Yellow Journalism: A Trend of the Past?

Colin Roose
cr516410@ohio.edu

In the early 20th century, newspaper journalism was at its peak. Moguls like William Randolph Hearst had nearly unrestricted power in their influence over American society and reacted by screaming headlines that sensationalized and undercut their competitors. In a perfect world, this situation would be fertile ground for the flourishing of media -- an interested public, several outlets hoping to bring the news to the people first and a growing audience. In reality, this sort of journalism egged on conflicts like the Spanish-American War and by the 1920s had resulted in the creation of ethics standards. Now, with a similar media explosion in the wake of the Internet, one could argue that this environment has returned.

Source: Latinamericanstudies.org

Competition

It's no secret that journalism is a business. In keeping with this, the first publication to get a scoop is the winner, and all the better if they can announce it with provocation. This is the model that can be readily seen from tabloid headlines to the front page of the CNN website. But a line must be drawn between language used for ratings and sales and informative content. 

Even with the public trained to be skeptical of news outlets after countless scandals and compromises on credibility, the fact is that it still falls prey to media and its attention-seeking language. In The Politic, Justin Schuster writes about the Casey Anthony case and how Nancy Grace took the trial from simply a murder case into a frenzy that swept the U.S. Once Anthony was acquitted, the reading of which drew the HLN channel its highest ratings ever, the public outrage was enormous.

Learned reaction

Why did viewers react so strongly to this case and not others like it? The flood of coverage had something to do with it. Not only was the story covered on HLN and Nancy Grace's show, but the addition of social media caused a veritable flood of emotion and attention related to the case that no other outcome was possible. The race for viewership and use of stories for one's own advantage led to a trial that strains the legal tenet of limited outside involvement in a case.

Standards

So how does a journalist react ethically in this kind of situation, where the very mention of a well-covered story could be construed as sensationalist? It all goes back to the standards. It has been said millions of times and millions of times too little that transparency is key. Indeed, it is the only way back to clear-headedness once the fog created by dramatic language has ceased.

Professor Richard Sambrook from Cardiff University writes in After Leveson, published by The Guardian, the well-documented idea that there is little difference in the information age between the professional journalist and the daily blogger. He argues that with the little distinction between the two, there should be more recognition given to those who take the time to find credible sources than those who only use the tools of emotion to get attention.

And when it comes down to the wire and all of the deceptive smoke has been cleared, the one who did the fact-checking will be the one whose credibility remains unstained.