“Why so negative?” Journalists are often asked this question by online bullies or others with low tolerance to a reality that isn’t theirs. Stories of distress and deprivation apparently spoil their day. Agreed, reading about someone’s misery is hardly reassuring. And if you’re a politician holding power, and tasked with ensuring people’s well-being, it can be a nuisance to have stories that challenge the good news narrative.
Overzealous sidekicks are quick to launch social media attacks on journalists who “project a negative image” of their land or leader. They attribute motives, deny the reports, or question the reporter’s sources. All the same, they don’t hate all stories. News reports of their leaders’ rhetoric-heavy statements with flattering pictures, the government’s plans and proposals, or its claim of rapid economic growth are all welcomed wholeheartedly as long as they don’t point to contradictions, scrutinise official data, or highlight gaps in the implementation of a programme. Those are annoying details, spoiling the flow and spirit of their story. Context and history are equally detested.
In reality, reporters do not pick stories based on whether they are “positive” or “negative”. We go by whether a story is newsworthy. And that means thinking about why it is important to report that story at that point in time, what the peg should be, and how to go about it.
