This policy, though no doubt backed up by the commercial facts, can result in some odd contradictions.
One week there is a "crisis" in the housing market because houses are too expensive for first-time buyers; the next there is a "crisis" because prices are falling.

And news editors are far more likely to want tales of woe from those whose homes have been repossessed than they are stories about delighted young couples buying their first houses.

The bad news we've been getting lately is the most dreary sort. It boils down to: "Think you're skint now? Just you wait, mate."

If we're honest, shocking, violent bad news - when it happens elsewhere - carries a vicarious thrill. But stories about fuel prices and the credit crunch are just depressing.

Sometimes you have to use your imagination to see the cheerful news in an ostensibly down-beat story.
On Monday the Today programme reported that more older people are suffering from sexually transmitted diseases.
Experts blamed the rise in the number of cases on anti-impotence drugs and internet dating sites.
Talk about a glass-half-empty approach.

Looked at another way, this is marvellous news. Not the diseases, of course, but the implications of them.
Try this for a news story: "Thousands of divorcees, widows and impotent men are finding happiness and ecstasy in loving relationships.
"More than at any time in the history of mankind, older people are enjoying active sex lives through means that our ancestors could not have imagined possible.

"Thanks to two wonderful inventions - Viagra and the internet - people who would previously have lived the rest of their lives without sex are now enjoying it again.

"While some of these people have contracted sexually transmitted disease, experts agree that the general level of human happiness has probably increased. Cheers."

It wouldn't have impressed that lecturer of mine, but in the current climate, where news bulletins loom like so many grey clouds, it pays to look for a silver lining.


* But I can't let this week go by without noting Harriet Harman's cockeyed plans to boost 'equality'.
She is seeking to introduce a bill that allows employers to discriminate in favour of women and ethnic minorities and against equally qualified white men.

Why, when Labour is so unpopular, does it insist on pushing through policies bound to antagonise huge chunks of the electorate?

Say what you like about white men (and many have said plenty), but last time I checked, we still had the right to vote.
And if you wrong us, Harriet Harman, shall we not want revenge?