By ILYA ROBINSON

Michael Jackson once said, “People write negative things because they feel that’s what sells. Good news, to them, doesn’t sell.”

Jackson could have been commenting not only on the press surrounding his scandals, but on the lack of positive news coverage in the media globally. According to a study by the National Institute of Health, news articles that used negative keywords, or “emotional words,” received 2.3% more clicks than those that used positive keywords. When the media prioritize negative political stories over positive scientific advancements, it can hide the impact of government-funded research and, therefore, weaken the public’s understanding of how policy can contribute to scientific breakthroughs.

With the U.S. so politically divided (according to research performed by Iowa State Research), it’s important to remember that America is supposed to be a democracy. To achieve a democratic society, we must have a well-informed nation made of properly informed citizens on all government and scientific actions. Americans must be aware of both positives and negatives and it’s the news media’s and journalists’ obligation to report on and inform the public on the news without bias.

Breaking news

Showcasing scientific improvements in the media can be crucial to public trust in science. A relevant example of this is the recent breakthroughs in T-cell gene therapy. In January, 2025, Stanford University introduced a new gene therapy treatment for cancer patients, Telcera, which has the potential to cure nearly 1.24 million patients (the estimated number of blood cancer cases according to Bristol Myers Squibb in 2026). Breakthroughs in T-cell gene therapy for blood cancers, such as Telcera, are more than just medical advancements — they are a step toward science impacting other serious diseases. How this success is reported by the media will shape public perception of science and can impact our political climate.

When the media cover scientific breakthroughs, such as Telcera, it reveals how government funding shapes and helps to create the possibility for scientific progress. During its clinical trials, Telcera shrank nearly 43% of all patients’ solid tumors, which reinforces its potential to save countless lives. If more people understood the connection between the government’s funding and these life-saving scientific breakthroughs, they might support policies that expand research budgets.

Follow the money

Universities and hospitals need funding to conduct the experiments that lead to scientific breakthroughs, including those in T-Cell gene therapy. Many private organizations provide funding for research projects, but most universities rely, at least in part, on federal funding for research budgets. According to Washington Post reports, government agencies in America are cutting off billions of dollars in funding from research projects performed by universities. This is problematic as, according to the U.S. National Science Foundation, nearly 60% of all scientific research performed in the U.S. is performed by universities. The loss of federal funding can heavily influence the success of universities’ research projects through budget cuts.

When reviewing statistics that regard the lack of coverage of positive news, it’s important to understand why the media may want to include mainly negative content.  Not only do negative stories generate more clicks, as mentioned above, a key reason can be that publishing news content regarding science often requires time and expertise, whereas writing political news stories is comparatively “easier.” News media often lean toward negative news coverage because of its popularity to readers, as it often elicits an emotional connection, and can make the news seem more urgent, or “newsworthy.” The more clicks, the longer the engagement, the more earnings for the media organization.

Buy-in

Nevertheless, positive breakthroughs should be highlighted throughout the news media. Not only will it keep the public updated on scientific breakthroughs, it will illustrate the fact that none of it would be possible without federal funding and government-supplied monetary resources. The media don’t highlight funding research as an investment toward real progress, but more as “spending.” Funding is a necessary and key element for research in scientific organizations.

Foundations like the National Institutes of Health have strict research policies to protect human and animal test subjects’ safety and to ensure accountability. These guidelines can lead to major scientific breakthroughs, the same way funding does. When these advancements aren’t obvious to the public, it undermines the purpose of funding.

When the media focus only on the scientific failures, they may also erode people’s trust that science will ever produce positive results. When scientific progress is undermined through terms like “failure,” society’s habits can change, impacting further research, and it can even impact voting. Repeated stories of negative political news, such as war, and death can cause readers to believe that the government is failing, and, after repeated exposure, that these failures are “normal.”

Additionally, negative political stories can cause readers to assume that government failures are widespread even to include the scientific community. When the media don’t highlight positive scientific breakthroughs, they impact the government in more ways than one. Scientific advancements are often the result of government funding, and when the media ignores incredible breakthroughs, readers aren’t able to see the connection between the government’s actions and real improvements in citizens’ lives.

Civic duty

Reporting on all kinds of information, including political, social, and scientific, whether positive or negative, is the media’s obligation. As someone who regularly checks the news and often encounters political updates, I engage with more negative news than positive, specifically negative political news. The media underreport positive scientific breakthroughs and ignore the direct ties the government has to societal improvements.  The persistent lack of coverage for these advancements weakens democratic accountability. Politicians and government officials should get credit for their investments in scientific research.

Michael Jackson’s point about negative stories being covered more than positive ones, and often used as clickbait, shows how this imbalance can shape whether the media inform the public or whether adverting dollars drive news. It is the responsibility of journalists to cover all news in a full and detailed manner, and it is through responsible journalism that people can understand the real potential of science. When scientific developments are overshadowed by negative political media content, the public loses sight of the real ways our government can shape scientific progress and, in turn, daily life. When journalism begins to feature scientific progress, society will be able to see the ways that government policy shapes the future of science.