When faced with a catastrophe that requires we stay at home the majority of the time, it’s just natural that much of us have actually resorted to reading the news.
This story initially appeared on WIRED UK
Throughout March, we watched and surfed constantly. The Guardian received 2.17 billion page views, a boost of more than 750 million from the previous record set in October2019 Boris Johnson’s address to the country on March 23 was among the most-watched broadcasts in UK tv history, with more than 27 million live viewers, matching the 1966 World Cup final and the funeral service of Princess Diana.
Now, as we get in week 4 of isolation, brand-new figures have actually emerged that appear to show that our interest in coronavirus content is subsiding. Research by NiemanLab, the main journalism institution at Harvard University, shows that by March 9, one in every 4 page views on American news sites were on a coronavirus story, and the topic was “generating the sort of attention in a week that the impeachment of Donald Trump carried out in a month.” Traffic peaked on March 12 and 13 with Donald Trump’s Oval Office address, Tom Hanks’ medical diagnosis, and the suspension of the NBA.
By the end of March this attention had ebbed, continuing its down slope in the very first week of April, prior to being up to pretty much normal levels this week. It seems we might have developed coronavirus news tiredness. However why has this happened? Could individuals truly be losing interest in such a cataclysmic event? And what does this drop-off indicate for government strategy?
News fatigue is nothing new. Data from the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism shows that, even before a duration where one event dominates the news agenda, 24 percent of people in the UK stated they actively attempt to prevent the news. Throughout Brexit, says Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, director of the Reuters Institute, this figure grew to about a 3rd.
There are 3 reasons for this basic malaise: The news leaves people feeling depressed; it also makes them feel helpless– audiences feel they can not affect events; finally, the public simply doesn’t rely on the news– they see it as superficial, sensationalist, and unreliable.
” If you have a really dim view of journalism, and journalism tends to report on some things that have gone wrong on the planet yesterday, and if you’re not in a position to do anything about those things, it’s not really obvious why you would spend very much time with it, in specific once the very first wave of interest in a brand-new crisis has passed,” states Nielsen.
In regards to the mental effects of engaging with this crisis particularly, research studies are currently continuous. But there is a close relationship between overconsumption of news and basic increased stress and anxiety. The World Health Organization particularly suggests tuning out the news if you grow distressed. “We might take from that individuals might be listening to the advice, which’s why we’re seeing less traffic,” says Cherie Armour, a professor of psychological trauma and mental health in the School of Psychology at Queen’s University Belfast. “There’s a fine limit between what is useful anxiety and what crosses the line.”
There is also an intricate interplay between this stress and anxiety and our engagement with the news. “From the really minimal research which we have readily available– from Hong Kong in the H1N1 epidemic– people started by being quite distressed, and then as time went on their anxiety actually went down,” says Richard Bentall, a professor of clinical psychology at the University of Sheffield. “That anxiety was a predictor of behavior with respect to the infection, and it was likewise probably a predictor of reading things in newspapers.”
People, explains Bentall, tend to be classified into “monitors” and “blunters.” The previous tend to look for more information when nervous; the latter tend to obstruct it out. “This is speculation, but what we might be seeing is the population arranging itself out into these 2 various groups,” he states.
The other result of a sustained duration of news coverage on one topic is that the public ends up being desensitized, in a similar process to the way that exposure therapy treatments phobias. “In a way, the more we hear it, the less we see it,” says Armour. “And of course, I’m not saying that individuals are not observing the Covid-19 scenario. In the context of Covid-19 news, we hear it, we see it, but we’ve now started to filter out the noise.”
However the general public’s state of mind and mindset towards the virus, and the procedures that have been put in location to slow its spread, will have long-term behavioral impacts that will affect the development of the pandemic. Worryingly, in the Hong Kong research study, those who ended up being more desensitized tended not to socially distance. “The assumption of some of these designs is that getting frightened people to stay inside holds back the epidemic, but if individuals do end up being desensitized, then we might have problems,” states Bentall.
What is particular is that paying attention to some news is beneficial: There is a link in between using news organizations as a source of details about coronavirus and a greater understanding of the crisis. News readers are merely more notified.
Journalists need to hold the general public’s attention as a matter of seriousness, states Nielsen. “If the government technique in the future starts to search for gray zones between a complete lockdown and a complete opening, you know, individuals who aren’t paying attention are going to have an extremely difficult time understanding just what they’re expected to do,” he says.
This story originally appeared on WIRED UK
More From WIRED on Covid-19
- What does Covid-19 do to your brain?
- A narrative history of the pandemic warnings Trump disregarded
- We require a vaccine– let’s get it right the first time
- Un-miracle drugs might help tame the pandemic
- WIRED Q&A: We remain in the middle of the break out. Now what?
- Read all of our coronavirus coverage here