The Internet might be global, but we prefer local bad news all the same

One reason why the summer’s Swine Flu coverage was so closely followed in much of the West was of course that it was local, real and very often linked in with ‘local cases on the rise’ type stories.

Researchers from the University of Missouri have now done a physiological study (e.g. heart rate and the like) and found that when it comes to the news we really do think local – and that this extends to the Internet.

Boffins hooked human guinea pigs up and found that online news about local health threats caused increased attention, memory and “heart rate deceleration” compared to ‘low proximity’ threats.

Translation: We’ll be more worried about a local outbreak of gastric flu that we read about in a blog, than if we read about (say) Cholera outbreaks in Zimbabwe in The Guardian online.

Researchers also found that we remembered details of the threat better if it was local, something that should be of interest to health professionals – health info websites will work well if they are personalised and relevant.

Perhaps not the most surprising finding given that in most mass market newspapers foreign news coverage is minimal, but it comes back to the question of whether we almost zone out bad news on a national or international scale, but take notice when it’s local.

Back in April, Ray Williams wrote in the National Post (Canada) that the ratio of good to bad news stories can be as high as 1:17.

However, the closer to home you get, the better that ratio becomes. So many local weeklies are filled with school play type stories, while in our own personal relationships there’s a ‘magic ratio’ of positive to negative information of 5:1 according to John Grottman of the University of Washington.

If something local happens, not only is it logical that we pay attention, it’s also unexpected enough to jolt us into action.

Image – Korofotomorgana

Via Science Daily