Yellow Journalism, it’s a term most everyone has heard used
at some point in time. Whether in school, overheard in politically active
circles of coffee house banter or in a quick Google search after seeing this
blog headline. For those who are not fully sure of what this Yellow Journalism
is, let me walk you through the history of this objectionable practice.
THE RISE:
During the late nineteenth century a man named William
Hearst bought up failing newspapers and transformed them into money making
outlets. His strategy was to grow the low-income readership by providing low
prices, less text and more pictures and comic strips, simple language, overly
dramatic stories and oh yes….a key point, he had little interest or respect for
reporting accuracy. Hearst was not alone in this endeavor, the yellow
journalism trend flourished between his papers and that of his competitor,
Joseph Pulitzer.
 |
THE STORY BEHIND THE NAME:
The Yellow Kid comic originally in Pulitzer's publication,
was bought out by Hearst's publication. It was widely
popular and was copied by Pulitzer after the sale fueling
their already existent rivalry. The battle of the Yellow Kid
represented the decline of journalism integrity. When other
publications got rid of news content and added more comics
it was called Yellow Kid Journalism and was then shortened
to Yellow Journalism. |
The general routine for reporters at this time was to gather
a vague amount of sketchy details about an event and then hand it to an editor
who would then write an embellished and largely fictitious account of events.
The justification for this type of “reporting” was based on editor’s arguments
that “everyone else was doing it” and “the public likes it, or else they
wouldn’t buy it – we’re only giving people what they want.”
THE FALL:
Around the time of the 1920’s, yellow journalism started to
make a transformation with a pressure of government regulation to media. In
response, journalism industry leaders shifted their efforts toward advancing the
ethical standards of reporting with the creation of
‘The Canons of Journalism’ (a preliminary code of ethics). In 1975 The Canons of Journalism was replaced
with the American Society of Newspaper Editors Statement of Principles.
THE RETURN:
We see it most every time
tragedy strikes; headlines blare out
sensational descriptions and coverage of events and journalists’ reporting
slips from the ethical standards a little. While these little slips occur they
usually occur in isolated incidents and as a whole don’t affect the overall
outcome of news consumption, however the coverage of the most recent tragedy in
Boston shows a looming presence of the return of the once labeled Yellow
Journalism. Speaking solely of established journalism outlets, there is dilemma
these media outlets face. Firstly, money is needed to stay on air. Secondly,
advertisements, investors and sponsors are needed to acquire money. Third, in
order to attain those who supply monetary funding, viewers and readers in mass
quantities are essential. The dilemma: how to get the viewers, and thus the
money.
It’s a fact, society thrives on gossip, disasters and
anything new, new products, new ideas and defiantly new information. So comes
the media outlets ultimate dilemma, do you rush to the Internet, presses and
cameras to be the first to provide new information, or do you wait, take your
time, come up later and have the right information? In the most recent account
with the Boston bombing, there’s no doubt, this was an opportunity for media
outlets to be first and while this wasn’t the first for some, it was the first
time that for the most part the safest bet for getting the story was to turn
off all your media sources, walk away and come back later; after the
information carcass was fought over and all that remained were the facts.
Society wanted new information on the event, and that’s
exactly what the media outlets gave us, the problem was no one stopped to
process that information, and double check it before sharing it, and thus the
wrong information spread like wild fire and society was caught up in a tangle
of different stories, leads and unknown facts.
In an attempt to draw the media back and focus on getting
the facts right before reporting, frustrated individuals, journalists and
organizations took to the Internet to post ethics reminders, many times citing
key points of the
Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics (today’s
newsroom resource for ethical decision-making). While some may have taken note
of these reminders and pulled the reigns back on an effort to be first, much of
the general consensus was that it was too little, too late. The wrong
information was already spreading and it would take time before the facts out
weighed the falsities.
So while newsrooms continue to face their "money – consumer –
content" dilemma, society is also faced with a dilemma that needs to be
acknowledged and addressed. Do we continue to turn to the new information and
eat it up because it’s first or do we wait, knowing that facts will rise, and
throw our support and full attention to those who prove to focus on high
standards of reporting around the clock, at the same time, how do we know the
difference? Then there's the question, does society care? Do we hold media outlets responsible for reporting accurately and moving completely out of the realm of Yellow Journalism in all situations, or do we allow some slight shades of Yellow to enter the reporting picture to help us fill our new information cravings?
