MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210669807 · doi:10.30958/ajmmc.8-3-1

No News is Not Good News: The Implications of News Fatigue and News Avoidance in a Pandemic World

2022· article· en· W4210669807 on OpenAlexaff
Neill Fitzpatrick

Bibliographic record

VenueAthens Journal of Mass Media and Communications · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMisinformation and Its Impacts
Canadian institutionsMacEwan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNews mediaJournalismFeelingPandemicPolitical scienceNews valuesMental healthPoliticsNews bureauCoping (psychology)PsychologyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)AdvertisingBusinessSocial psychologyMedicineLawPsychiatryInfectious disease (medical specialty)Disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In an era dominated by a constant flow of grim news, news fatigue is becoming more recognized as a serious concern, even a health risk. Around-the-clock reports on the pandemic can seem unavoidable, along with ongoing coverage of political upheaval, climate change, and other major global issues. For some, the weight of the world’s news becomes too much. A 2019 pre-pandemic survey of 12,000 American adults by the Pew Research Center found 66% admitting they were “worn out” by the sheer amount of news available to them. News fatigue can translate into a desire to consume less news in an effort to preserve and protect one’s mental health. A Pew Research Center survey in April 2020 determined 71% of adult Americans say they need to “take breaks from COVID-19 news” while 43% said the news “leaves them feeling worse emotionally”. The World Health Organization addressed the concerns about the impact of the news onslaught in the “Mental Health Tips” section of its website. The WHO offers this advice to the public: “Try to reduce how much you watch, read or listen to news that makes you feel anxious or distressed”. Growing numbers are heeding this advice and reducing their news consumption. Some are opting for no news whatsoever as a means of coping. In May 2020, the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at Oxford University examined the “infodemically vulnerable” in Britain, those who chose to reduce consumption of COVID-19 related news. More than one-fifth of those surveyed said: “they often or always actively try to avoid the news,” with the majority citing the impact on their mood. While mental health concerns appear to be the primary reason behind the increase in avoidance, growing distrust in mainstream media is also cited. While not a new phenomenon, the skepticism surrounding journalism was exacerbated during the pandemic as anti-vaccination advocates and conspiracy theorists questioned the validity and accuracy of the COVID-19 facts shared by news organizations, even governments. In this analysis of research, interviews, news articles, and social media content, I will advance recommendations for journalism researchers seeking to understand these issues. I will also propose strategies for journalists and news organizations seeking to navigate the issues and find solutions to help their embattled profession survive and recover. Keywords: journalism, news avoidance, news fatigue, misinformation, trust

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.746
Threshold uncertainty score0.866

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.098
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAthens Journal of Mass Media and CommunicationsSame topicMisinformation and Its ImpactsFrench-language works237,207