I think there absolutely would be enough if they also covered international stories as well as happier news. There's a whole lot more good going on in the world right now than bad, but for some reason we do not highlight it.

▲

ap99 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

"For some reason" is that people do not watch it.

Once you get a taste of "bad" it dominates.

	▲	wat10000 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It's important to remember that actually reporting news is a tertiary purpose of the news business. The primary purpose is to sell advertising. The secondary purpose is to get eyeballs onto their product, in order to facilitate the primary purpose. Reporting news is only done because it's how they've chosen to get those eyeballs.
	▲	ranger_danger 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Maybe for some people, but I see no reason we shouldn't seek out and show good news... I think it makes people happier.
	▲	3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]

▲

harimau777 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think that a lot of the issue might be that the "good" is often irrelevant to the user. E.g. Great news! Scientists discover new drug for treating cancer (in mice).

▲

throwaway27448 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> There's a whole lot more good going on in the world right now than bad,

I have no clue how you could ever even estimate this sort of ratio. How do you even quantify the "number of things going on", let alone confidently split them into good and bad?

▲

Ylpertnodi 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

'Good going on', rarely affects my wallet.

	▲	SkyeCA 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		And most of the "bad going on" is completely out of your control. People could do with consuming a lot less national/international news.
	▲	ranger_danger 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		There are other valid reasons to watch the news though.