Did you know that the phrase “If it bleeds, it leads” is used in the West as an idiom about news reporting? In other words, negative events—conflicts, disasters, terrorism, incidents—are more likely to be reported as news, while positive developments such as development projects or peace processes are less likely to make the news.

Even if you are not very familiar with this expression, many people may feel that Japan’s international news coverage is likewise flooded with negative stories. With that impression in mind, can we really apply the idiom “If it bleeds, it leads” directly to Japanese international reporting? To find out, we analyzed whether negative news is reported more frequently by examining international news articles from three Japanese newspapers (Asahi, Yomiuri, Mainichi) in 2015. Before starting the analysis, we first classified each news topic, and each paper’s treatment of that topic, into three categories: “positive,” “negative,” and “neutral.” We included a “neutral” category because there are cases where it is not clear whether an article’s content is positive or negative, and judgments can of course vary depending on standpoint and values. (For detailed criteria on positive, negative, and neutral, please see “GNV Data Analysis Method [PDF].” Also, because this article focuses on negative topics in Japanese international reporting, we do not address whether each newspaper’s treatment was positive or negative; we will cover that in a separate article.)

Now, as a result of the analysis, please first take a look at this graph.

The graph above shows the proportions of articles covering positive, negative, and neutral topics in the three newspapers (Asahi, Yomiuri, Mainichi), with their average presented as a pie chart. Over the year 2015, positive articles accounted for 15.4% and negative articles for 37.7%. Although this does not amount to a majority of all coverage, it shows that in Japan’s international reporting, negative events were reported more than twice as often as positive events. It is, quite literally, a result that embodies “If it bleeds, it leads.”

The map above color-codes how prevalent negative articles were for each country. The darker the red, the higher the share of negative articles; countries for which the total number of articles in 2015 was fewer than five are shown in gray.

Next, the graph above shows, for each region, what share of all articles covered positive, negative, and neutral topics by calculating the percentages for each of the three newspapers (Asahi, Yomiuri, Mainichi) and averaging them. With regard to this graph and the map above, we would like to draw attention to two regions where many countries appear in gray—that is, regions with a small absolute number of articles: Africa and Latin America. In Africa, positive articles accounted for 14.9% while negative articles accounted for 60.5%. In contrast, in Latin America, positive articles accounted for 29.9% and negative articles for 21.1%, showing a stark difference in the positive/negative balance even among regions with clearly few articles. We believe this result stems from the fact that in Africa, negative events such as conflicts, famines, and incidents were often reported, whereas in Latin America, positive coverage—such as Cuba’s normalization of relations with the United States—made up the bulk.

This analysis confirms that in Japan’s international reporting as well, “If it bleeds, it leads”—that is, negative events tend to be taken up as news—and furthermore, that the share of positive and negative news varies greatly by region, as seen with Africa and Latin America. It also shows that when the absolute number of articles for a region is small, as with Cuba in Latin America, the region’s overall positive/negative ratio can be heavily influenced by a particular country or event.

We cannot see the entire world, and we view much of it through international news coverage. Therefore, if negative news outweighs positive, we may come to hold negative impressions of the world and of particular regions. It is no exaggeration to say that the balance between positive and negative news directly shapes people’s perceptions and behavior. By comparing these findings with your own impressions, you may be able to view the world from a different perspective than usual.

Writer (GNV): Reo Ishihama