Cutting through the 24/7 bad news cycle

We have an appetite for more positive scientific news – so why isn’t it being filled?

11th March 2025

If you can believe it, March 11 marks five years since the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic. The world has changed enormously since then, and in many ways, we’re still recovering. There will be no shortage of analysis about the impacts of this milestone, but for me, this piece in The New York Times does an excellent job encapsulating the ongoing effects, particularly in the United States. I’d encourage you to give it a read.

What I want to focus on, however, is the relentless nature of the news cycle and how it presents a unique opportunity for science, scientists, and research organisations to cut through the noise.

Bad news hype cycle

Bad news has always dominated headlines—it grabs attention and keeps people engaged. But the birth of the 24/7 news cycle took this to another level. Add the rise of social media and smartphones, and we’ve reached a point where doomscrolling (and its close cousin, doomsharing) has become an ingrained habit.

Since January and during the Trump presidency, it feels like this cycle only intensified. It’s non-stop—a relentless stream of negativity that leaves us desperate for a digital detox. In many ways, it reminds me of the early days of the pandemic when every headline seemed more horrifying than the last.

And yet, there’s a deep irony here. The solution to the pandemic—the rapid development of mRNA vaccines—was one of the most phenomenal scientific achievements in history. It saved millions of lives and demonstrated what science could accomplish under pressure. But even this breakthrough struggled to cut through the noise - as the article I linked above put it: “All told, vaccines saved the lives of three million Americans, and yet hardly anyone tells the story of the pandemic in triumphant terms.”

A friend recently remarked that investment in science is good for politicians because scientists are always the source of good news. And they’re right—most of society’s advances and solutions can be traced back to STEM fields in one way or another.

So why aren’t universities and research organisations taking advantage of this?

Don’t outsource your narrative

I say this all the time: if you don’t tell your own story, someone else will tell it for you. If you don’t write your own narrative, someone else will shape it for you. The proliferation of bad news stories over good news stories illustrates this perfectly.

I spend my days talking to scientists and researchers, and I’m constantly amazed by the extraordinary, brilliant and hope-inspiring breakthroughs they’re achieving. But when I turn on the news, it’s a completely different picture—an endless stream of bad news. And, of course, that negativity feeds into what people share with each other online. My social media feed is either comedy and entertainment or overwhelmingly depressing headlines. This stark contrast between the incredible stories I know exist and the bleakness of the news cycle is frustrating.

It’s easy to blame the media for this imbalance. “Why aren’t they telling our stories?” is a question I hear often. And while some responsibility does rest with the media, universities themselves have largely outsourced their storytelling to external outlets. They’ve left a void where their own narratives should be.

Instead of owning their impact and understanding how to create loyal audiences like media organisations do, many universities flood their communications channels with PR-style news stories that lack depth or resonance. This isn’t an engagement strategy—it’s a missed opportunity.

By failing to take control of their storytelling, universities have allowed external media (which often doesn’t fully understand or appreciate their work) to shape public perceptions—or worse yet, ignore them entirely.

The Good News Gap

This brings us to what I call The Good News Gap. Media outlets are great at many things, but engaging people with positivity isn’t one of them. Their business model thrives on attention-grabbing negativity—“if it bleeds, it leads.”

But here’s the thing: people want good news.

Research (from universities, of course) shows that uplifting stories can reduce stress levels, boost mood, and even promote physical well-being by activating reward centers in our brains. Positive stories remind us that progress is possible—they inspire hope, motivate action, and counter negativity.

And isn’t that what we want and need? Hope and action - not despair and disinformation? At the end of the day, what we are seeing in the media is not balanced.

The media needs eyeballs - that drives their business model. Universities, however, want society to understand, benefit from, and ultimately support their research. That’s your business model.

But you can’t just blast the stories out there. You need to take the time to understand what audiences want to know and you have to get highly strategic with what you communicate and how. It’s time to invest in an approach that puts you in control: a publisher’s strategy. (I’ve written before about the publisher’s perspective here).

By taking control of their own messaging, the research sector can fill the Good News gap. They can deliver that sorely-needed good news. And they can equip their champions, supporters and partners with the right language and information to share that news.

After all–what politician doesn’t want to share how their investments have improved voters’ lives? What philanthropist wouldn’t want their names attached to the breakthrough of the century?

But what does the change mean for universities?

It means a radical rethinking of the status quo.

Of course scientists and researchers have a unique challenge in creating a narrative that connects their specific area of research to broader social good (which is usually more difficult for scientists working in fundamental research). But it’s not impossible. That’s where good journalism, communication and storytelling come in.

And in this era of doom and gloom there’s a greater opportunity than ever to cut through the digital deluge with good news–and greater appetite to hear this news.

I’ll get into the details in future newsletter, but if you want to start implementing the publisher’s perspective in your own messaging and stories, here are some important principles to consider:

• Don’t talk generically: Like Novo Nordisk or AstraZeneca’s websites that focus on specific achievements rather than generic claims.

• Focus on solutions: Stories about solving real-world problems or working toward solutions resonate deeply with audiences.

• Take us on a journey: How did you get here? Provide context about both the problem and your journey toward discovery.

• Lean into niche and complex topics: The public’s interest in complexity is often underestimated—become the trusted source for deep dives into topics overlooked by mainstream media.

• Engage emotionally: Numbers alone don’t inspire; narratives do.

• Own your platforms: Treat your website as a hub for compelling content tailored specifically to your audience.

• Employ experts: Brilliant filmmakers, scriptwriters, producers, communicators, artists, activists and TikTok creators have built audiences around complex topics; use their expertise.

This isn’t just about recognition - it’s existential. With declining trust in institutions and rising competition for funding, universities must take control of their narratives before others do it for them.