Bad news and brain overload

Is bad stronger than good? Grabs more attention!

We have a negativity bias. No, it’s not a personal thing. It’s an evolutionary thing (spotting threats). Our survival has depended on it. But now, with social media – an attention age on a global stage, it’s crushing us.

The ingrained asymmetry (in attention) between alertness or overlooking (threats) exacts a cost in our complex social and political landscape.

And algorithms exploit this innate behavior, such that engagement with news (of all kinds, from local and wider horizons) can result in dysfunction.

“Democracy depends on informed citizens.” Not avoiding news. Yet, misinformation compounds negativity.

In a primal landscape, when we saw a sheep (or similar herbivore), it was so; we did not worry about it being a wolf in sheep’s clothing. No alarm. And a wolf was a wolf was a wolf …

Imagine, however, as in fables where animals talk, the wolf can speak sheep-ese. But at heart remain wolfish.

What might its tells be? The “duck test?” – “If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, …”

You call out the fake sheep: “Hey, you’re a wolf! Be gone, trickster, or suffer!” “Ha,” says the wolf. “I’ll be back …”

On the other hand, what if a wolf approaches. Yeah. Slowly, carrying grapes. It speaks: “Peace be unto you / I intend no harm / Just a minute, please give me / Pardon my small fluency.”

You hesitate … listen, amazed at the wolf’s style (like it went to Zoolingual school). What then? Would faux pas be tells? Might soapbox-like bleating and nickering – slick “baa’s …, meh’s …, maa’s …” – be more than matters of poor translation or honest mistakes?

The mix of “bad news” and “bad faith” is toxic. [1]

This article says, “Looking away is not the fix.”

Article summary

Humans evolved to pay close attention to danger, but today that instinct is being overwhelmed by an endless supply of bad news from around the world. Researchers say the answer isn’t to stop following current events—it’s to build healthier habits around how, when, and where we get our news.

• The Conversation via Science Daily > Your brain was never designed for this much bad news (June 16, 2026) – Our brains were not built for this scale of input (the world’s bad news 24/7); however, they were built to learn to adapt.

During several recent conversations, people have told me that they’ve stopped checking their phones in the morning. Not because nothing was happening, but because everything was. They described the feeling as standing under a waterfall of perpetual bad news.

The brain that paid attention to threats was the brain that survived.

This is the foundation of what psychologists call the negativity bias, one of the most replicated findings in cognitive science. Across decades of research, the human mind has been shown to weigh negative information more heavily than positive, attend to it faster and remember it longer.

A study published in the scientific journal Nature Human Behaviour examined more than 105,000 real news headlines viewed nearly six million times. Each additional negative word increased click-through rates, while positive words had the opposite effect.

Recent studies suggest people around the world demonstrate measurably stronger physiological responses to negative news than to positive news. The body is reacting before the mind has decided whether the threat is relevant.

Story Source: Materials provided by The Conversation. Original written by Ali Jasemi, Lecturer, Psychology, Wilfrid Laurier University.

Notes

[1] Bad faith [AI Overview]

“Bad faith” generally refers to intentional dishonesty, fraud, or a conscious failure to fulfill a duty. It goes beyond simple negligence or poor judgment, implying a furtive design, an ulterior motive, or a willful breach of known obligations. [1, 2, 3, 4]

The term spans multiple disciplines, each with its own specific context:

In Law and Contracts: It is the opposite of good faith. It involves entering an agreement without the intent to perform, actively deceiving the other party, or breaching implied duties of fairness. A highly common example is insurance bad faith, where an insurance company unreasonably delays, underpays, or denies a valid claim to save money. [2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8]
In Negotiations & Arguments: It describes a scenario where an individual participates in discussions or debates with a hidden agenda. They may pretend to be open to compromise while having no intention of changing their mind or reaching a fair resolution. [9]
In Philosophy (Existentialism): Coined by philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, it describes self-deception. It happens when a person denies their own freedom and adopts an artificial persona dictated by societal expectations rather than their true, authentic self. [9, 10, 11]

Sources

[Prompt] how about in the context of covering the news?

In news coverage, bad faith refers to journalists, editors, or media outlets intentionally misleading the public, weaponizing information, or violating journalistic ethics to serve a hidden agenda. It goes beyond honest mistakes, poor reporting, or unintentional bias; it requires a conscious intent to deceive or manipulate. [1, 2]

Common Signs of Bad Faith News Coverage

Intentional Misquotation: Altering words or taking quotes completely out of context to distort the speaker’s original meaning. [3]
Malicious Selectivity: Weaponizing facts by intentionally omitting crucial context that would completely change how the audience perceives the story. [4]
Fabrication and Plagiarism: Inventing sources, making up quotes, or stealing work from other outlets while pretending it is original reporting. [5]
Premeditated Narrative Framing: Deciding the conclusion of a story before doing any research, then actively ignoring all evidence that contradicts that conclusion.
Smear Campaigns: Designing coverage specifically to destroy a target’s reputation under the guise of an objective investigation, while ignoring standard verification steps.

Bad Faith vs. Good Faith Reporting

Good Faith: A journalist makes an error, discovers it, and issues a swift, prominent correction because their goal is truth.
Bad Faith: An outlet publishes a false story to generate clicks or political damage, knows it is false, and either refuses to correct it or hides a retraction where no one will see it. [6, 7, 8, 9, 10]

Why Outlets Engage in Bad Faith Coverage

Political Polarization: Pleasing a specific ideological audience to maintain ratings and loyalty.
Financial Incentives: Generating “rage-bait” headlines that drive massive traffic, ad revenue, and social media engagement.
Access Journalism: Trading objective coverage for exclusive access to powerful political or corporate figures.[11]

Sources

• ‘Brain rot’ – word of the year 2024

‘Brain rot’ – word of the year 2024

• ‘Rage bait’ – word of the year 2025

‘Rage bait’ – word of the year 2025

2 responses to “Bad news and brain overload”

John

July 6, 2026

Prompt: brain rot or brainrot

[AI Overview]

Both brain rot and brainrot are acceptable and widely used spellings. There is no single correct spelling, but they tend to be used in slightly different contexts: [1, 2, 3]

* Brain rot (two words) is the official dictionary spelling, officially recognized as the Oxford English Dictionary Word of the Year. This spelling is typically used when referring to the concept as a noun or describing the feeling of mental fatigue from doomscrolling. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

* Brainrot (one word) is the preferred spelling in Gen Z and Gen Alpha internet slang. This version is usually used as an adjective or a category label to describe absurd internet memes or nonsensical social media vocabulary (e.g., skibidi, rizz, or gyat). [1, 2, 3]
John

July 6, 2026

Prompt: social media brainrot and nucleus accumbens

[AI Overview]

“Brainrot” (the cognitive decline, diminished focus, and emotional desensitization linked to excessive, disjointed social media use) is driven by hijacking the nucleus accumbens. This structure is the brain’s primary reward center, releasing dopamine in response to unpredictably rewarding stimuli like likes, notifications, and new content. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

The relationship between the two works as follows:

* Unpredictable Rewards: Short-form video algorithms (TikTok, Instagram Reels, YouTube Shorts) deliver a highly personalized, unpredictable stream of quick hits. This unpredictable reward schedule is the exact same mechanism used in gambling addiction. [1, 2, 3]

* The Dopamine Loop: Every swipe or notification floods the nucleus accumbens with dopamine. Because the reward happens immediately without any physical or mental effort, your brain begins to crave and seek out these quick, easy digital hits. [1, 2, 3]

* Neural Desensitization: Over time, constant overstimulation from the nucleus accumbens causes your brain to adapt by reducing dopamine receptors. This means everyday, slower tasks (like reading, studying, or long-form work) begin to feel exhausting or incredibly dull in comparison. [1, 2, 3, 4]

* Shrinking Cognitive Control: Habitual scrolling actually changes brain structure, potentially shrinking the very areas of the brain meant to control impulses and emotions. Meanwhile, the neural pathways that enable you to keep scrolling become faster and more automatic, making it increasingly difficult to put the phone down. [1, 2]

Notes

Related posts

2 responses to “Bad news and brain overload”