Why do newspapers always print bad news?

They print everything they print (mostly adverts) in order to make the most profit.

basically my question is.... Are you more likely to buy a paper if it prints bad news or good news?

or does it just depend on how much nudity is likely to be shown?

not doubting you study, which suggests there are lots of people out there who will pay to read bad news. Own up, who are you.?

New isn't news unless it's bad.

News is whatever is interesting to the readers. Perhaps people prefer bad news? Wars and rumours of wars, that sort of thing.

And is it just profit study, or is it to do with politics... we all know certain papers are labour and some are tory. is their allegiance due to profit (from the paper) or profit from other sources. i presume a paper doesn't have a political allegiance solely because it sells more papers that way. thought it was more to do with using the paper to help their cause in other circles. i may be wrong of course.

no one has answered my question in my second post.....

do you prefer good or bad news?

I used to love reading a newspaper in the morning with my cup of coffee. Now, however, I still read the newspaper but I mainly do it to keep abreast of current topics - it has become more of a chore, not a pleasure.

what paper do you read annie?

bad news sells. I like good news as in england winning at sport or a new factory being built

as i've said many times. i only read the sport and do the crossword. the rest of it is b.ollox. i try to pick up some of what is going on in this**ry and the rest of the world, but it is v. hard to wade through all the bu.llsh.it. The paper i read is in no way a reflectin on my political viewpoint. it just has the best sports coverage imo (though a little too much rugby for my liking)

so far 2-0 to the good news people.


Who likes reading bad news?

It could be about the weather, rob.
We can all see the weather, and get forecasts from TV - But the Weather is among the absolute favourites for the papers.

They all have their target readership (often associated with politics - though again they use this to best advantage) and print stories and headlines accordingly.

Similarly, i'm much more likely to buy one if my team has won something - usually buy more than one paper in that case! Hardly ever buy the paper otherwise.
I guess most people would buy glossy magazines rather than newspapers if they want to read ''good'' news

The back page will be full of extremely good news tomorrow following tonights league cup defenders masterclass at Villa Park.

3-0

i never look at the weather in a paper study. don't even pay attention when it is on the sh.it pump.

in the words of bob dylan, "i don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows"

so far it is 3-0.

who the fek wants to read bad news?

so far as i can see the papers are:

Times.... traditionally tory, still tory but not so out and out tory as the past
telegraph.... out and out tory
the mail.... out and out tory
the express... hardly ever read it, presumably tory
guardian. out and out labour
mirror..... out and out labour
the sun...... goes with whoever is likely towin the election, atm this is the tories.
the independent..... hardly ever read it, the title suggests it is independent, recent headlines make it look like a trashy tabloid imo.

the star is just a joke

Folk are more likely to get depressed reading good news than bad .


It's the Schadenfreude factor

I read the Telegraph, rob.

+++ Panda bear born at London Zoo. +++

positively4thsteet 20 Jan 21:35


basically my question is.... Are you more likely to buy a paper if it prints bad news or good news?


I read it all, free of charge, on the net.

No wonder you think it's a chore, annie.

I meant when the weather is all over the 1st 6 pages because it's snowed alot, or rained alot, or been warm alot.

Studyform, one of the things that is so irritating about the weather forecasts is that they are so often wrong. I sit in McDonalds ( yes, I know you snobs will sneer, but I just love their coffee ) watching the rain pour down - while I read that it is going to be dry and sunny!

Newspapers & News channels lost all reputation when they decided to sensationalise all stories to attract the viewer , it all only ends in one way, poor news reporting.

It happened around 1984

Firstly, not all news in newspapers is bad. For example, there are often stories about new health developments ("red wine is good for X", "death rates from X are down", etc).

Regarding profits, STUDY is right. Businesses - with their responsibilities to their employees, share holders and other stake holders - seek to make profits. We can hardly expect them to do otherwise. How do they make these profits? By providing something that people want. Remember, no one is forced to buy this sh1t. They choose to. If the newspapers' owners thought good news would sell they would be printing more of it? Truth is, it doesn't sell as much as gossip and disaster.

Why doesn't it sell? I dunno. People seem to like to have something to moan about and be afraid of. Perhaps it creates a sense of drama and excitement in their lives. Or perhaps reading about the misfortunes of others makes us feel relatively happier. I'm sure there are other possile reasons too...

PS I used to be a news journo working mainly in newspapers.

I read on-line, the telegraph,because I can choose what to open up. There is very little news in the world anyway.

the coffee and the sausage an egg mc muffin 10/10

I read The Times Sport and the RP but hidden inside a copy of The Sun to avoid embarrassment.

the new york times are beginning to charge from 2011 to read online news. all will follow very soon. sad

As for what news I "consume", I used to be a news junky, even as a teenager. But for the last 5+ years, since I left journalism, I have paid decreasing time to the news. Now I very rarely buy a newsaper and only occasionally listen to Radio 4 news or checkout the BBC website. (We have no TV so that is also out).

I have found that life is better without the daily diet of distant tragedies.

Sun = Tory and has been since Murdoch got hold of it. In a poll done before the election in '92 Sun readers were asked the papers political allegiance and more than 50% believed that it was Labour supporting as it is the paper of the working man. It's headline the day before the election was, "If Labour win, can the last one to leave Britain please turn out the lights"!

I don't like bad news, but I read it......... rough with the smooth.

Why does anyone read a broadsheet? They are a pain to fold/manhandle

Sorry, rob, I forgot I also read the Racing Post every day. Come to think of it I look forward to reading the Racing Post far more than the Telegraph - no bad news ( since I stopped doing ante post!).

i read the telegaph too annie. not a tory btw, i'm getting a bit fed up of their sports coverage though. 20 pages they have most days. too much emphasis on football and rugby recently for my liking. I like the reports on other sports like boxing and triathlon which it does well. still it is the best of a bad bunch i suppose.

In the actual paper itself there are only a few different types of story in the paper.

1. political news, always styled in an anti-labour way. I hate these stories and seldom read them
2. medical news, someone somewhere has done research that proves eating a mars bar a day will make you 10pc more likely to get cancer of the foot or something. I hate these stories and never read them
3. murders and rapes and stabbings. I hate these stories and never read them.
4. quaint stories about something only very slightly amusing happening in tunbridge wells. I hate these stories and never read them..
5. financial news. I am interested in this and try to read it, but the more i read about it the less i understand and the more i fear forthe future.


Recently I have not been buying it so much (especially as England lost the cricket)

I've coincidentally been thinking about a similar subject recently - news in TV. Specifically car crashes.

Now of course they are bad, but every day there seems to be a minute or 2 devoted to a car crash. Why do they bother? The only people who really care are those who were involved, or had friends or families involved - and I cant imagine that many of them would want to see their misfortune on the local news. The rest of the world, although saying 'that's so bad' couldnt really care less.

Newspapers print bad news because that is what sells. People want to read about the extraordinary, curious or world changing events. These are typically bad news. Most good news is pretty dull. A newsppaer whose front page was 'Everything is fine today' would not sell. It is well known that when big events like September 11th happen that people buy more papers; they are interested in what happened and want to read more about it. Papers like to sensationalise things and make things seem more dramatic for this reason too; they would have little to write about otherwise.

I do not prefer to read bad news but I would be unlikely to read good news as it is far more likely to be boring. Those who say they prefer to read good news, think when you have read all of a paper (and not just the sport/features section). It will be when somethign dramtic, probably bad happened.

big, dramatic world news i suppose i may read about =- particularly the financial crisis - but most of that is boring nd I only ever end up sitting on the fence. If I was to read an article about palestine or georgia or something, I can't work out who is right or wrong, or even who can be trusted, even if the reporter can be trusted - So I don't bother with it anymore - same goes for Politics. But I never read all the nonce/murder/rape stories in the paper. Genuinely not interested. They're not massive world news, but some people must like reading about them as they are regularlyon the front pages.

With the financial stuff I am more likely to read good news than bad news too.