Proximity and Negativity
All things are never equal, but all things considered, I'd be willing to bet that the lifestyle of the average American of probably better than that of the average American of 100 years ago. You could argue that the difference between the high and low points has stratified to a greater extent, and you might be right, but most people in the United States have it pretty good.
And yet, lots of people are miserable. You could blame the media; indeed, there's no shortage of sociologist pointing their fingers at the six o'clock news, citing them as the reason that we're not happy about our good fortune. I blame mass media. It's not journalism per se, but the fact that technology has changed so drastically in the past century.
Two hundred years ago, the news you got was local. Bad news is not a 20th century invention; in fact, we probably have less bad news now than any other century in history. But when bad news came, it was local. It was stuff that happened right in your tiny village. This probably meant two things:
1. It was infrequent (maybe not in the year 1348)
2. Since it was local, you could do something about it.
What mass media has given us, through television and Internet, is news from all over the place, every day. And since the news is so fond of "leading with bleeding", there's no shortage of bad news pouring in from all corners of the earth. The frequency has increased, but more importantly, the proximity has decreased, which means that for all the bad things happening elsewhere in the world, not only do you hear all about them, but there's probably nothing you can do to mitigate them. And powerlessness is indeed a contributor to one's unhappiness.
It's almost impossible to overestimate the impact technology has had on human beings, particular regarding their psychological well-being. A tough thing to generalize about, but I'm willing to bet people who don't watch the news are, on the average, happier people.
I write this shortly after a time when Pakistan was submerged by floods, an event which got remarkably little mass media coverage by my account. If there's a good message to take away from all of that bad stuff in the news, it's this: we all have a lot to be grateful for.
And yet, lots of people are miserable. You could blame the media; indeed, there's no shortage of sociologist pointing their fingers at the six o'clock news, citing them as the reason that we're not happy about our good fortune. I blame mass media. It's not journalism per se, but the fact that technology has changed so drastically in the past century.
Two hundred years ago, the news you got was local. Bad news is not a 20th century invention; in fact, we probably have less bad news now than any other century in history. But when bad news came, it was local. It was stuff that happened right in your tiny village. This probably meant two things:
1. It was infrequent (maybe not in the year 1348)
2. Since it was local, you could do something about it.
What mass media has given us, through television and Internet, is news from all over the place, every day. And since the news is so fond of "leading with bleeding", there's no shortage of bad news pouring in from all corners of the earth. The frequency has increased, but more importantly, the proximity has decreased, which means that for all the bad things happening elsewhere in the world, not only do you hear all about them, but there's probably nothing you can do to mitigate them. And powerlessness is indeed a contributor to one's unhappiness.
It's almost impossible to overestimate the impact technology has had on human beings, particular regarding their psychological well-being. A tough thing to generalize about, but I'm willing to bet people who don't watch the news are, on the average, happier people.
I write this shortly after a time when Pakistan was submerged by floods, an event which got remarkably little mass media coverage by my account. If there's a good message to take away from all of that bad stuff in the news, it's this: we all have a lot to be grateful for.