CoreyDec 23, 2023
Taylor Lorenz
Massive study analyzes 23 million headlines from 47 news media outlets in the US from 2000-2019. They find that over this time period, headlines became more likely to denote anger, fear, disgust and sadness and less likely to be emotionally neutral. Headlines from right-leaning news media were consistently more negative than headlines from left-leaning outlets as well.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0276367
Longitudinal analysis of sentiment and emotion in news media headlines using automated labelling with Transformer language models

This work describes a chronological (2000–2019) analysis of sentiment and emotion in 23 million headlines from 47 news media outlets popular in the United States. We use Transformer language models fine-tuned for detection of sentiment (positive, negative) and Ekman’s six basic emotions (anger, disgust, fear, joy, sadness, surprise) plus neutral to automatically label the headlines. Results show an increase of sentiment negativity in headlines across written news media since the year 2000. Headlines from right-leaning news media have been, on average, consistently more negative than headlines from left-leaning outlets over the entire studied time period. The chronological analysis of headlines emotionality shows a growing proportion of headlines denoting anger, fear, disgust and sadness and a decrease in the prevalence of emotionally neutral headlines across the studied outlets over the 2000–2019 interval. The prevalence of headlines denoting anger appears to be higher, on average, in right-leaning news outlets than in left-leaning news media.

Dec 23, 2023 at 4:04pmMastodon for iOS
Show threadPatrick 🌎Dec 23, 2023
@taylorlorenz Not. Shocked.
Show threadDavidDec 23, 2023
The losing side resorts to fear mongering
Show threadJim VernonDec 23, 2023
@drdrowland Both sides must be losing because the trend wasn't limited to left or right wing news sources.
Show threadDavidDec 23, 2023

yes. and relative quantities matter, too.

in conflict no one wins.

Show threadJim VernonDec 23, 2023
@drdrowland There's a difference between left and right sources in this study, but it's not a big difference. I'm personally disappointed by that, but I'm not entirely surprised.
Show threadRaccoon🇺🇸🏳️‍🌈Dec 26, 2023

@jimvernon @drdrowland
In the left's defense, the right spent 8 years acting like Obama was not a citizen and literally Hitler, then elected Donald Trump and spent 5 years insisting he was not a criminal, then have spent the past 3 years insisting that when Trump is clearly lying about things like winning the election, because he's a pathological liar, that this somehow constitutes evidence.

It's a dark time in American politics, and while I do blame the left wing media on some level, they aren't the ones who decided to take us down this path, unless you count the crime of having the audacity to think a black man should be president.

Show threadForeverExpatJan 5, 2024

@Raccoon @jimvernon @drdrowland
Agreed. Bizarrely, the AP just ”neutrally” titled an article “One attack, two interpretations: Biden and Trump both make the Jan. 6 riot a political rallying cry” !?

Take any major theme: Climate Change, Russia’s ongoing aggression, Gun Violence, vaccinations, etc. The GOP shamelessly ignores science and statistics and other bald-faced evidence. Does any sane person think a neutral heading is warranted? I would *expect* media to get off the fence in such cases.

Show threadRaccoon🇺🇸🏳️‍🌈Jan 5, 2024

@ForeverExpat @jimvernon @drdrowland
Oh, don't get me wrong, the mainstream media's inability to give actual fair and realistic reporting on the situation, as opposed to sugarcoating one side and being overly skeptical about the other is a major part of what's gotten into this situation, and it's absurd because you realize that, if what they are pushing along actually happened, they would be up against the firing squad in pretty short order, because Nazis hate any journalist that doesn't immediately repeat whatever insane propaganda they put out as if it is both obvious and brilliant.

It's a problem, because rather than reporting the facts, they are trying to spin things in such a way that makes them look balanced, and that skews the discourse away from reality and reason.

Show threadPanicky_PatzerDec 23, 2023
@taylorlorenz "Thus, a perverse incentive might have emerged in which news outlets, judging by the larger reach/popularity of their articles with negative/emotional headlines, started to drift towards increasing usage of negative sentiment/emotions in their headlines" in order to increase profits. But how do we fix this problem? Publicly-funded models that must meet certain standards to receive funding? But then how do we change people's desire for fear and disgust...? 😂
Show threadOver ThereDec 23, 2023
@taylorlorenz I’ve always wanted my news to be emotionally neutral
Show threadBob MerbergDec 23, 2023

@taylorlorenz “An important question raised by this work is whether the sentiment and emotionality embedded in news media headlines reflect a wider societal mood or if instead they just reflect the sentiment and emotionality prevalent or pushed by those creating news content.”

I do think it’s an important question. But I don’t think it’s just the sentiment of news content creators — it’s also their profit motive.

I suspect a negative spiral relationship between news organizations and news consumers.

Show threadFahri Reza 🍉Dec 23, 2023

It's the negative effects of video games.

@taylorlorenz

Show threadkvcDec 23, 2023
@dozymoe 🧐 Video games huh? Where’s your credible source for the claim that video games cause fearmongering news?
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Show threadCanadian CroneDec 23, 2023
@taylorlorenz I didn’t need a study to tell me that
Show threadScott MatterDec 23, 2023

@CanadianCrone @taylorlorenz

One great thing about doing a study like this is it can collect and analyze a mountain of data to test our hunches about something we observe and feel to be happening.

Show threadCanadian CroneDec 24, 2023
@scottmatter @taylorlorenz Absolutely!
Show threadMercurius GoldsteinDec 23, 2023

@taylorlorenz

…and the Silicon Valley capital funds are investing in large language models trained on source texts such as these rage-fueled headlines.

This is why AI stands for Angry Idiot.

Show threadWade WainioDec 23, 2023
@taylorlorenz What even counts as a "left-leaning outlet" at this point? Anything vaguely tethered to reality and that doesn't just parrot white nationalist talking points?
Show threadJim VernonDec 23, 2023
@wadewainio @taylorlorenz If only there was a link to the study that one could read and learn everything about the methodology and results....
Show threadWade WainioDec 24, 2023
@jimvernon @taylorlorenz Well, for starters, I was basically being rhetorical. Aside from that, your response automatically assumes their methodology and results adequately define "left-leaining outlet." That's a bit of putting the cart before the horse. I still stand by what I said: "Left-leaning" now tends to just mean not far-right extremist.
Show threadFrances LarinaDec 23, 2023

@taylorlorenz

And, that time period also neatly matches the stupendous rise in media outlets being bought by private equity companies which tend to also support conservative politicians.

Show threadDr Pieter PeachDec 23, 2023

@taylorlorenz this is why the Boring report is so good. https://www.boringreport.org/

An LLM automatically ratchets down the drama on the headlines and article.

Boring Report

Boring Report: News by AI - Information Without the Noise

Show threadBc Clarity Carlton-MartinDec 23, 2023
@taylorlorenz As if, by design
Show threadDr. JenniferDec 23, 2023
@taylorlorenz ceci pourriez vous intéresser à Médiapart car il me semble que La France subit quelque chose de similaire @Mediapart
Show threadjoefromlaDec 23, 2023
@taylorlorenz This has been true at least since the Reagan administration.
Show threadKaryl KrugDec 23, 2023
@taylorlorenz Even otherwise reputable people use all-cap, emotionally charged, hyperbolic words in their headlines to get clicks on their Youtube news channels. If all these miscreants are being DEVASTATED and DESTROYED, why are they still around?
Show threadES MichelsonDec 23, 2023
@taylorlorenz I read the study 1 time. 1) This study is a qualitative data REVIEW. It is explicit in that there is no insight given why negativity increased.We can come up with hypotheses among ourselves why this is. We may even be right. That will need to be borne out by more research. 2) I work with Data platforms with emotional scoring. It doesn’t work.The scoring algorithm may be different, just saying. 3) Curious what stories had qualified headlines; Opinion? Analysis? Sports? Style? All?
Show threadChris GodwinDec 24, 2023

@taylorlorenz

I can't wait for this to be reported in the media with a headline like:

"Anger on the rise! Media headlines threaten our way of life"

Along with some mumbling tabloid journalist arguing that life was better in the old days

Show threadCovidiocracyDec 24, 2023

@taylorlorenz

Study Slams News Headlines, Destroys Copy Editors Over Negativity

Show threadBrian RepkoDec 24, 2023
@taylorlorenz the ideological / sentiment breakdown is really interesting - with central outlets having a big change in neutrality in 2010. Reading the discussion, the authors posit that Facebook and Twitter like and retweet was the cause. Super interesting article. One nit is that you really have to read the y axis scales to see that most headlines are neutral (still going from 70-50% over this time frame). Centrists really loved those Bush years though….
Show threadIrving's ZooDec 29, 2023
@taylorlorenz In other news, water is wet.