I agree that this trend can have harmful effects on both individuals and society

on the one hand,

BD 1 : it can raise ppl awareness about the impending threats -> protect their overall- well being

Ex : News on Covid 19 enabled people to proactively take preventive measures towards it

BD 2: it can create solidarity among communities and social harmony

Ex : News coverage on natural disasters in the central of VN provoked people's willingness to mitigate the consequences through donating money, food, and clothes.

on the other hand

BD 1 : extending exposure to negative coverage affects individuals' mental health -> people may feel more anxious and depressed-> anxiety disorders, depression

BD 2 : This tendency may conceal progresses and positive impacts of certain programmes held by the government -> thereby undermining citizens' trust in social instistutions and the governmental authorities -> EX : Less people will take part in environmental conservation activities, as they believe that their efforts are powerless.

In conclusion, it is irrefutable that the concentration on negative news can make people aware of the impending threats and create social harmony. However, such prophets of doom may overlook the concentrated effort of governmental activities and make people become more prone to mental diseases.

• Main idea: Constant exposure to bad news harms people’s mental and emotional well-being.

• Leads to stress, anxiety, and fear about the world (“mean world syndrome”).

• Creates a sense of hopelessness and loss of motivation.

• Example: Daily reports of crime and disasters make people afraid to go out or trust others.

Bd 2: Effects on Society

• Main idea: This negativity distorts society’s image and weakens community spirit.

• People lose faith in their governments and communities.

• Media neglects positive progress (e.g., scientific breakthroughs, environmental initiatives).

• Society misses chances to celebrate kindness, innovation, and cooperation.

• Example: Positive stories (volunteering, medical success) inspire action but rarely get attention.

Bd 3: Counterargument

• Some argue that negative news is necessary to raise awareness of real problems.

• While awareness is important, the coverage should be balanced. Too much negativity misleads people and prevents optimism about the future.

• Body 1: for individuals:

+ give them a realistic insight into the global current situation.

+ through posts hinging upon analyzing the adversities encountered of late → individuals are deeply aware of the ongoing concern, their impact on and responsibility for it. → more aware and responsible citizens

+ encourage empathy and mutual support

+ e.g. Continuous updates on flood and storm victims in Vietnam raise awareness and public aid.

• Body 2: for the society:

• help governments and organizations respond to urgent issues → facilitate collective action

• during the COVID-19 pandemic, real-time media reporting on infection spikes, hospital overcrowding, and vaccine shortages prompted governments to impose lockdowns, increase medical supplies, and accelerate vaccination campaigns.

• non-governmental organizations (NGOs) often rely on media reports to identify where help is most urgently needed, esp. in disaster zones.

• Body 3: counterargument:

• some argue that ppl should also be known about positive development as negative news often causes emotional fatigue and stress

• but benefit of awareness and social responsibility outweighs this risk

• solution lies in balanced reporting, not avoiding problems altogether => if the media avoided negative news altogether, it would fail in its role as a watchdog and a platform for accountability