July 27, 2025 • 29 mins
Navigating Media Consumption for Psychological Well-Being and Resistance
In this episode of PsyberSpace, host Leslie Poston explores the critical issue of media consumption in the age of information overload and crisis. With facts being scrubbed from official sources and reality under attack, Poston examines the role of independent journalism and social media as lifelines to truth. The episode digs into the psychology of how we consume media, the distinction between staying informed and drowning in trauma, and the impact of the attention economy and algorithms on our emotional well-being. Drawing from psychological theories, research, and historical examples, Poston provides strategies for conscious and sustainable media engagement that honors truth, supports psychological resilience, and serves as a form of resistance.
00:00 Introduction: The Importance of Conscious Media Consumption
01:49 The Role of Media in Historical and Modern Crises
03:01 The Attention Economy and Emotional Regulation
05:19 Healthy vs. Unhealthy Media Engagement
07:58 The Psychological Impact of Media Consumption
18:06 Parasocial Relationships and Media
21:14 The Responsibility of Media Creators
24:05 Strategies for Conscious Media Consumption
27:05 Conclusion: Transforming Media Consumption into Resistance
Research
Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. A. (2019). The costs of connection. Stanford University Press.
Gross, J. J. (2002). Emotion regulation: Affective, cognitive, and social consequences. Psychophysiology, 39(3), 281–291. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0048577201393198
Holman, E. A., Garfin, D. R., Lubens, P., & Silver, R. C. (2020). Media exposure to collective trauma, mental health, and functioning: Does it matter what you see? Clinical Psychological Science, 8*(1), 111–124
Horton, D., & Wohl, R. R. (1956). Mass communication and parasocial interaction. Psychiatry, 19(3), 215–229.
Li, M., Zhou, Y., Luo, J., Liang, X., Wang, Y., Cai, H., Huang, L., Luo, X., Xiang, Q., & Huang, X. (2025). The influence of childhood trauma on social media-induced secondary traumatic stress among college students: The chain mediating effect of self-compassion and resilience. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 16(1), 2456322. https://doi.org/10.1080/20008066.2025.2456322
McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. McGraw-Hill.
Nabi, R. L. (2015). Emotional flow in persuasive health messages. Health Communication, 24(3), 229–236.
Oz, B., Vandekerckhove, M., & Cona, G. (2024). Impact of indirect trauma and disaster media exposure on psychological states and temporal processes: The case of 2023 Turkey earthquakes. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 31(6), e70008. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.70008
Reinecke, L., & Oliver, M. B. (2017). Media use and well-being: Status quo and open questions. In L. Reinecke & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of media use and well-being: International perspectives on theory and research on positive media effects (pp. 3–13). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Thompson, R. R., Jones, N. M., Holman, E. A., & Silver, R. C. (2019). Media exposure to mass violence events can fuel a cycle of distress. Science advances, 5(4), eaav3502
Wardle, C., & Derakhshan, H. (2017). Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework. Council of Europe.
Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism. PublicAffairs.
★ Support this podcast ★Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Leslie Poston (00:10):
Welcome back to PsyberSpace. I'm your host,
Leslie Poston. Today, we'retalking about something that's
been weighing on a lot of peoplelately, even if they can't quite
name it. It's never been moreimportant to pay attention. When
facts are being scrubbed fromofficial sources, when reality
(00:30):
itself is under attack, media,especially social media, becomes
a lifeline to truth.
Independent journalists arebreaking stories that
traditional outlets won't touch.Eyewitness accounts are
documenting events that wouldotherwise be erased from
history. Communities areorganizing, sharing resources,
(00:52):
and bearing witness to eachother's struggles in ways that
feel essential. But there's adifference between bearing
witness and drowning in trauma.The line between staying
informed and losing yourself inthe flood feels harder to find
than ever.
So our question today isn'twhether we should be consuming
media during a crisis. It's howwe can do it consciously,
(01:17):
sustainably, and in service ofboth truth and our own
psychological well-being. How dowe honor the necessity of
witness while protecting ourcapacity to act? How do we tell
the difference between mediathat serves resistance and media
that serves the systems tryingto break us down? Let's explore
(01:38):
what the research says about thepsychology of necessary
consumption and how we canengage with media as a form of
resistance rather thansubmission.
Historically, media has servedmany functions, connecting
people across distances, tellingstories that shape identities,
(01:58):
educating the public, andholding power accountable.
Marshall McLuhan famously calledmedia extensions of man,
amplifiers of our senses and ourabilities. At its best, media
helps us witness what'shappening and find our place in
it. It creates common language,collective memory, unified
(02:18):
outrage, and moments ofcelebration that can bind us
together. Think about how mediafunctioned during previous
crises.
During World War two, radiobroadcast created a sense of
collective solidarity. Familiesgathered around radio, sharing
information and emotionalexperience in real time. Walter
(02:39):
Cronkite's coverage of theKennedy assassination or the
Vietnam War created moments ofshared national processing. Even
MTV's coverage of nine elevenserved as a generational
touchstone, helping youngerpeople make sense of
incomprehensible tragedytogether. But that's the ideal,
and right now, it doesn't feellike we're living in that ideal.
(03:00):
We're living in an attentioneconomy during the algorithmic
era or as Shoshana Zuboff put itin the age of surveillance
capitalism, where data, emotion,and reaction are monetized and
manipulated constantly. Media isno longer just a source of
information. It's a tool ofemotional regulation and not
(03:21):
always in healthy ways. Theshift is profound. Media once
created shared experiences,however flawed, but now it
simultaneously createspersonalized echo chambers and
vital underground networks oftruth telling.
Our media once operated onbroadcast schedules that allowed
for processing time whenstations shut down. Now it
(03:43):
demands constant engagement evenas it enables real time
documentation of events as theyunfold. Media once had
gatekeepers who at leastattempted to balance public
interest with audienceengagement. Now we have
algorithms optimizing purely fortime on platform and clicks
alongside independent creatorswho want to prioritize accuracy
(04:06):
and justice over profit. Thiscreates a paradox.
The same platforms that exploitour emotional vulnerabilities
also provide spaces wheremarginalized voices can bypass
traditional gatekeepers, wherecitizen journalists can expose
what powerful institutions wantto hide and where communities
(04:26):
can organize resistance andmutual aid in real time. Think
of how you use media when you'reoverwhelmed. Maybe you binge a
show or doom scroll Twitter,refresh your news app every few
minutes, or retreat into comfortcontent. Maybe you make a dozen
TikToks. That's not just habit.
(04:48):
It's emotional regulation.Psychologist James Gross
described this in his processmodel of emotional regulation.
He breaks it into strategieslike distraction, changing your
focus, reappraisal, changing howyou think about something, and
suppression Media can supportany of these and sometimes all
(05:08):
at once. But let's get morespecific about how this works in
practice and how to distinguishbetween regulation that serves
you and regulation that servesthe algorithm. When you're
feeling anxious about somethingyou can't control, you might
turn to a familiar TV show.
That's situation selection,choosing an environment that
(05:28):
supports the emotional state youwant. When you're angry about
injustice, you might seek outcontent that validates that
anger and provides context foraction. That's healthy
attentional deployment. But whenyou're seeking out content that
keeps you angry withoutproviding any pathway forward,
that's when regulation becomesexploitation. The key question
(05:51):
becomes, is this media helpingme understand, process, and
potentially act, or is it justkeeping me activated without
direction?
Research by Reinke and Edenexpands this into a media
specific framework. Theydistinguish between hedonic use
for pleasure or escape andeudaimonic use for meaning or
(06:13):
insight. So watching alighthearted series to wind down
would be hedonic. Watching apowerful documentary to process
grief or learn about aninjustice is more eudaimonic.
But here's where it gets a bitmore complicated.
The same piece of media canserve different regulatory
functions for different peopleor even for the same person at
(06:36):
different times. A news podcastmight help one person feel
informed and empowered whilemaking another person feel
helpless and overwhelmed. A truecrime documentary might help
someone process their owntrauma, or it might trigger new
anxiety for someone else.Footage of police brutality
might galvanize one person toaction while traumatizing
(06:59):
someone from a marginalizedgroup who's experienced similar
violence. The difference oftenlies not just in the content but
the context, your currentemotional resources, your access
to community and action, andyour sense of agency in the
world.
And here's the cat. We're oftennot choosing these strategies
(07:19):
consciously. We're justreacting. And when the content
we're consuming is designed tokeep us engaged no matter what,
we can end up in loops thatdon't serve our understanding or
our capacity for action. This iswhere we need to distinguish
between different types of mediaconsumption.
There's consumptive scrolling,passively absorbing whatever the
(07:41):
algorithm feeds you. There'sresistive engagement, actively
seeking out information thathelps you understand systems of
power and depression. And thenthere's community witnessing,
consuming media as part ofcollective meaning making in
action. This is where cognitiveload theory becomes relevant.
When we're already emotionallyoverwhelmed, our cognitive
(08:04):
resources are limited.
We have less mental bandwidthfor critical thinking, for
making conscious choices aboutwhat to consume, for recognizing
when media is helping versusharming us. So we default to
whatever's easiest, whatever'smost immediately available,
which is usually whatever thealgorithm serves up next. We
(08:25):
talked a bit about this kind ofcomfort seeking brain in a
previous episode. Let's talkabout those loops. You've
probably caught yourself atleast once scrolling past story
after story of violence,cruelty, or injustice unable to
stop.
(08:45):
That's not a failure ofwillpower it's a design feature.
Psychologists coined the termtrauma looping to describe what
happens when people are exposedto repetitive, unresolved
traumatic imagery or stories inthe media. Sociologists have
written about this in thecontext of mass violence
coverage. They found thatrepeated exposure without
(09:07):
avenues for meaning making oraction leads to emotional
blunting, hypervigilance, oreven secondary trauma. Let's dig
deeper into the mechanismbecause not all looping is the
same.
When we encounter traumaticcontent, our nervous system
activates. Heart rate increases,stress hormones flood our
(09:27):
system, and we go into fight,flight, or freeze mode even if
we don't realize it. In ahealthy response, we'd either
take action to address thethreat or find ways to discharge
that activation. When the threatis mediated, meaning when it's
happening to someone else,somewhere else, we have
different options. Sometimeswitnessing is itself a form of
(09:51):
action.
Bearing witness to injustice,like the trauma that's happening
in Gaza or Sudan, amplifyingmarginalized voices, refusing to
let atrocities be forgotten,these can be meaningful
responses even when directintervention isn't possible. The
problem arises when witnessbecomes passive consumption
(10:13):
without any sense of purpose orcommunity. The research on this
is stark, but it's important todistinguish between different
types of exposure. Studies ofjournalists covering traumatic
events show rates of PTSDcomparable to first responders.
But journalists who feel theirwork serves a larger purpose and
(10:34):
who have strong professionalsupport networks fare better
than those who don't.
The same principles apply to allof us. And it's not just the
content. It's the lack ofresolution and narrative arc.
There's a constant influx ofpain without context, catharsis,
or choice. Here's whereselective exposure theory
(10:55):
becomes important.
When people feel overwhelmed bynegative information, they often
retreat into content thatconfirms their existing beliefs
or makes them feel better. Thisisn't necessarily conscious it's
a psychological defensemechanism. But it can lead to
information bubbles thatactually increase anxiety and
(11:16):
decrease our capacity tounderstand complex situations.
It's important to ask whose painare we watching? Whose suffering
gets amplified?
And whose suffering gets erased?What gets framed as tragic, and
what gets framed as justified.These are media choices, and
they shape how we experiencegrief, guilt, and solidarity.
(11:40):
The politics of exposure aren'tneutral. A shooting in one
neighborhood gets wall to wallcoverage, while violence in
another gets an gets ignored.
One group's trauma becomescontent for another group's
consumption. This doesn't justshape our understanding of
events, It shapes ourunderstanding of whose lives
matter, whose pain deservesattention, and whose stories are
(12:03):
worth telling. While earlier Imentioned that previous media
served to unify people, thatdoes not mean that previous
media always told the best andmost accurate story. Conscious
consumption becomes an act ofresistance when we actively seek
out credible voices thatmainstream media may overlook.
(12:26):
Verified independentjournalists, established
community organizations, primarysources, and eyewitness accounts
that can be corroborated.
This means checking sources,cross referencing information,
and supporting journalists andcitizen journalists who follow
ethical reporting standards,whether they work for major
outlets or just have independentplatforms. The goal isn't to
(12:50):
reject all institutional mediabut to diversify our sources
while maintaining criticalthinking about accuracy and
agenda. Now let's talk about thehard part. Sometimes our
relationship to media starts tolook like compulsive self
injury. That's not a metaphor.
(13:10):
It's a framework somepsychologists are using to
describe behaviors likedoomscrolling. You feel bad. You
scroll. You see something worse.You keep scrolling.
This repetition gives you asense of control, but it also
deepens the distress, likepicking a scab emotionally. Now
we talked in a previous episodeabout how sometimes
doomscrolling serves a purpose,so go back and listen to that
(13:33):
one for the other side of thisequation. The psychological toll
of media isn't just about timespent. It's about how and why
we're engaging. Let's bespecific about what this looks
like.
Maybe you wake up feelinganxious about something in your
personal life. Instead ofsitting with that feeling or
addressing it directly, you pickup your phone. You immediately
(13:57):
see a news story that makes youangry, and that anger feels more
manageable than your originalanxiety. So you keep reading.
You keep scrolling.
You find yourself in a commentsection arguing with strangers
or bots, and hours pass. Theoriginal anxiety is still there,
but now you're also angry,depleted, and probably more
(14:18):
anxious than when you started.This is consumptive scrolling,
and it mirrors what researchersidentified in other forms of
emotional avoidance. Butcontrast that with this. You
wake up feeling anxious aboutthe state of the world.
You intentionally seek outupdates from trusted sources,
maybe independent journalistscovering issues you care about,
(14:40):
maybe community organizerssharing resources and action.
You read or watch with purpose,looking for ways to understand
and potentially contribute. Youshare vetted information that
might help others. You check-inwith friends who are doing
similar work. The anxiety mightnot disappear, but it transforms
into something more likesolidarity and determination.
(15:04):
That's resistive engagement. Thedifference isn't just in the
content. It's in the intentionof the community. If you're
using media as a way to punishyourself for not doing more, to
confirm that everything is asbad as you fear, or to feel
something, anything, becausenumbness is worse, you're
certainly not alone, but youmight not be engaging in a way
(15:26):
that serves your values or yourcapacity for action. There's
another layer here that connectsto what we've discussed in
previous episodes about learnedhelplessness.
When you're constantly exposedto problems without any sense of
agency or community, your brainstarts to generalize that
helplessness. But when mediaconsumption is part of
(15:47):
collective action, when you'rereading, sharing, discussing as
part of a community workingtoward change, the psychological
impact can be completelydifferent. In the attention
economy, your feelings arecurrency. Fear, outrage,
sadness, these are highengagement emotions. They keep
(16:08):
you on the apps, in the feeds,chasing the next hit of
adrenaline or despair.
The platforms know how thisworks, they exploit it. And
that's not a conspiracy. It'stheir business model. So let's
get technical about how thisworks. Most social media
platforms use machine learningalgorithms trained on massive
datasets of human behavior.
(16:29):
These algorithms don'tunderstand content in the way
humans do. They just recognizepatterns. They learn that
certain types of content getcertain types of response.
Content that makes people angrygets shared more. Content that
makes people afraid gets clickedmore.
Content that triggers moraloutrage gets commented on more.
(16:51):
The algorithm doesn't care aboutyour mental health. It doesn't
care about social cohesion ordemocratic discourse or your
ability to sleep at night. Thealgorithm only cares about
engagement metrics. Andunfortunately, many of the
things that drive engagement areexactly the things that
undermine psychologicalwell-being.
(17:13):
In past episodes, we've exploredhow emotional manipulation can
be dressed up as structure orpolicy. The same thing is true
of media. The more emotionallydestabilized you are, the easier
you are to influence andmonetize. There's research
showing that people inheightened emotional states are
more likely to make impulsepurchases, more likely to share
(17:36):
content without fact checkingit, more likely to engage in
online conflict. From a businessperspective, keeping users in a
state of heightened emotion ishighly profitable.
From a human perspective, it'sso destructive. And that raises
a bigger question (17:52):
when everything hurts and truth
itself is under attack, whenstaying informed feels both
necessary and overwhelming, howdo we engage consciously? Here's
one answer (18:07):
parasocial relationships. Now we talked
about parasocial relationshipsin the context of TikTok back in
season one, but we're going totalk about it again in the
context of media consumption.Parasocial relationships are
one-sided relationships peopleform with media figures.
People like celebrities,influencers, content creators,
(18:29):
musicians, podcasters. Theserelationships have been around
since the fifties when Hortonand Wahl first coined the term,
and they've exploded in thesocial media age. In times of
crisis, parasocial bonds canfeel stabilizing. That podcast
host who helps you fall asleep,that YouTuber who explains the
news without sensationalizingit, that independent journalist
(18:52):
whose reporting you trust, thecomfort character from your
favorite TV show. Even realpeople you don't know in real
life who are living through thenews like Bisson and Motaz come
to feel like anchors in themidst of chaos.
Research shows us thatparasocial relationships
activate some of the same neuralpathways as real social
(19:14):
connections. They can reduceloneliness, provide emotional
regulation, and even influencebehavior in positive ways.
People who feel connected tomedia figures who model healthy
behaviors or healthy resistanceare more likely to adopt those
behaviors themselves. But let'sdig deeper into why these
(19:35):
relationships servepsychological functions that
traditional media can't.Parasocial relationships provide
a sense of consistency andpredictability in an unstable
world.
They offer emotional supportwithout the reciprocal demands
of real relationships. They canprovide role models for how to
cope, how to make sense ofcomplex situations, and how to
(19:59):
maintain hope and determinationin the face of systems designed
to break us down. Theserelationships can also become
substitutes for real connection,especially when real
relationships feel too demandingor too risky. They can create
unrealistic expectations abouthow people should behave or what
(20:19):
support should look like. Andbecause they're mediated, they
can be manipulated in ways thatreal relationships typically
aren't.
They're not your friends, butthey are helping you regulate
emotion and preserve identityduring uncertainty. So it's not
inherently bad, but it canbecome problematic if it
replaces real worldrelationships or leads to
(20:41):
unrealistic expectations. Still,it shows us something important.
Media is relational even whenit's mediated. We're not just
consuming information orentertainment.
We're seeking connection,understanding, a sense that
we're not alone in whateverwe're experiencing. And in times
when traditional institutionsare failing us, when official
(21:02):
sources are compromised, theserelationships can become
lifelines to sanity and totruth. Let's flip the
perspective for a moment. Ifyou're someone who creates
media, whether you're a contentcreator, educator, journalist,
or artist, this isn't just aboutwhat you consume. It's also
(21:24):
about what you put into theworld, and that's heavy.
Because when everything hurts,it's hard to know what your role
is. Are you helping peopleunderstand? Are you making
things worse and just adding tothe noise? Social psychologists
argue that media creators arecaught in a moral paradox. You
want to tell the truth, but youdon't want to re traumatize
(21:45):
people.
You want to raise awareness, butyou don't want to manipulate.
You want to offer hope, but youdon't want to lie. The pressure
is intense, especially forindependent creators who depend
on engagement for theirlivelihood but refuse to
sacrifice truth for clicks. Thealgorithm rewards content that
generates strong emotionalresponses, but that's often not
(22:08):
the same as content that servesthe audience's best interests or
the broader cause of justice andtruth. Creators find themselves
torn between what gets views andwhat feels ethically
responsible, and many arechoosing ethics over algorithms
even when it means financialsacrifice.
Not all, but many. This is itsown form of resistance. There's
(22:31):
also the question of emotionallabor. When you're creating
content about difficult topics,you're not just processing your
own feelings. You're managingyour audience's emotional
responses, fielding comments,messages, and questions.
You're holding space for otherpeople's trauma while you're
trying to manage your own. Andthen there's the impossible
(22:52):
standard of having to be on allthe time. Social media has
created an expectation thatcreators should be constantly
available, constantly producing,and constantly engaging. There's
no space for processing rest oruncertainty. You're expected to
have a take on everythingimmediately regardless of how
you're feeling or what you'redealing with in your personal
(23:14):
life or, frankly, regardless ofwhether you know anything about
that particular issue.
There's no perfect answer, butone helpful guideline is
intention plus transparency.Think why are you sharing this?
Who does it serve? Whatemotional state are you inviting
people into? And do they havethe choice to opt in or opt out?
(23:37):
This might mean contentwarnings, but it goes deeper
than that. It means being honestabout your own limitations, your
own processing, and your ownuncertainty. It means creating
content that treats youraudience as whole humans with
agency, not just engagementmetrics. It means asking does
this serve truth? Does thisserve justice?
(23:58):
Does this help people understandtheir world and their options
for action? So what would itlook like to engage with media
differently? Let's start byacknowledging that media can be
restorative. It can offerclarity instead of chaos,
meaning instead of overload, andconnection instead of collapse.
(24:20):
But that doesn't mean onlywatching positive content.
It does mean being deliberate.Slow journalism, embodied
storytelling, narrative repair,joy centered resistance, humor
as medicine. These aren'tbuzzwords they're real
practices, and they helpcounterbalance the harm done by
(24:40):
constant, sensationalized,decontextualized noise. Talking
about what some of thesepractices actually look like,
slow journalism prioritizesdepth over speed, context over
breaking news, and it givesstories time to develop,
provides background and nuance,and focuses on solutions as well
(25:01):
as problems. Organizations likethe Marshall Project,
ProPublica, and the Guardian'sLong Read section are examples
of this approach.
I might also add John Oliver'sweekly report because he
collects the news into acollection of stories that he
then goes more in-depth on.Embodied storytelling recognizes
(25:23):
that trauma lives in the bodyand not just the mind. It pays
attention to how stories aretold, not just what stories are
told. It might include breathingexercises, grounding techniques,
or explicit invitations to pauseand check-in with your physical
sensations while consumingcontent. If you follow creators
like Portiaundoir or White WomanWhisperer on sites like TikTok,
(25:48):
then you'll notice that both ofthem do that with their
audiences.
So those are two good examples.Joy centered resistance
recognizes that hope andcelebration aren't frivolous.
There are survival strategies.So this might mean highlighting
community resilience,celebrating small victories,
showing examples of peoplecaring for each other in the
(26:09):
midst of crisis. Media thatheals doesn't have to be
soothing, but it has to behonest.
And it has to treat the audiencelike humans, not clicks. This
also means thinking about mediaconsumption as a practice, not
just a habit. What would it looklike to approach media with the
same intentionality you mightbring to meditation, exercise,
(26:30):
or eating? To check-in withyourself before, during, and
after consuming content, tonotice how different types of
media affect your mood, sleep,and relationships, and even your
capacity to act in your ownlife. This might mean asking, is
this helping me understandsystems of power?
Is this media connecting me to acommunity? Is it giving me tools
(26:53):
for action? Is it helping meprocess difficult emotion in a
healthy way, or is it justkeeping me activated without
direction? So let me ask younow. What are you using media
for?
To feel something, avoid feelingsomething, connect, forget,
(27:14):
understand, to feel less alone,maybe to feel more informed or
like you're doing something whenyou don't know what else to do,
To bear witness to injustice ormaybe find your people? Maybe to
learn how to resist? None ofthese answers are wrong, but the
more aware you are of yourmotivations, the easier it is to
(27:34):
engage consciously rather thanreactively and maybe even
transform your consumption intoa form of resistance. Here's
what we know from psychology.Awareness is the first step
toward agency.
When you can recognize your ownpatterns, you can start to
choose them consciously ratherthan falling into them
automatically. Maybe this meanssetting boundaries at not just
(27:57):
social media time limits butemotional and ethical
boundaries. Perhaps you curateyour feeds more actively,
seeking out creators and sourceswho share your values around how
information should be presentedand what purposes media should
serve. Maybe it means findingways to move from passive
consumption to activeengagement, whether that's
(28:19):
supporting independentjournalists, having real
conversations with people inyour life, joining mutual aid
networks, or creating contentreflects your own values and
serves your community. Mediadoesn't just reflect the world.
It shapes how we live in it. Andwhen truth itself is under
attack, conscious mediaconsumption becomes an act of
(28:40):
resistance. Not resistance toinformation, but resistance to
manipulation. Not resistance todifficult truths, but resistance
to systems that profit from ouremotional destabilization. If
this episode helped you makesense of your relationship with
media, you might also want torevisit earlier episodes like
The Psychology of Coping in anAge of Chaos and Bad But Not
(29:03):
Broken.
They dig deeper into how weadapt under pressure and how our
responses get misread ormanipulated. Thanks for
listening to PsyberSpace. I'myour host, Leslie Poston,
signing off. Until next time,consume consciously, bear
witness intentionally, andremember to stay curious. And
don't forget to subscribe so younever miss an episode, and maybe
(29:24):
send it to a friend if you thinkthat they'll enjoy it.
Welcome back to PsyberSpace. I'm your host,
Leslie Poston. Today, we'retalking about something that's
been weighing on a lot of peoplelately, even if they can't quite
name it. It's never been moreimportant to pay attention. When
facts are being scrubbed fromofficial sources, when reality
(00:30):
itself is under attack, media,especially social media, becomes
a lifeline to truth.
Independent journalists arebreaking stories that
traditional outlets won't touch.Eyewitness accounts are
documenting events that wouldotherwise be erased from
history. Communities areorganizing, sharing resources,
(00:52):
and bearing witness to eachother's struggles in ways that
feel essential. But there's adifference between bearing
witness and drowning in trauma.The line between staying
informed and losing yourself inthe flood feels harder to find
than ever.
So our question today isn'twhether we should be consuming
media during a crisis. It's howwe can do it consciously,
(01:17):
sustainably, and in service ofboth truth and our own
psychological well-being. How dowe honor the necessity of
witness while protecting ourcapacity to act? How do we tell
the difference between mediathat serves resistance and media
that serves the systems tryingto break us down? Let's explore
(01:38):
what the research says about thepsychology of necessary
consumption and how we canengage with media as a form of
resistance rather thansubmission.
Historically, media has servedmany functions, connecting
people across distances, tellingstories that shape identities,
(01:58):
educating the public, andholding power accountable.
Marshall McLuhan famously calledmedia extensions of man,
amplifiers of our senses and ourabilities. At its best, media
helps us witness what'shappening and find our place in
it. It creates common language,collective memory, unified
(02:18):
outrage, and moments ofcelebration that can bind us
together. Think about how mediafunctioned during previous
crises.
During World War two, radiobroadcast created a sense of
collective solidarity. Familiesgathered around radio, sharing
information and emotionalexperience in real time. Walter
(02:39):
Cronkite's coverage of theKennedy assassination or the
Vietnam War created moments ofshared national processing. Even
MTV's coverage of nine elevenserved as a generational
touchstone, helping youngerpeople make sense of
incomprehensible tragedytogether. But that's the ideal,
and right now, it doesn't feellike we're living in that ideal.
(03:00):
We're living in an attentioneconomy during the algorithmic
era or as Shoshana Zuboff put itin the age of surveillance
capitalism, where data, emotion,and reaction are monetized and
manipulated constantly. Media isno longer just a source of
information. It's a tool ofemotional regulation and not
(03:21):
always in healthy ways. Theshift is profound. Media once
created shared experiences,however flawed, but now it
simultaneously createspersonalized echo chambers and
vital underground networks oftruth telling.
Our media once operated onbroadcast schedules that allowed
for processing time whenstations shut down. Now it
(03:43):
demands constant engagement evenas it enables real time
documentation of events as theyunfold. Media once had
gatekeepers who at leastattempted to balance public
interest with audienceengagement. Now we have
algorithms optimizing purely fortime on platform and clicks
alongside independent creatorswho want to prioritize accuracy
(04:06):
and justice over profit. Thiscreates a paradox.
The same platforms that exploitour emotional vulnerabilities
also provide spaces wheremarginalized voices can bypass
traditional gatekeepers, wherecitizen journalists can expose
what powerful institutions wantto hide and where communities
(04:26):
can organize resistance andmutual aid in real time. Think
of how you use media when you'reoverwhelmed. Maybe you binge a
show or doom scroll Twitter,refresh your news app every few
minutes, or retreat into comfortcontent. Maybe you make a dozen
TikToks. That's not just habit.
(04:48):
It's emotional regulation.Psychologist James Gross
described this in his processmodel of emotional regulation.
He breaks it into strategieslike distraction, changing your
focus, reappraisal, changing howyou think about something, and
suppression Media can supportany of these and sometimes all
(05:08):
at once. But let's get morespecific about how this works in
practice and how to distinguishbetween regulation that serves
you and regulation that servesthe algorithm. When you're
feeling anxious about somethingyou can't control, you might
turn to a familiar TV show.
That's situation selection,choosing an environment that
(05:28):
supports the emotional state youwant. When you're angry about
injustice, you might seek outcontent that validates that
anger and provides context foraction. That's healthy
attentional deployment. But whenyou're seeking out content that
keeps you angry withoutproviding any pathway forward,
that's when regulation becomesexploitation. The key question
(05:51):
becomes, is this media helpingme understand, process, and
potentially act, or is it justkeeping me activated without
direction?
Research by Reinke and Edenexpands this into a media
specific framework. Theydistinguish between hedonic use
for pleasure or escape andeudaimonic use for meaning or
(06:13):
insight. So watching alighthearted series to wind down
would be hedonic. Watching apowerful documentary to process
grief or learn about aninjustice is more eudaimonic.
But here's where it gets a bitmore complicated.
The same piece of media canserve different regulatory
functions for different peopleor even for the same person at
(06:36):
different times. A news podcastmight help one person feel
informed and empowered whilemaking another person feel
helpless and overwhelmed. A truecrime documentary might help
someone process their owntrauma, or it might trigger new
anxiety for someone else.Footage of police brutality
might galvanize one person toaction while traumatizing
(06:59):
someone from a marginalizedgroup who's experienced similar
violence. The difference oftenlies not just in the content but
the context, your currentemotional resources, your access
to community and action, andyour sense of agency in the
world.
And here's the cat. We're oftennot choosing these strategies
(07:19):
consciously. We're justreacting. And when the content
we're consuming is designed tokeep us engaged no matter what,
we can end up in loops thatdon't serve our understanding or
our capacity for action. This iswhere we need to distinguish
between different types of mediaconsumption.
There's consumptive scrolling,passively absorbing whatever the
(07:41):
algorithm feeds you. There'sresistive engagement, actively
seeking out information thathelps you understand systems of
power and depression. And thenthere's community witnessing,
consuming media as part ofcollective meaning making in
action. This is where cognitiveload theory becomes relevant.
When we're already emotionallyoverwhelmed, our cognitive
(08:04):
resources are limited.
We have less mental bandwidthfor critical thinking, for
making conscious choices aboutwhat to consume, for recognizing
when media is helping versusharming us. So we default to
whatever's easiest, whatever'smost immediately available,
which is usually whatever thealgorithm serves up next. We
(08:25):
talked a bit about this kind ofcomfort seeking brain in a
previous episode. Let's talkabout those loops. You've
probably caught yourself atleast once scrolling past story
after story of violence,cruelty, or injustice unable to
stop.
(08:45):
That's not a failure ofwillpower it's a design feature.
Psychologists coined the termtrauma looping to describe what
happens when people are exposedto repetitive, unresolved
traumatic imagery or stories inthe media. Sociologists have
written about this in thecontext of mass violence
coverage. They found thatrepeated exposure without
(09:07):
avenues for meaning making oraction leads to emotional
blunting, hypervigilance, oreven secondary trauma. Let's dig
deeper into the mechanismbecause not all looping is the
same.
When we encounter traumaticcontent, our nervous system
activates. Heart rate increases,stress hormones flood our
(09:27):
system, and we go into fight,flight, or freeze mode even if
we don't realize it. In ahealthy response, we'd either
take action to address thethreat or find ways to discharge
that activation. When the threatis mediated, meaning when it's
happening to someone else,somewhere else, we have
different options. Sometimeswitnessing is itself a form of
(09:51):
action.
Bearing witness to injustice,like the trauma that's happening
in Gaza or Sudan, amplifyingmarginalized voices, refusing to
let atrocities be forgotten,these can be meaningful
responses even when directintervention isn't possible. The
problem arises when witnessbecomes passive consumption
(10:13):
without any sense of purpose orcommunity. The research on this
is stark, but it's important todistinguish between different
types of exposure. Studies ofjournalists covering traumatic
events show rates of PTSDcomparable to first responders.
But journalists who feel theirwork serves a larger purpose and
(10:34):
who have strong professionalsupport networks fare better
than those who don't.
The same principles apply to allof us. And it's not just the
content. It's the lack ofresolution and narrative arc.
There's a constant influx ofpain without context, catharsis,
or choice. Here's whereselective exposure theory
(10:55):
becomes important.
When people feel overwhelmed bynegative information, they often
retreat into content thatconfirms their existing beliefs
or makes them feel better. Thisisn't necessarily conscious it's
a psychological defensemechanism. But it can lead to
information bubbles thatactually increase anxiety and
(11:16):
decrease our capacity tounderstand complex situations.
It's important to ask whose painare we watching? Whose suffering
gets amplified?
And whose suffering gets erased?What gets framed as tragic, and
what gets framed as justified.These are media choices, and
they shape how we experiencegrief, guilt, and solidarity.
(11:40):
The politics of exposure aren'tneutral. A shooting in one
neighborhood gets wall to wallcoverage, while violence in
another gets an gets ignored.
One group's trauma becomescontent for another group's
consumption. This doesn't justshape our understanding of
events, It shapes ourunderstanding of whose lives
matter, whose pain deservesattention, and whose stories are
(12:03):
worth telling. While earlier Imentioned that previous media
served to unify people, thatdoes not mean that previous
media always told the best andmost accurate story. Conscious
consumption becomes an act ofresistance when we actively seek
out credible voices thatmainstream media may overlook.
(12:26):
Verified independentjournalists, established
community organizations, primarysources, and eyewitness accounts
that can be corroborated.
This means checking sources,cross referencing information,
and supporting journalists andcitizen journalists who follow
ethical reporting standards,whether they work for major
outlets or just have independentplatforms. The goal isn't to
(12:50):
reject all institutional mediabut to diversify our sources
while maintaining criticalthinking about accuracy and
agenda. Now let's talk about thehard part. Sometimes our
relationship to media starts tolook like compulsive self
injury. That's not a metaphor.
(13:10):
It's a framework somepsychologists are using to
describe behaviors likedoomscrolling. You feel bad. You
scroll. You see something worse.You keep scrolling.
This repetition gives you asense of control, but it also
deepens the distress, likepicking a scab emotionally. Now
we talked in a previous episodeabout how sometimes
doomscrolling serves a purpose,so go back and listen to that
(13:33):
one for the other side of thisequation. The psychological toll
of media isn't just about timespent. It's about how and why
we're engaging. Let's bespecific about what this looks
like.
Maybe you wake up feelinganxious about something in your
personal life. Instead ofsitting with that feeling or
addressing it directly, you pickup your phone. You immediately
(13:57):
see a news story that makes youangry, and that anger feels more
manageable than your originalanxiety. So you keep reading.
You keep scrolling.
You find yourself in a commentsection arguing with strangers
or bots, and hours pass. Theoriginal anxiety is still there,
but now you're also angry,depleted, and probably more
(14:18):
anxious than when you started.This is consumptive scrolling,
and it mirrors what researchersidentified in other forms of
emotional avoidance. Butcontrast that with this. You
wake up feeling anxious aboutthe state of the world.
You intentionally seek outupdates from trusted sources,
maybe independent journalistscovering issues you care about,
(14:40):
maybe community organizerssharing resources and action.
You read or watch with purpose,looking for ways to understand
and potentially contribute. Youshare vetted information that
might help others. You check-inwith friends who are doing
similar work. The anxiety mightnot disappear, but it transforms
into something more likesolidarity and determination.
(15:04):
That's resistive engagement. Thedifference isn't just in the
content. It's in the intentionof the community. If you're
using media as a way to punishyourself for not doing more, to
confirm that everything is asbad as you fear, or to feel
something, anything, becausenumbness is worse, you're
certainly not alone, but youmight not be engaging in a way
(15:26):
that serves your values or yourcapacity for action. There's
another layer here that connectsto what we've discussed in
previous episodes about learnedhelplessness.
When you're constantly exposedto problems without any sense of
agency or community, your brainstarts to generalize that
helplessness. But when mediaconsumption is part of
(15:47):
collective action, when you'rereading, sharing, discussing as
part of a community workingtoward change, the psychological
impact can be completelydifferent. In the attention
economy, your feelings arecurrency. Fear, outrage,
sadness, these are highengagement emotions. They keep
(16:08):
you on the apps, in the feeds,chasing the next hit of
adrenaline or despair.
The platforms know how thisworks, they exploit it. And
that's not a conspiracy. It'stheir business model. So let's
get technical about how thisworks. Most social media
platforms use machine learningalgorithms trained on massive
datasets of human behavior.
(16:29):
These algorithms don'tunderstand content in the way
humans do. They just recognizepatterns. They learn that
certain types of content getcertain types of response.
Content that makes people angrygets shared more. Content that
makes people afraid gets clickedmore.
Content that triggers moraloutrage gets commented on more.
(16:51):
The algorithm doesn't care aboutyour mental health. It doesn't
care about social cohesion ordemocratic discourse or your
ability to sleep at night. Thealgorithm only cares about
engagement metrics. Andunfortunately, many of the
things that drive engagement areexactly the things that
undermine psychologicalwell-being.
(17:13):
In past episodes, we've exploredhow emotional manipulation can
be dressed up as structure orpolicy. The same thing is true
of media. The more emotionallydestabilized you are, the easier
you are to influence andmonetize. There's research
showing that people inheightened emotional states are
more likely to make impulsepurchases, more likely to share
(17:36):
content without fact checkingit, more likely to engage in
online conflict. From a businessperspective, keeping users in a
state of heightened emotion ishighly profitable.
From a human perspective, it'sso destructive. And that raises
a bigger question (17:52):
when everything hurts and truth
itself is under attack, whenstaying informed feels both
necessary and overwhelming, howdo we engage consciously? Here's
one answer (18:07):
parasocial relationships. Now we talked
about parasocial relationshipsin the context of TikTok back in
season one, but we're going totalk about it again in the
context of media consumption.Parasocial relationships are
one-sided relationships peopleform with media figures.
People like celebrities,influencers, content creators,
(18:29):
musicians, podcasters. Theserelationships have been around
since the fifties when Hortonand Wahl first coined the term,
and they've exploded in thesocial media age. In times of
crisis, parasocial bonds canfeel stabilizing. That podcast
host who helps you fall asleep,that YouTuber who explains the
news without sensationalizingit, that independent journalist
(18:52):
whose reporting you trust, thecomfort character from your
favorite TV show. Even realpeople you don't know in real
life who are living through thenews like Bisson and Motaz come
to feel like anchors in themidst of chaos.
Research shows us thatparasocial relationships
activate some of the same neuralpathways as real social
(19:14):
connections. They can reduceloneliness, provide emotional
regulation, and even influencebehavior in positive ways.
People who feel connected tomedia figures who model healthy
behaviors or healthy resistanceare more likely to adopt those
behaviors themselves. But let'sdig deeper into why these
(19:35):
relationships servepsychological functions that
traditional media can't.Parasocial relationships provide
a sense of consistency andpredictability in an unstable
world.
They offer emotional supportwithout the reciprocal demands
of real relationships. They canprovide role models for how to
cope, how to make sense ofcomplex situations, and how to
(19:59):
maintain hope and determinationin the face of systems designed
to break us down. Theserelationships can also become
substitutes for real connection,especially when real
relationships feel too demandingor too risky. They can create
unrealistic expectations abouthow people should behave or what
(20:19):
support should look like. Andbecause they're mediated, they
can be manipulated in ways thatreal relationships typically
aren't.
They're not your friends, butthey are helping you regulate
emotion and preserve identityduring uncertainty. So it's not
inherently bad, but it canbecome problematic if it
replaces real worldrelationships or leads to
(20:41):
unrealistic expectations. Still,it shows us something important.
Media is relational even whenit's mediated. We're not just
consuming information orentertainment.
We're seeking connection,understanding, a sense that
we're not alone in whateverwe're experiencing. And in times
when traditional institutionsare failing us, when official
(21:02):
sources are compromised, theserelationships can become
lifelines to sanity and totruth. Let's flip the
perspective for a moment. Ifyou're someone who creates
media, whether you're a contentcreator, educator, journalist,
or artist, this isn't just aboutwhat you consume. It's also
(21:24):
about what you put into theworld, and that's heavy.
Because when everything hurts,it's hard to know what your role
is. Are you helping peopleunderstand? Are you making
things worse and just adding tothe noise? Social psychologists
argue that media creators arecaught in a moral paradox. You
want to tell the truth, but youdon't want to re traumatize
(21:45):
people.
You want to raise awareness, butyou don't want to manipulate.
You want to offer hope, but youdon't want to lie. The pressure
is intense, especially forindependent creators who depend
on engagement for theirlivelihood but refuse to
sacrifice truth for clicks. Thealgorithm rewards content that
generates strong emotionalresponses, but that's often not
(22:08):
the same as content that servesthe audience's best interests or
the broader cause of justice andtruth. Creators find themselves
torn between what gets views andwhat feels ethically
responsible, and many arechoosing ethics over algorithms
even when it means financialsacrifice.
Not all, but many. This is itsown form of resistance. There's
(22:31):
also the question of emotionallabor. When you're creating
content about difficult topics,you're not just processing your
own feelings. You're managingyour audience's emotional
responses, fielding comments,messages, and questions.
You're holding space for otherpeople's trauma while you're
trying to manage your own. Andthen there's the impossible
(22:52):
standard of having to be on allthe time. Social media has
created an expectation thatcreators should be constantly
available, constantly producing,and constantly engaging. There's
no space for processing rest oruncertainty. You're expected to
have a take on everythingimmediately regardless of how
you're feeling or what you'redealing with in your personal
(23:14):
life or, frankly, regardless ofwhether you know anything about
that particular issue.
There's no perfect answer, butone helpful guideline is
intention plus transparency.Think why are you sharing this?
Who does it serve? Whatemotional state are you inviting
people into? And do they havethe choice to opt in or opt out?
(23:37):
This might mean contentwarnings, but it goes deeper
than that. It means being honestabout your own limitations, your
own processing, and your ownuncertainty. It means creating
content that treats youraudience as whole humans with
agency, not just engagementmetrics. It means asking does
this serve truth? Does thisserve justice?
(23:58):
Does this help people understandtheir world and their options
for action? So what would itlook like to engage with media
differently? Let's start byacknowledging that media can be
restorative. It can offerclarity instead of chaos,
meaning instead of overload, andconnection instead of collapse.
(24:20):
But that doesn't mean onlywatching positive content.
It does mean being deliberate.Slow journalism, embodied
storytelling, narrative repair,joy centered resistance, humor
as medicine. These aren'tbuzzwords they're real
practices, and they helpcounterbalance the harm done by
(24:40):
constant, sensationalized,decontextualized noise. Talking
about what some of thesepractices actually look like,
slow journalism prioritizesdepth over speed, context over
breaking news, and it givesstories time to develop,
provides background and nuance,and focuses on solutions as well
(25:01):
as problems. Organizations likethe Marshall Project,
ProPublica, and the Guardian'sLong Read section are examples
of this approach.
I might also add John Oliver'sweekly report because he
collects the news into acollection of stories that he
then goes more in-depth on.Embodied storytelling recognizes
(25:23):
that trauma lives in the bodyand not just the mind. It pays
attention to how stories aretold, not just what stories are
told. It might include breathingexercises, grounding techniques,
or explicit invitations to pauseand check-in with your physical
sensations while consumingcontent. If you follow creators
like Portiaundoir or White WomanWhisperer on sites like TikTok,
(25:48):
then you'll notice that both ofthem do that with their
audiences.
So those are two good examples.Joy centered resistance
recognizes that hope andcelebration aren't frivolous.
There are survival strategies.So this might mean highlighting
community resilience,celebrating small victories,
showing examples of peoplecaring for each other in the
(26:09):
midst of crisis. Media thatheals doesn't have to be
soothing, but it has to behonest.
And it has to treat the audiencelike humans, not clicks. This
also means thinking about mediaconsumption as a practice, not
just a habit. What would it looklike to approach media with the
same intentionality you mightbring to meditation, exercise,
(26:30):
or eating? To check-in withyourself before, during, and
after consuming content, tonotice how different types of
media affect your mood, sleep,and relationships, and even your
capacity to act in your ownlife. This might mean asking, is
this helping me understandsystems of power?
Is this media connecting me to acommunity? Is it giving me tools
(26:53):
for action? Is it helping meprocess difficult emotion in a
healthy way, or is it justkeeping me activated without
direction? So let me ask younow. What are you using media
for?
To feel something, avoid feelingsomething, connect, forget,
(27:14):
understand, to feel less alone,maybe to feel more informed or
like you're doing something whenyou don't know what else to do,
To bear witness to injustice ormaybe find your people? Maybe to
learn how to resist? None ofthese answers are wrong, but the
more aware you are of yourmotivations, the easier it is to
(27:34):
engage consciously rather thanreactively and maybe even
transform your consumption intoa form of resistance. Here's
what we know from psychology.Awareness is the first step
toward agency.
When you can recognize your ownpatterns, you can start to
choose them consciously ratherthan falling into them
automatically. Maybe this meanssetting boundaries at not just
(27:57):
social media time limits butemotional and ethical
boundaries. Perhaps you curateyour feeds more actively,
seeking out creators and sourceswho share your values around how
information should be presentedand what purposes media should
serve. Maybe it means findingways to move from passive
consumption to activeengagement, whether that's
(28:19):
supporting independentjournalists, having real
conversations with people inyour life, joining mutual aid
networks, or creating contentreflects your own values and
serves your community. Mediadoesn't just reflect the world.
It shapes how we live in it. Andwhen truth itself is under
attack, conscious mediaconsumption becomes an act of
(28:40):
resistance. Not resistance toinformation, but resistance to
manipulation. Not resistance todifficult truths, but resistance
to systems that profit from ouremotional destabilization. If
this episode helped you makesense of your relationship with
media, you might also want torevisit earlier episodes like
The Psychology of Coping in anAge of Chaos and Bad But Not
(29:03):
Broken.
They dig deeper into how weadapt under pressure and how our
responses get misread ormanipulated. Thanks for
listening to PsyberSpace. I'myour host, Leslie Poston,
signing off. Until next time,consume consciously, bear
witness intentionally, andremember to stay curious. And
don't forget to subscribe so younever miss an episode, and maybe
(29:24):
send it to a friend if you thinkthat they'll enjoy it.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.