Yellow Journalism
by Ashley B.
When “yellow” is used as an adjective it usually implies something is bright in color or something is festive and cheerful in spirits. In the case of yellow journalism neither implication is correct. The term “yellow” stemmed from a popular comic strip in the mid-1890s called “Yellow Kid.” This strip was featured in both, William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer’s, competing newspapers. John Baker, a writer for the San Mateo times, goes into more detail about this topic here. It would be safe to call Hearst the father of “yellow journalism.” According to dictionary.com, yellow journalism is defined as “journalism that exploits, distorts or exaggerates the news to create sensations and attract readers.” It is usually full of bias and low on credibility. Yellow journalism conception was after the dawn of the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution made mass production possible, making paper sales limitless. This rapid growth led to greed, and in the end made ethical obligations fall below their desire for high sales. Editors stopped being journalists and started being business men. Their main goal was no longer to deliver truthful news, it was to sell papers. Over 100 years ago there was a very controversial topic circulating the news waves. It was thought that Hearst sent a telegram promising to “furnish the war,” meaning he would exaggerate stories and publish them in his newspaper about the brewing Spanish-American war. Professor W. Joseph Campbell, author of the book, Yellow Journalism: Puncturing the Myths, Defining the Legacies, goes into detail about the absurdity of this claim when he is para-phrased saying,
Hearst’s alleged motives were for his New York Journal to outsell Pulitzer’s New York World. If Hearst intensified the drama between the Spaniards and the Americans then his paper would have the more interesting articles, in the end making him more money. This particular action may not have happened, but Hearst did exaggerate current events to makes headlines flashy and appealing. Regardless if the allegations are true or not, the mid-1890s gave birth to a scandalous side of journalism. Unfortunately, this unethical practice did not stop with Hearst. It has continued on today. America is engaged in a war on terrorism and along with that war comes daily articles with shocking headlines. Do not be naïve and think that Americans have outgrown the fad of yellow journalism. One current example took place shortly before the 2004 elections and was reported by The Washington Times. Barrett Kalellis, a writer for the Times, shows how prevalent yellow journalism is now when he says, “Ironically, the current furor about the goings on in Baghdad's Abu Ghraib Prison is cut from the same cloth as Hearst's yellow journalism. All the elements are there: shrill, near-hysterical headlines demanding immediate action; publication of inflammatory photos documenting mistreatment of prisoners; and editorial condemnation.” Kalellis shows the motives in this were to show weakness in the current Republican administration, giving more faith to Kerry, strengthening Kerry’s chances of winning the presidential election and handing the power back over to the Democrats. The events in Baghdad surrounding the Ghraib prison affair were unfortunate, but had they not had such a strong link to national feelings towards the current administration, the event would not have been so highly publicized. Another publication, Knight Ridder Tribune, writes about how difficult it is to find an honest article. The author describes current day publications as, “This Ping-Pong sense of truth that permeates American media (and increasingly, consciousness), we believe, unnecessarily limits the range of intelligence available to the American public. In media these days, you are expected to be either one or the other; and more and more commentators line up with one side against the other, rather than look for more comprehensive approaches” In this day and age, where technology is at our fingertips, it is a tragedy that we have to filter through publications and question each one, is it yellow journalism propaganda or fact? Readers must be defensive, check and double check sources, and consider each authors motivations. On the surface it seemed as gossip columns and grocery store tabloids were the only publications filled with yellow journalism; the above examples have shown that even our highly reputable national newspapers are dipped in yellow journalism.
Works Cited:
"Yellow" Journalism. Accessed 6 April 2006.
Yellow Journalism. Accessed 5 April 2006.
Debunking Yellow Journalism. Accessed 6 April 2006.
The Return of Yellow Journalism. Accessed 6 April 2006.
Rampant Yellow Journalism extends beyond Iraq War Coverage. Accessed 7 April 2006.
When “yellow” is used as an adjective it usually implies something is bright in color or something is festive and cheerful in spirits. In the case of yellow journalism neither implication is correct. The term “yellow” stemmed from a popular comic strip in the mid-1890s called “Yellow Kid.” This strip was featured in both, William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer’s, competing newspapers. John Baker, a writer for the San Mateo times, goes into more detail about this topic here. It would be safe to call Hearst the father of “yellow journalism.” According to dictionary.com, yellow journalism is defined as “journalism that exploits, distorts or exaggerates the news to create sensations and attract readers.” It is usually full of bias and low on credibility. Yellow journalism conception was after the dawn of the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution made mass production possible, making paper sales limitless. This rapid growth led to greed, and in the end made ethical obligations fall below their desire for high sales. Editors stopped being journalists and started being business men. Their main goal was no longer to deliver truthful news, it was to sell papers. Over 100 years ago there was a very controversial topic circulating the news waves. It was thought that Hearst sent a telegram promising to “furnish the war,” meaning he would exaggerate stories and publish them in his newspaper about the brewing Spanish-American war. Professor W. Joseph Campbell, author of the book, Yellow Journalism: Puncturing the Myths, Defining the Legacies, goes into detail about the absurdity of this claim when he is para-phrased saying,
Campbell debunks as highly improbable one of the most famous anecdotes in American journalism--the purported exchange of telegrams between Hearst and the artist Frederic Remington, in which Hearst supposedly vowed to "furnish the war" with Spain. Campbell's research demonstrates that the exchange almost certainly never took place.
Hearst’s alleged motives were for his New York Journal to outsell Pulitzer’s New York World. If Hearst intensified the drama between the Spaniards and the Americans then his paper would have the more interesting articles, in the end making him more money. This particular action may not have happened, but Hearst did exaggerate current events to makes headlines flashy and appealing. Regardless if the allegations are true or not, the mid-1890s gave birth to a scandalous side of journalism. Unfortunately, this unethical practice did not stop with Hearst. It has continued on today. America is engaged in a war on terrorism and along with that war comes daily articles with shocking headlines. Do not be naïve and think that Americans have outgrown the fad of yellow journalism. One current example took place shortly before the 2004 elections and was reported by The Washington Times. Barrett Kalellis, a writer for the Times, shows how prevalent yellow journalism is now when he says, “Ironically, the current furor about the goings on in Baghdad's Abu Ghraib Prison is cut from the same cloth as Hearst's yellow journalism. All the elements are there: shrill, near-hysterical headlines demanding immediate action; publication of inflammatory photos documenting mistreatment of prisoners; and editorial condemnation.” Kalellis shows the motives in this were to show weakness in the current Republican administration, giving more faith to Kerry, strengthening Kerry’s chances of winning the presidential election and handing the power back over to the Democrats. The events in Baghdad surrounding the Ghraib prison affair were unfortunate, but had they not had such a strong link to national feelings towards the current administration, the event would not have been so highly publicized. Another publication, Knight Ridder Tribune, writes about how difficult it is to find an honest article. The author describes current day publications as, “This Ping-Pong sense of truth that permeates American media (and increasingly, consciousness), we believe, unnecessarily limits the range of intelligence available to the American public. In media these days, you are expected to be either one or the other; and more and more commentators line up with one side against the other, rather than look for more comprehensive approaches” In this day and age, where technology is at our fingertips, it is a tragedy that we have to filter through publications and question each one, is it yellow journalism propaganda or fact? Readers must be defensive, check and double check sources, and consider each authors motivations. On the surface it seemed as gossip columns and grocery store tabloids were the only publications filled with yellow journalism; the above examples have shown that even our highly reputable national newspapers are dipped in yellow journalism.
Works Cited:
"Yellow" Journalism. Accessed 6 April 2006.
Yellow Journalism. Accessed 5 April 2006.
Debunking Yellow Journalism. Accessed 6 April 2006.
The Return of Yellow Journalism. Accessed 6 April 2006.
Rampant Yellow Journalism extends beyond Iraq War Coverage. Accessed 7 April 2006.
posted by Leslie Madsen-Brooks at 12:30 PM
7 Comments:
I think its very interesting that you connected the yellow journalism of the 19th century to today. I also think that today there are such issues with truthfulness from news because most people dont want to spend the time it takes to fully understand a topic, so that sometimes a very small picture is painted so people will not get bored and wander off.
A question I have I think lies with the consequences of yellow journalism. Who pays when people write untrue things? Because even though some may see through the lies, it wouldnt surprise me if most blindly believed what they see in the media. Have there been any big blow ups associated with exaggerating a story or only showing one side to an arguement?
A modern day equivalent of yellow journalism? Perhaps Jon Stewart's "Daily Show" where the news is purposefully made up to entertain.
I enjoyed watching John Stewart on the daily show as well. However, I still don't feel confident saying that the news is "purposefully" made to entertain. Clearly reasoned and rigorous examinations of current events do exist if you want to find them. However, these voices are drowned out by the Michael Moores and Bill O'Reillys of the world, who, while persistently untruthful, are frankly much more entertaining to watch.
The basic fact it seems to be that people appreciate having their ideological preconceptions flattered. It takes effort to think, and at the end of the day it is easier listen to someone tell you that you are right, then to engage in a rigorous pursuit of truth.
To me, the most interesting thing about yellow journalism (and its continuation to the present) is that Americans have allowed it to continue for so long. I know it seems out of the general public's control, but I think that if Americans made it a point to do a little research, decide which publications were accurate and protest the others, the journalism industry would soon shift to fit the demand. Clearly, we don't value media with integrity. I mean, look at tabloids. Americans eat those up. I wonder why that is.
The first thought that came to me once i learned the definition of "yellow journalism" was 'tabloids'. Just like yellow journalism, tabloids are bias, and have little to any credibility.
I believed a case could be made for yellow journalism being practiced today in our nations news media. When a major current event, crisis, or potential crisis spawns, I sometimes feel the news go beyond the facts and ventures into scare tactics to generate ratings. [Think about reports of the Avian Bird Flu, the Iran Nuclear threat, etc]
Your post also mentioned that journalist with the incentive of the industrial revolution could then reach a wider audience. However, the idea of more money gave them incentive to exaggerate the truth,for the sake of paper sells. While i'm not anti- big business, there seems to be a re-occuring theme that mimics that common cliche being 'money is the root of all evil'.
In the world of today's multi-billion dollar cable news networks, how fair is it to expect unbiased reporting? If the media is catering to an audience, will they tell the story as is, or from their own skewed perspective. The Fox News Company is a prime example of a media outlet who use an audience to attract viewers. Those who have more conservative political leanings are more inclined to watch Fox news than they are for example Newshour with Jim Lehrer. In the future are we goin to stop expecting unbiased reporting all together and settle for pulling the truth from stories ourselves?
I agree that even today there is still a fine line of what can be regarded as truth in the print industry. The fabrication of stories to sell the most newspapers is the ultimate goal. Yellow journalism has always been something that had interested me, streaming from the Hearst era. Especially the war on terror has received much publicity and it is hard to envision journalists trying to twist these reports into positive messages. The underlying point cannot truly be answered...which articles are fact or fiction?
Post a Comment
<< Home