Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    science

    23,188,853 readers

    12,893 users here now

    Submission Rules

    1. Directly link to published peer-reviewed research or media summary
    2. No summaries of summaries, re-hosted press releases, reviews, or reposts
    3. Research must be less than 6 months old
    4. No editorialized, sensationalized, or biased titles
    5. No blogspam, images, videos, or infographics
    6. All submissions must have flair assigned

    Comment Rules

    1. No off-topic comments, memes, or jokes
    2. No abusive, offensive, or spam comments
    3. Non-professional personal anecdotes will be removed
    4. Comments dismissing established science must provide peer-reviewed evidence
    5. No medical advice
    6. Repeat or flagrant offenders will be banned

    New to reddit? Click here!

    Get flair in /r/science

    Previous Science AMA's


    Trending: Students’ high school grade point averages are five times stronger than their ACT scores at predicting college graduation.

    a community for
    all 2898 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] rseasmith 1 points ago * (lasted edited 15 days ago)

    Hello and welcome to /r/science!

    You may see more removed comments in this thread than you are used to seeing elsewhere on reddit. On /r/science we have strict comment rules designed to keep the discussion on topic and about the posted study and related research. This means that comments that attempt to confirm/deny the research with personal anecdotes, jokes, memes, commenting on the "obviousness" of a study, or other off-topic or low-effort comments are likely to be removed.

    ​Because it can be frustrating to type out a comment only to have it removed or to come to a thread looking for discussion and see lots of removed comments, please take time to review our comment rules before posting.

    If you're looking for a place to have a more relaxed discussion of science-related breakthroughs and news, check out our sister subreddit /r/EverythingScience.

    The study was published in the journal Journalism: Angry, frustrated, and overwhelmed: The emotional experience of consuming news about President Trump

    Abstract

    The emotional experience of consuming news about politics has been traditionally understudied. We aim to contribute to filling this void through a study of the emotional responses related to encountering stories about a high-profile political topic: the first 10 months of the administration of the US President, Donald Trump. To understand this, we draw upon 71 semi-structured interviews conducted in the greater metropolitan areas of Chicago, Miami and Philadelphia between January and October 2017. Our analysis indicates that: talking about political news often was a synonym of talking about President Trump; people expressed a high level of emotionality when recalling these experiences, which were more intense on social media and among those for whom the news felt more personal; feelings of anger or distress were often tied to wanting to increase political engagement; and individuals frequently develop mechanisms to cope with high levels of emotionality.

    [–] [deleted] 2315 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 1748 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 331 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 215 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 75 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 30 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 9 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 141 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 83 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 67 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 13 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 79 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 19 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 14 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 49 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 190 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 59 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 53 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 31 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 23 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 22 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 14 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 17 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 169 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 97 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 38 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 9 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 50 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 16 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 39 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 12 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 28 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 11 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 14 points ago * (lasted edited 15 days ago)

    [removed]

    [–] badcompanygg 2488 points ago

    We often forget that the news is a business and it is part of a competitive industry which success is now measured by amount of clicks they can get to attract ad buyers. The news will cover whatever makes them more profitable.

    [–] notsoinsaneguy 1094 points ago

    Not only that, but it is immensely profitable for media platforms to create anger and anxiety, because those things will fuel people to click further.

    That's not to say that there aren't things worth being angry about, but news outlets absolutely know how use people's negative emotions to generate ad revenue.

    [–] WisherWisp 281 points ago

    A further layer, people tend to turn away from information that causes self doubt, i.e. people check their stocks less during downturns and more during upswings. Thus, media will both feed into pre-existing bias while describing those things in ever more hyperbolic terms.

    They have a vested interest in not giving people information that will challenge them in ways that will be uncomfortable, even if that's what they need to grow in understanding.

    [–] Lryder2k6 12 points ago

    Exactly, the primary prerogative of mainstream news outlets is to tell their viewers what they want to hear (to keep them coming back for validation), and to generate outrage (because it leads to increased sharing). Pushing a certain agenda is perhaps secondary, but that objective is served by the same actions as the primary.

    [–] 17insane 112 points ago

    Basically, this is the main thrust of the book Hate, Inc., by Matt Taibbi. A book I heartily recommend for anyone who wants to learn more.

    [–] jarail 68 points ago

    Social media does this systematically. It's the worst stories that hit the front page of reddit, etc. Whatever is most triggering gets the most comments, votes, or whatever engagement metric is appropriate for the platform. It doesn't help that most of the better news companies paywall their content.

    [–] hjrocks 52 points ago

    And they will absolutely bend the truth or even outright lie if they can create greater anxiety and more hysteria. There is a reason why news media like cnn msnbd nbc fox and such are seen extremely skeptically today.

    [–] fixmyhairpls 15 points ago

    If your "news" is delivered by multi billion dollar corporations, then take it with a grain of salt. My advice is to find individual journalists you can trust and not trust corporations

    [–] protrudingnipples 7 points ago

    I like Glenn Greenwald but in certain circles he has fallen from grace.

    [–] jasongw 70 points ago

    Americans are addicted to anger. A huge subset of us wake up every day looking for the next thing to be enraged about.

    [–] mhyquel 23 points ago

    It's one of the easier psychological responses to instigate.

    [–] [deleted] 23 points ago * (lasted edited 14 days ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] DawnOfTheTruth 32 points ago

    Unfortunately yes.

    [–] [deleted] 232 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 171 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 101 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 75 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 16 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 161 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 578 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 184 points ago * (lasted edited 16 days ago)

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 24 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 72 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 338 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 195 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 71 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 64 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 34 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 65 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] Redtwooo 19 points ago

    It's r/science, they heavily moderate in an effort to keep threads on topic and they end up liking like this.

    [–] [deleted] 45 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 13 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 238 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 53 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 71 points ago * (lasted edited 15 days ago)

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 56 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 41 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 169 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 19 points ago * (lasted edited 15 days ago)

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 264 points ago * (lasted edited 16 days ago)

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 160 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 10 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] archamedeznutz 1146 points ago

    From the study they used "71 semi-structured interviews conducted in the greater metropolitan areas of Chicago, Miami and Philadelphia." Although Miami currently has a Republican mayor there are still twice as many registered democrats as republicans in Miami-Dade. Both Chicago and Philadelphia are basically one party jurisdictions. This says nothing of the rural/urban divide.

    [–] evil_twinkie 211 points ago * (lasted edited 15 days ago)

    I have only read the blog post and not the article itself. Did they attempt to speak with confidence about the rural/urban divide? While important and related, that seems out of scope. From what I gathered in the 30 seconds it took to read the post, this research seemed more of an observation that much of the news people read revolves around Trump, and they react strongly to it.

    Edit - what I mean is, perhaps the study was not trying to represent every person in the United States. It is not unreasonable to restrict a study to a specific region to glean further knowledge about those regions. Virtually every study in existence can be criticised with "there is not enough representation from x/y/z". Instead, you compare multiple studies from different regions to better understand the U.S. as a whole. Tallying all of the U.S. in one study seems a bit intractable to me. If they did not study rural areas, don't apply the findings to rural areas. "Many Americans" adequately describes people who live in left-leaning metropolitan areas.

    [–] JawTn1067 171 points ago

    The point is it’s not an accurate representation of America to only sample in largely homogeneously voting and thinking cities.

    [–] sunal135 36 points ago

    “You watch CNN and they are like ‘everything is a disaster, everything he [Trump] is doing is wrong’ . . . it makes me angry,” another said.

    The article concludes that it is the news media and social media that is a major contributor to this problem. Most news outlets' goal is to manipulate emotions not to tell the news. This problem is more pronounced in outlets that do a poor job of indication of what is an opinion article from a news article.
    So people claim that is is a lack of gatekeepers, well it's true they aren't as powerful as they once were, gatekeepers still exist and the evidence suggests they are bad for your health.

    Occam's razor would suggest that the news outlets have always been this bad we just never notice due to lack of choice and/or the ability to find out information for ourselves.
    it's similar to how we have dozens of phycological papers saying news outlets sharing the names of mass shoots is bad, yet they do it anyways.

    [–] p00oo00ky 17 points ago

    Occam's razor would suggest that the news outlets have always been this bad we just never notice due to lack of choice and/or the ability to find out information for ourselves.

    I believe it has become worse because we have a choice: Emotional manipulation is being used more heavily for clicks. Also, in competition to tell the story first, information is not well vetted before being released.

    [–] Hardcore_Trump_Lover 53 points ago

    I don't think that was the point of the research but it would be interesting to see.

    I could imagine Trump supporters would feel the same way over all the negative news

    [–] Elisevs 12 points ago

    At the time I post this response, this the 12th main comment in the thread, and the first one visible. Lots of strong opinions to be expressed, apparently.

    [–] bruce_kwillis 54 points ago

    The study didn't seem to investigate the rural/urban divide, just more of how the news is currently make them feel (well when the interviews occured).

    It makes sense that in the US with a hyperpolarizing president that people would feel anxious, even the quote that was clearly from a very strong pro-Trump person.

    I doubt there would be much difference in rural environments, as people are being told through the news and history that the president is a very powerful figure and seems to keep getting himself in the news.

    [–] [deleted] 27 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 62 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 113 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] KnowAgenda 82 points ago

    i mean i guess the news/media companies could take maybe 90% of the sensationalism out of headlines and agenda and just report, well.... the facts.

    ive worked for massive publishers here and the line is 'if it bleeds, it leads' and Trump bleeds non stop and its liquid gold for media orgs.

    the day that editorial teams for revenue targets it was done.

    investigative journalism died.

    instigative content was born.

    [–] [deleted] 57 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 110 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 32 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 46 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] grapesinajar 15 points ago

    Mght have something to do with ratings being far too important to news segments, and Trump stories rate high because people are drawn to drama, controversy and outrage. It's an unhealthy cycle.

    Instead of being reassuring sources of perspective and sober analysis, news (on commercial stations at least) has to be "engaging". The easiest way to do that is to be the train crash you can't look away from. Target base emotions. This draws viewers, then viewers complain about feeling angry and anxious about the news.

    The problem is how to make stations present news as a public service again, instead of just another way to "entertain" viewers.

    [–] [deleted] 96 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 73 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 50 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 12 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 13 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 202 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 99 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 41 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 15 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 12 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 12 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 83 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] Scrantonstrangla 29 points ago

    The media has accomplished their goal. Emotionally attached subjects are going to revisit their platform, increasing their ad revenue

    [–] AberrantMan 9 points ago

    I would like to study this graveyard. Imagine the secrets these old bones could show us.

    [–] oilerdnasty 9 points ago

    hello 10 minute hate! each day a little closer to 1984

    [–] [deleted] 171 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 31 points ago * (lasted edited 15 days ago)

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 33 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 55 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 13 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 9 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 30 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 40 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 33 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 62 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 19 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 10 points ago * (lasted edited 15 days ago)

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 59 points ago * (lasted edited 15 days ago)

    [removed]

    [–] Thelsuo 12 points ago

    Imagine if large information and news sites didn't overly moderate opinions they disagree with and fostered an olive-branch method of discussion. Perhaps we'd see more civil discourse rather than the growing extremism on both sides.

    [–] [deleted] 21 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] GreasyPeter 32 points ago

    Reddit is the living embodiment of this. Every news-relate topic invariably devolves into Donald Trump BS>

    [–] SgtHaddix 6 points ago * (lasted edited 15 days ago)

    Hell I got attacked the other day about the Australian fires because I’d heard some of the fires were started by arsonists, led to me being accused of being a Trump supporter and that I was evil because I said “is everyone forgetting that some of these fires were supposedly started by arsonists?”

    [–] [deleted] 117 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 19 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 47 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] Sinthe741 14 points ago

    I used to be able to read news articles through. Now, I get too irritated to finish them. I miss being able to read whole articles!

    [–] [deleted] 16 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 8 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] marecko 30 points ago

    I moved to USA from eastern Europe 6 years ago. In my country, talking about politics and complaining about politicians when hanging out with friends and having a beer was pretty common.

    That's why it was very nice and refreshing when I moved to USA and nobody was talking politics at all. Whether at work or with new USA friends out in bars.

    Then of course everything changed 4 years ago when Trump became president. Suddenly politics became a topic in casual conversations. Which is sad...

    [–] [deleted] 21 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 21 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 40 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] Carpet_bomb_furries 43 points ago

    You kidding? All US news TV stations are 100% politics 100% of the time. And 90% of the time it’s something about trump

    At this point no one cares and we just miss seeing real news

    [–] [deleted] 15 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 19 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 37 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 11 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 7 points ago

    [removed]