Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Its not the death count, type of disaster or sympathy for similar/popular. Its novelty of news. A disaster that is unique, novel or unexpected will get the attention of news readers.

A terrorist attack in a third world will not get the same attention as a tsunami or mudslide(because the later occur less often) and much less than a new disease that kills a dozen people. There is a subconscious risk-estimating going on "is disaster X relevant/close/threat to me", but the novelty of new information is the key for news coverage and subsequent interest.

An easy way to increase novelty is to add something unique: instead of 20 people died in X, add their names and their occupations, how they died, in-depth material/interviews - all things that increase engagement and empathy.

A simple news broadcast that searches for scoops and immediate facts is quite dry and non-appealing, like a weather report for most people. People better absorb news in format of something similar to opinion piece/entertainment, regardless of its accuracy/neutrality.

All coverage is building engagement. People relate to the event from more angles. Emotional connections form, sympathy and sense of relatedness. To some it might be a soap opera, but it also relieves their personal fears and problems - in a sort of twisted escapism, like watching disaster movies or horror films.




Power=Reach x Persuasiveness according to Scott Adams, a change from the old Power = Money x Willingness to do evil. By this, reach increases as a function of novelty and existing reach, if we can take fore granted that humans “like” shiny. Ie. the coverage is rational self interest.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: