The Not-So Super Bowl: What America's game can tell us about ourselves

After 40 years in the business, ESPN's Chris Berman does his first dab.  Source: SB Nation.

It's the most wonderful time of the year - for some.

The 51st annual Super Bowl took place last Sunday, seeing Tom Brady and the New England Patriots face off against Matt Ryan and the Atlanta Falcons. (Spoiler Alert: Final score was 34-28 for New England).

No matter your stance on the game, it has undeniably become one of the world's largest spectacles. From the pregame hype to the iconic half time show, the way the game is presented serves as an interesting litmus test for what peeks society's interests.

Super Bowl 49 in 2015 is often not remembered for the competitive, star-studded contest that it was, but rather for a polarizing play leading to one teams "epic" triumph. (For reference, see video below.)

While this was a great play by the Patriots defensive player, Malcom Butler, the media's focus was targeted towards Seattle's side of the play. Pundits were heavily critical of the decision.

The questions came in plenty: Why did they throw the ball? Why didn't they trust their Pro Bowl running back so close to the end zone?

Next was the finger pointing. Quarterback Russell Wilson was first to face blame for making the throw. Offensive coordinator Darrell Bevell was next under fire for calling the play. Ricardo Lockette, Wilson's intended target for pass, was criticized for not fighting for the ball. 

In an attempt to placate the fans, media and perhaps even some players, head coach Pete Carroll accepted responsibility for the mishap. 

It should be noted that there was attention and adulation given to the Patriots for their victory, but it seemed to be misdirected. Instead of focusing on a team which scored two unanswered touchdowns en route to a comeback win, the focus was largely on Seattle for making such a "boneheaded" decision.

In many eyes: New England didn't win the game, Seattle lost it. 

So what does this have to do with the price of tea in China - or more specifically, online journalism?

I like to affectionally refer to society's fixation on pessimism as the "Glass Half Empty Effect." Source: AsapScience

Society seems to have an odd obsession with pessimism. 

When we stumble upon both a positive and a negative, the former is often ignored in favour of the latter.

This is no different with news. Controversial or negative news coverage makes people engage in a way that they otherwise wouldn't with a positive news story. Take this past year's coverage of the US Presidential Election as proof positive of that - pun intended. 

No caption needed. Source: Giphy.

The media - everything from news organizations to Facebook pages - take advantage of these interests in the content they produce.

We as consumers need to be aware of this, or else we may blindly follow the narrative written by others. We must ask ourselves the question, "is there more to this story than meets the eye?"