Negativity and Framing in Political News
- Oct 14, 2025
- 3 min read
Negativity in political news has become increasingly prominent in recent years, shaping how audiences interpret politics and political figures. The long-term growth of negative news can be attributed to a mix of internal and external factors. Additionally, framing theory helps explain how journalists strategically construct negative narratives to capture audience attention. While this negativity can serve as a form of accountability, it also risks distorting political realities and fueling polarization, especially when frames amplify division or distrust.
Why is there negativity in the news?
Berganza et al. (2011) proposed that its recent expansion is tied to changes in political journalism dynamics, including:
Changes in the cultural and professional norms of journalism have shifted towards critical journalism.
Changes in the relationships between journalists and political public relations experts.
Changes in competition and commercialization of the news business.
According to Johansson and Westerstahl (1986), the shift to critical journalism aims to keep the deviant aspects of society and the behavior of those in political power under a watchful eye. Furthermore, journalists may use negative news as a countermeasure to stay independent from news management and public relations.
Berganza et al. (2011) found that "people are genetically wired to pay close attention to negative news and acquire a news-consuming habit to deviant individuals, ideas, and events" (Berganza et al., 2011, p. 181). Due to this, conflict-centered negative news serves as a news business strategy to increase audience engagement, as it is more eye-catching.
Negativity and Framing in Political News
Negativity is further conceptualized as either...
frame-related
individual actor-related
The concept of media framing aligns with the rise of negativity in the news, as journalists begin to frame political events in a more negative-- or even in a polarizing-- way. Dinder and Roslyng (2023) found that the frames found in media texts are composed of narrative and symbolic devices that resonate with individual schemas and cultural realities, thereby exerting a form of power on the audience (Dindler & Roslyng, 2023). Framing in the media consists of elements like metaphors or the repetition of certain words to tacitly construct a narrative. The media plays a big role in how people view certain policies and political actors. Media framing and negativity in politics can be particularly dangerous.
In the aftermath of political activist Charlie Kirk's assassination, people were quick to post gory videos and images of the scene online (Bauder, 2025). Many news sites were quick to report on the issue, often using framing or frame-related negativity. According to a fact check by Goldin with AP News, soon after Kirk's assassination, several news stories included polarizing stories framing the assassin, Tyler Robinson, as a member of specific political parties or societal groups (Goldin, 2025). The rapid spread of these images and videos shows how people tend to pay attention to negative news.
References
Bauder, D. (2025). Graphic video of Charlie Kirk's death spreads fast, showing traditional media's fading grip. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/charlie-kirk-video-graphic-online-social-media-6cfd4dfde356b960aeea69c01ea3ec34
Berganza, R., Esser, F., & Lengauer, G. (2011). Negativity in political news: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism 13(2) 179–202. 10.1177/1464884911427800
Dindler, C. & Roslyng, M. M. (2023). Media power and politics in framing and discourse. Communication Theory, 11-20. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtac012
Goldin, M. (2025, September 13). FACT FOCUS: Assassination of Charlie Kirk prompts flood of false and misleading claims online. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-charlie-kirk-shot-assassination-3354b7ba0d736c198b454f77b3744308
Johansson, F. & Westerstahl, J. (1986). News ideologies as moulders of domestic news. European Journal of Communication, 1(2), 133-149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323186001002003
Comments