OC Message from the moderator: why did i forbid to publish anecdotical good news ?

An article from Future Crunch explains very well why it is a bad idea to publish this kind of news as good news.

A fortnight ago we picked a random selection of headlines from the top ten news sites in the world. The result was a visual assault, an information dump of the very worst sides of humanity, breathlessly described in the most lurid terms possible. Our conclusion? News sites should come with a health warning attached. A day later, this is what the Washington Post published in a newsletter called The Optimist.

Dog adopted after 11 years in a shelter:'Not one person has ever noticed her until now'

We're very happy [this dog] found a home too, but seriously? This was the most inspiring thing one of the world's most respected newspapers was able to find in the same week that Iraq eliminated trachoma, the UN announced a 10% increase in global wet-nursing rates, Gabon signed a massive debt-f0r-nature deal, the US government protected a million acres around the Grand Canyon, and Brazil announced further falls in deforestation in the Amazon.

The message to readers is "the world is falling apart, and we looked everywhere for something to balance it out but all we could find was this story about an old dog." The Optimist? More like The Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here. That's the problem with good news. It's always these kinds of fluff pieces. They're not hopeful, they're depressing. Someone should tell the Washington Post that it's not just democracy that dies in darkness, hope dies too. If we're able to find 40 stories of progress every week with just one person, imagine what a proper newsroom with actual resources could do.