One of the first democratic practices in our society, which a few decades ago we called independent, free or investigative journalism, today, due to the pandemic, the so-called of media nihilism, transforms into its opposite - a petrified stereotype that in the 21st century, instead of permanent openness to change, roots fear, apprehension, apathy and other types of dependence on the media's interpretation of importance. The media, which in previous decades nurtured the regime model of journalism, today are racing to find traitors, culprits and conspiracies, trying to make sense of social changes... Both produce identical consequences: fear, apprehension, apathy and other types of dependence on the media's interpretation of importance. Instead of media diversity that favors mental health and a critical spirit, we have only polarization of public opinion and media nihilism as a common characteristic of both sexes.
For the sake of illustration, I will refer to a recent case from one press. Some people presented their results which they deeply believed concerned all citizens. They made serious efforts to deliver something in a short period of time that will give people hope, restore their shaken confidence, make them feel that doing is not the same as not doing, although the results do not come overnight... Just a few hours after the press, they appeared in the electronic media , random and/or commissioned clips based on journalistic questions which, by the way, were in no way related to the essence of this event. What we could hear and see as ordinary consumers could have been recorded in any other place and at any other time. In essence, the pattern of reporting that everyone followed was - to maintain critical tension, to create an even greater degree of uncertainty, to fuel latent fears of further development of the situation at the cost of confusing and discouraging public opinion, collapsing, ignoring and disregarding performance, just because that performance is coming from government representatives. For the journalism profession today, as it was a couple of decades ago, "power is power" even when it does everything to become a public service. And that doesn't happen by chance or by inertia. The reasons are deeper than it seems at first glance.
Media between ethics and nihilism
What are the real reasons for the so-called media nihilism or negative preferences in the interpretation of reality? The first thing we refer to when examining the cause is media ethics. Are media ethics sensitive to negative social effects? In recent years, the media industry has increasingly recognized the ethical responsibility associated with the potential negative effects of media content. Ethical guidelines often emphasize the principle of harm minimization, which requires media professionals to consider the potential psychological, emotional, and social effects of the content posted. Exactly contrary to the aforementioned ethical principle, sensationalism, one-sided narratives, misinformation and predominantly negative interpretations of the given situation are marketed, which creates a distorted image of reality for the average consumer, undermines his trust in social actors, worsening social divisions and the nation's mental health.
Although media ethics is directly responsible for the public perception of risk and safety, which certainly belongs to the first-class public interest, the media in Montenegro and in most of the world do the exact opposite, profiting and building their market positions on fear, apprehension, apathy or indignation. In doing so, they are destroying the public interest of inestimable importance - the preservation of the mental health of their consumers.
The media industry has become one of the main creators and triggers of psycho-social disorders such as anxiety, depression, apathy, numbness, dullness, resignation, resentment through the loss of critical thinking, life optimism and joy. I won't waste words on editorial policies, circulations, viewership, reviews... The same "market" law applies to all of them: competition grows only when the pulse of the average consumer jumps out of normal! Without a hint of irony or criticism, burnout syndrome associated with acquired professional deviations is the shortest path to an autoimmune disease, which in the case of the journalistic profession manifests itself through the so-called media nihilism, which in translation means a complete loss of responsibility and awareness of the consequences for the mental health of the public.
The influence of the media on mental health
Media influence is usually defined as "social, cultural and psychological influence resulting from mass media communication" where this influence can be equally desirable, legitimate, educational, emancipatory, questionable, destructive and toxic. At the beginning of this century, numerous researches in the fields of communication, political theory, and media psychology point to the necessity of regulating and mitigating the impact of mass media on individuals and society, recognizing the negative impact of media on mental health. Here are some key theories that explain this phenomenon from the point of view of the media and the point of view of consumers.
Theory of cultivation suggests that long-term media exposure shapes individual perception of reality. Long-term exposure to negative or sensationalist media content has a negative impact on the perception of family, sexuality, aging, mental health, the environment, trust in science, attitudes towards minorities and numerous other values that make up the worldview of individuals. Consequences for mental health: fear and mistrust, a shaken value system that can contribute to anxiety and depression.
A spiral of silence: "One half of the world is made up of people who have something to say and can't, and the other half of those who have nothing to say and keep on talking!" - Robert Frost, American poet, winner of the Pulitzer Prize. In short, according to this theory, a person is less ready to express his position or his opinion if, even intuitively, he feels that his opinion is in the minority, i.e. that he will not get the support of the majority. Consequences for mental health: loss of self-confidence and fear of social isolation and self-isolation.
Theory of selective exposure argues that individuals actively seek media content that is consistent with their existing beliefs, attitudes, and preferences. Consequences for mental health: reinforcement of negative thought patterns and prejudices.
Theory of desensitization talks about the risks of exposure to violent or disturbing media content for a long period of time, which leads to desensitization, i.e. to a decrease in emotional sensitivity to real-life situations. Consequences for mental health: loss of empathy, indifference and a higher threshold of tolerance for violence.
The example I mentioned at the beginning of the text confirms and supports all four theories about the negative effects of mass media on mental health, perception of reality, safety and risk.
A collective hunger for bad news
Unfortunately, there is another theory, probably the oldest and most deeply rooted, whose victims are equally victims, not only consumers, but all actors on the media scene and creators of public opinion.
Negative preference theory (evolutionary) is a well-documented psychological phenomenon that refers to people's tendency to pay more attention to and give more weight to negative information or experiences compared to positive ones. Human psychology is wired to pay more attention to threats and dangers, which trigger strong emotional reactions and activate survival instincts.
Stuart Soroka (Department of Communication ad Political Science, UCLA) suggests that people may be neurologically or physiologically predisposed to focus on negative information because the potential outcomes/consequences of negative information far outweigh the potential benefits of positive information. Almost all research supports the fact that we react more strongly to negative emotions such as fear and anger than to positive ones such as happiness and love. Additionally, as Soroka claims, this tendency is especially pronounced among those who are interested in current events and politics.
In short, our collective hunger for bad news may be due to our inherent, innate, atavistic tendency to protect ourselves from negative outcomes, apocalyptic scenarios, and ensure survival by being more inclined to assess the situation negatively than positively. It is enough to remember the covid crisis and collective paranoia in front of television and other screens.
Return to "depressed optimism"
Social media, which many claim is responsible for worsening mental health problems in the 21st century, profits abundantly from this atavistic instinct, natural tendency or negative preference, favoring sensationalist and disturbing content that evokes strong and negative emotional reactions and creates an addiction to future ones. content.
However, it would be easy to conclude that all the blame lies with the media and the media industry. In conditions of war or health crises, as well as in conditions of long-term and uncertain social transition, which by definition generates negative content (corruption, crime, partitocracy, abuse of official position, nepotism, political and economic instability, external and internal threats, conflicts, black chronicles, etc. ) awakens in people an instinct for survival which again feeds on negative preferences. A way out of this vicious circle in which both the media and their consumers find themselves today should be sought in media ethics, in the creation of more diverse, better balanced and, above all, more positive content.
Ignoring positive content according to the proven logic "the worse - the better" not only goes against the public interest and media ethics, but also represents the most serious attack on mental health, a safe entry into the hell of one's own fears, an apocalyptic vortex of media nihilism in which there are no survivors.
The lack or absence of awareness and responsibility for the public's mental health speaks in favor of the need to raise the standards of the profession, redefine the role of media workers and work on media literacy and media ethics.
Message to the media: Don't ignore results, developments, progress, potential positive outcomes, good intentions. The worst that can happen to you is a short-term drop in circulation, viewership or views.
Message for consumers: Opt for positive content and critical reflection. The worst thing that can happen to you, as Stuart Soroka would say, is a decline in interest in daily political content.
In the Montenegrin public context, a return to "depressed optimism" would be a big step in the direction of healing and, above all, strengthening of mental health. Media nihilism is a diagnosis from which there is no one to cure us if we do not become aware of the meaning and importance of media ethics, public interest and public responsibility.
(The author is a professor of philosophy and vice president of CIVIS)
Bonus video:
