裹c(diǎn)。
這篇名為《為什么所有新冠疫情新聞都是負(fù)面新聞》的新研究論文由達(dá)特茅斯大學(xué)的布魯斯·薩瑟多特、蘭吉安·色格爾,以及布朗大學(xué)的莫里·庫克共同撰寫。他們分析了2萬篇與新冠疫情相關(guān)的文章和視頻文本,這些內(nèi)容來自于美國以及英國、印度、加拿大和澳大利亞等英語媒體。研究人員使用可靠的方法來衡量負(fù)面程度,并利用其基于兩字或三字詞語、結(jié)合機(jī)器學(xué)習(xí)的自有系統(tǒng),對(duì)這些結(jié)果進(jìn)行放大,“并找出某些詞語,來精準(zhǔn)預(yù)測(cè)會(huì)被人類讀者歸為帶有強(qiáng)烈負(fù)面消息的文章?!边@些文章和文本被劃分為三個(gè)子類,即疫苗、病例數(shù)量和重啟。
研究人員的報(bào)告稱:“最令人驚訝的事實(shí)在于,91%的美國新聞被歸為負(fù)面報(bào)道,而非美國新聞的比例只有54%。”在持續(xù)悲觀的美國媒體界中并不存在明顯的規(guī)律。無論新增病例是下降還是上升,報(bào)道都是負(fù)面的。這一點(diǎn)與特定媒體機(jī)構(gòu)的政治傾向也沒有關(guān)聯(lián);保守派的福克斯新聞(Fox News)要比自由派的MSNBC更負(fù)面,但自由派的《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》(New York Times)又比保守派的《紐約郵報(bào)》(New York Post)更負(fù)面。
總的來說,主流美國媒體機(jī)構(gòu)(14家瀏覽量和閱讀量最高的媒體)在所有媒體當(dāng)中的負(fù)面程度最高。例如,作者引用了疫情期間對(duì)學(xué)校的不同研究,這些研究發(fā)現(xiàn),學(xué)生的整體感染率十分低(0.14%),而且學(xué)校并未像很多人擔(dān)心的那樣出現(xiàn)超級(jí)傳播者。但在美國主流媒體有關(guān)學(xué)校重新開學(xué)的報(bào)道中,有90%都是負(fù)面的,而非美國媒體的比例僅有56%。
重要的問題在于,為什么美國媒體,尤其是主流媒體,竟如此義無反顧地悲觀。該研究的作者們認(rèn)為自己已經(jīng)找到了答案,這并非是因?yàn)槊绹囊咔楸绕渌麌腋鼑?yán)重,即便是在疫情在其他國家要嚴(yán)重得多的早期階段和其他時(shí)期,美國的報(bào)道依然更加負(fù)面。他們認(rèn)為,答案在于《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》最受歡迎文章的每日排行榜。研究人員發(fā)現(xiàn),在通常較為負(fù)面的美國媒體中,以及甚至更為負(fù)面的少數(shù)主流媒體里,《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》最受歡迎的文章依然更加負(fù)面,而且很明顯,讀者們喜歡這種負(fù)面程度的極端化。
或者就像研究人員所說的那樣:“我們的結(jié)果顯示,美國主流機(jī)構(gòu)發(fā)布異常負(fù)面的疫情新聞是為了迎合讀者的需求和興趣?!边@一發(fā)現(xiàn)與諸多有關(guān)人類心理負(fù)面消息的偏見不謀而合:人們傾向于閱讀和記住壞消息。
然而,新冠疫情新聞研究人員并沒有嘗試解釋隨之而來的另一個(gè)“問題”,也就是為什么美國人尤為喜歡報(bào)憂不報(bào)喜的新聞報(bào)道?;卮疬@個(gè)問題將需要開展更加深入的獨(dú)立研究。(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:馮豐
審校:夏林
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention offers abundant advice for coping with COVID-19, including this recommendation for those troubled by stress: “Take breaks from watching, reading, or listening to news stories.”
Just-published research reveals why that advice may be especially apt for people who consume major media content in the U.S. Its central finding: While the pandemic is definitely no picnic, coverage of it in America’s most-viewed and most-read media outlets is vastly more negative than coverage in U.S. media broadly defined, or in non-U.S. media.
You may wonder how coverage of a deadly global pandemic could be anything other than negative, but day-to-day developments over the past eight months have been good as well as bad. Case counts sometimes decline, therapies are discovered, vaccine research advances. Through it all, America’s most popular media outlets have proved extraordinarily adept at finding the clouds in a blue sky and making them the focus of the story.
The new research paper, “Why is all COVID-19 news bad news?” comes from Bruce Sacerdote and Ranjan Sehgal of Dartmouth College and Molly Cook of Brown University. They analyzed 20,000 COVID-related articles and TV transcripts from U.S. and English-language media in the U.K., India, Canada, and Australia. The researchers measured negativity using established methods, augmenting those results with their own system based on two- and three-word phrases combined with machine learning “to find the phrases that best predict whether the human reader will classify an article as strongly negative.” The articles and transcripts fell into three subtopics—vaccines, case counts, and reopenings.
“The most striking fact,” the researchers report, “is that 91 percent of the U.S. stories are classified as negative whereas 54 percent of the non-U.S. stories are classified as negative.” Within the persistently downbeat U.S. media, no patterns are apparent. Coverage is just as negative when new cases are declining as when they are increasing. A given media outlet’s political leanings are irrelevant; conservative Fox News is more negative than liberal MSNBC, but the liberal New York Times is more negative than the conservative New York Post.
Overall, the major U.S. media outlets—the 14 most viewed and read—are the most negative of all. As an example, the authors cite separate research on schools during the pandemic which found that overall infection rates among students were low (0.14%) and schools didn’t become super-spreaders, as many feared they would. Yet 90% of the school reopening reports in the U.S. major media were negative vs. only 56% in non-U.S. major media.
The big question is why the U.S. media, especially the major media, are so relentlessly gloomy. The authors believe they’ve found the answer, and it isn’t that the pandemic has been worse in the U.S. than in other countries; even in the early days and other periods when it was raging far more fiercely elsewhere, U.S. coverage was still more negative. The answer, they think, is in the New York Times’ daily list of its most popular articles. The researchers found that in the generally negative U.S. media, and then in the even more negative subset of major media, the most popular Times articles were still more negative, and by a wide margin. Extreme negativity is apparently what the readers love.
Or as the researchers say, “Our results suggest that U.S. major outlets publish unusually negative COVID-19 stories in response to reader demand and interest.” That tracks with the findings of a bevy of research about negativity bias in human psychology: People gravitate toward and tend to remember bad news.
The COVID-19 news researchers don’t attempt to explain the next “why,” however, which is why Americans in particular prefer stories that play down the good news and play up the bad. That will require a separate and much deeper study.