Journalists Drink Too Much, Are Dumber Than Average, Study Finds

Tyler Durden's picture

A recent scientific study just proved something that viewers of CNN have probably suspected for years: Journalists' brains function at a lower level than the rest of the population. 

A study conducted by neuroscientist Tara Swift and the London Press Club determined that "the highest functions of journalists brains were operating at a lower level than the average population, due to dehydration, self-medicating, and fueling their brains with caffeine and high-sugar foods"

"However, the pressures of the job are not affecting journalists ability to endure and bounce back from adversity in the long term, due to a belief that their work has meaning," according to a press release from the London Press Club.

Journalists' brains show a lower level of executive function - that is, the ability of the brain to regulate emotions, suppress biases, switch between tasks, solve complex problems and think flexibly and creatively -  than the average person because to their heavy drinking, and caffeine consumption. They also eat too many high-sugar foods, and don't devote enough time to mindfulness.  

Dr Swart recruited 31 journalists from across the industry to participate in the study. Participants were required to record their eating and drinking habits, answer a brain profile questionaire, take blood tests, and wear heart-rate variability monitors. 

The study was initially launched to examine how journalists manage to "survive and thrive" while managing such high levels of occupational stress. "Journalism," the press release notes, "is one of many industries under an increasing amount of pressure in the digital age. Low pay, frequent deadlines, and high levels of accountability all contribute to high reported stress levels."

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Publicus's picture

Journalists are nothing more than war criminals at this point.

mary mary's picture

The author left out partying.  Journalists party more than ANYBODY.  Especially in D.C.  That girl in the photo is just getting out of a D.C. party.

roadhazard's picture

The fake news this weekend is awesome.

mary mary's picture

Ah!  You are a journalist.  Why did it take me so long to figure that out?

Grandad Grumps's picture

What came first the journalist or the idiot?

Actually, I think the article is bullshit, but a nice little fake news counterattack to journalists who put out the same type of fake news B/S.

This was right up there with the fake study that said that journalist males have smaller than average penises and journalist women are all lesbians.

roadhazard's picture

When it comes to fake news it's funny to watch the alt right be just like the libtards they pont fingers at.  There is no difference between you.

hooligan2009's picture

hahahah... "high levels of accountability"

not!!!!! they are not accountable to readers, or even advertizers! hahaha.. what a joke.

if journalists wrote comics, nobody would buy them, so why do people by newspapers?

(P.S. personal conflict of interest - all advertizing is begging!!

mkhs's picture

To wrap fish, line bird cages, and paper train puppies.

quasi_verbatim's picture

This explains a very great deal.

white horse's picture

Finally a study that I can believe.

Son of Captain Nemo's picture

FIRST "THEY" ARE NOT journalists!... THEY ARE "stenographers"!!!

And as for the parts of the brain that are lower functioning than normal?... You left out the center(s) of the brain that deal with being "over-sexed" and that WILL DO ABSOLUTELY anything for the gratification of money that they excel in!

d edwards's picture

Add: propagandists, presstitutes.

mary mary's picture

The British call them "newsreaders".  Fitting.  :-)

numapepi's picture

Journalists have high stress and low pay eh?

I bet our soldiers will feel for them.

tuetenueggel's picture

Journaille knows everything. For god´s sake, nothing very well.

dlfield's picture

Why would CNN viewers suspect anything beyond "Mmmm....fooood."

css1971's picture

Replace them with scripts.

lakecity55's picture

Well, gosh, Sgt Carter, that was true 50 years ago.


Catahoula's picture

Empirical evidence to prove what we have all suspected. 

Stupidnomics's picture

Ohh... journalists. My bad, I thought this article was about politicians.

aloha_snakbar's picture

I gotta be honest here; the picture of Bimbolina passed out on a bench is kind of giving me wood...

mkhs's picture

When do the muzzies arrive?

Bernardo Gui's picture

Diet? Maybe they are just fucking stupid.

pichulonco's picture


I was chatting with a friend who is a scientist who I had not talked to for some time.  I asked him what he thought about all the lunacy around the gender studies BS and what his colleges thought about it. He sent me this:

Handedness is a biomarker of variation in anal sex role behavior and Recalled Childhood Gender Nonconformity among gay men


This is an actual published study. My friend said that his colleges are passing it around amongst themselves for a good  chuckle.



Developmental theories of the biological basis of sexual orientation suggest that sexually differentiated psychological and behavioural traits should be linked with sexual orientation. Subgroups of gay men delineated by anal sex roles differ according to at least one such trait: gender expression. The present study assessed the hypothesis that handedness, a biologically determined sexually differentiated trait, corresponds to differences in subgroups of gay men based on anal sex role. Furthermore, it assessed whether handedness mediates the association between gender nonconformity and male sexual orientation. Straight and gay men (N = 333) completed the Edinburgh Inventory of Handedness and the Recalled Childhood Gender Nonconformity Scale. Gay men also completed measures of anal sex role preference. As in previous studies, gay men showed greater non-right-handedness and gender nonconformity than straight men. Also, among gay men, bottoms/versatiles (i.e., gay men who take a receptive anal sex role, or who take on both a receptive and insertive anal sex role) were more gender-nonconforming than tops (i.e., gay men who take an insertive anal sex role). In support of the hypothesis, bottoms/versatiles were more non-right-handed than tops and handedness mediated the male sexual orientation and anal sex role differences in Recalled Childhood Gender Nonconformity. Together, these findings suggest that developmental processes linked to handedness underpin variation among men in sexual orientation and gender nonconformity as well as variation among subgroups of gay men that are delineated by anal sex roles."


Also just yesterday this was published.   


The androcentric scientific and meta-scientific evidence that the penis is the male reproductive organ is considered overwhelming and largely uncontroversial.

That’s how we began. We used this preposterous sentence to open a “paper” consisting of 3,000 words of utter nonsense posing as academic scholarship. Then a peer-reviewed academic journal in the social sciences accepted and published it."


Here's a random postmodernism academic paper generator. I just generating this title, 

"Neocapitalist Appropriations: The dialectic paradigm of context, feminism
and constructivist narrative"

LOL every hit is comedy gold! And you get a whole essay, not just a title. 


Here's another one: 

"Postcapitalist Patriarchialisms: Modernist objectivism and cultural nationalism"   "The essay you have just seen is completely meaningless and was randomly generated by the Postmodernism Generator. "  

I think one of the Tylers or someone else can make an article with the material I put here....