I think a 50-50 rule is pretty silly, but I also think, as Angus points out, that the media is not neutral and that for them, the easiest and quickest money makers come from focusing on negative events — or on the negative side of events that also have positive sides.

Governments do pass laws for the public health over the freedom of individuals, and I think appropriately so. In Seattle, you can’t smoke inside any public building — though I have heard there are “speak easy” type bars where people can still smoke. That certainly restricts the freedom of people addicted to cigarettes. I personally am very happy not to be subjected to secondhand smoke in my place of work any more — and I live in North Carolina, in the center of the tobacco world.

I don’t think it is a very far step from regulations that contribute to the physical side of public health to ones that contribute to the mental side of public health. I just think we know far, far less about how to do it effectively. We don’t want to do silly things, but we also may need to even the ground a little between negative news that is cheap to produce and fast to produce results and the positive side of news that has less impact (positive has less salience than negative). I’m not saying to stifle the voices of special interests, just to find ways to give voices to the other sides of issues. I like Angus’s words - recalibrate the media.

Maybe this will come from decentralizing news - moving from Murdoch controlled papers to many little Web sites / blogs. I certainly look forward to seeing what role the Web plays in the next American election. It would be wonderful if the grassroots could take away some of the power of the purse.

Kathryn

Smoking kills people, so do car accidents. These things cost big money to the nation, not just government but for businesses and taxpayers. Laws can provide better outcomes through locking up repeat DWI offenders and encouraging seat belt use. If the citizenry is offended by something the government is doing, the BURDEN on them is to vote out the individuals who support certain legislation and to vote in those who are likely to support more value driven laws.

In sum, the government should regulate whatever the people and the Constitution allow.

(Of course, there are the separate issues of determining whether a regulation is useful and whether the regulatory goal itself is acceptable. The government does not seem to be terribly good at evaluating the former. The later is largely a matter of opinion. However, in determining whether a goal is acceptable, the government is in a better position than private businesses since, as much as people can vote with their pocketbooks, they usually do not.)

Let me clarify. If a media owner decides that she wants specific content, that doesn’t bother me - there’s nothing wrong with that MORALLY. She is deciding what content she wants in order to run her business. It’s her station.  A private media owner can put anything she wants in her magazine (as we can see by the huge number of topic-specific magazines, online sites, TV shows, etc.). If a news station owner mandates a percentage of happy news, I can switch channels. The news owner doesn’t owe me anything. The government owes me to keep my rights and to not take away my rights.

The government does NOT know what is in my best interests.  The problem as I see it, Jeff, is that scientific studies are based on averages and general results. And to extrapolate from those to something that will be good for everybody is faulty. It may not be good for you, for Jeff, and why should you have to deal with that - even if it may be theoretically good for 90% of the people, for example? Some things need to be decided on principle, like free speech.

Best,
S.

p.s.  Jeff, I think the media attaches a smiley face to happiness research because it’s easy.  It’s just like the media attaches a mountain image to goal-setting research and your email inbox still shows an envelope icon - it’s easy.  It’s a shortcut.  This happiness-related article in NY Magazine from last year was especially enthusiastic about using the smiley (e.g. rubix cube smiley), in fact getting artists to make personal versions of the smiley face illustration.  Also, in this article, Chris Peterson has a great quote (this page):

Peterson, the inventor of the Authentic Happiness Inventory, is clearly aware of how easily these ideas can be trivialized. The afternoon I visit him in Philadelphia, he lingers in his doorway before saying good-bye, telling me he has one final request.

“Harvey Ball,” he says, “was a Massachusetts graphic designer who was commissioned to do an ad for an insurance company. He was paid a whopping $45 for it. Neither he nor the company thought to trademark it. It belongs to the world.”

Interesting, I tell him, though I’m uncertain where this is going.

“He created the yellow smiley face,” he says. “Please don’t use it to illustrate your story.”

Why is it ok for the private sector to make decisions which are only accountable (at best) to the stakeholder when government is accountable (at best) to its contituents? I see the private sector as far less accountable (Enron is the poster child for this kind of rampant corruption). When a news mogul mandates a percentage of happy news, that is not necessarily a good thing either.

The media is obsessed with attaching smiley faces to EVERYTHING EVERYTHING to do with happiness research. Is that a good thing?

>>As to the mandate questions - well is it the government or the moghuls?

In this case, if you read the article (which is subscription only unfortunately), it was the government. I completely see your point about media moguls having a very large say in the tone of news. That is a serious truth. It just depends how people decide to deal with it and how people choose what to hear and see. People pressured McDonald’s and Burger King to have healthier menus. People can and may in the future pressure the news organizations. People make huge choices by what they buy, watch, listen to, and read. Thanks, Angus!

Senia

As to the mandate questions - well is it the government or the moghuls? On election day in Scotland last week the Sun (owned by Rupert Murdoch) had a front-page wholly devoted to a graphic of a noose and the words that voting for the SNP (the Scottish National Party - in favour of independence) would be putting Scotland’s head in a noose. The Record (twice the circulation) devoted its front page to similar (less graphic) frighteners against voting for the SNP. I am not sure whether the SNP’s most important opposition was the incumbent government or the incumbent media.

The SNP won, by one seat, and arguments and discussions will continue as to how to move forward (and there are legal actions reminiscent of Al Gore’s lose).

If our brains tend to the negative then it is easier for the media (with incredibly short deadlines - and no need to maintain consistency, indeed no posibility for doing so) to always report the negative (quicker to write, and more likely to attract attention). But in terms of exploiting these dynamics surely US and US media moghuls are as far ahead of Russia as the US was in respect of atomic bombs.

I think that for the human world to survive then we must find some ways to recalibrate media - and young people seem to be doing exactly that.

Great piece Senia - and great interveiw,

Best aye
Angus

There’s where you and I differ. I don’t see much of anything in life as black and white.

Kathryn