Yellow Journalism and Democracy (Mama Mia, here we go again with historical connections to what we learn in class)
Yellow Journalism and Democracy
The original era of yellow journalism was born from a natural and capitalist desire of corporations to make money, and from the public's desire to be entertained. In class my classmates and I learned about yellow journalism in the context of Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst, not Rupert Murdoch or Ted Turner. But would the general premise of The New York World or The New York Journal look at all out of place in today's news media environment? I would unfortunately have to say no. The defining characteristics of yellow journalism include eye-catching headlines, shallow reporting, exaggerated stories and many other aspects that can be frequently found on the front pages of some of today's most viewed and trusted news sources.
But so what if we have a little fear-mongering here and there, a little dose of "alternative facts" and some opinions fed to us based on our own pre-conceived notions? Well, nevermind that is already starting to sound pretty bad. The dangers of this are not exclusive to today's America. Yellow journalism back in the late 20th century arguably culminated in 1898 with the news media's massive blowing up of the blowing up of the USS Maine. The public, being used to clickbait-esque titles, believed the press when it blamed the explosion aboard the mighty battleship USS Maine on Spain. This led to one of only eleven times the U.S. has declared war, the Spanish American War. This goes to show that not telling the complete truth and nothing but the truth can be deadly. Now, having news organizations with political leanings is not the same as outright untruth, but getting partial information or information that is chosen to get views does not equate to being an informed citizen. The framers of the constitution realized that our representative democracy would depend on people having correct and complete information about issues that concern them and how they are being represented. If people don't know enough to cast an informed ballot, democracy is pointless. Now, when people are given their truths by neo-yellow journalists, how can we expect democracy to function?
I have ended many posts on a speculative note about how western democracy can function in the modern day, and I don't want to rewrite the same paragraph again. Despite the recent decline of democratic systems in Hungary, Turkey, Venezuela, Poland and a plethora of other nations, I am not pessimistic about the future of the world's greatest invention. I am aware that my posts are supposed to be primarily focused on journalism, not democracy as a whole. But the democracy and the free press are so interdependent and intertwined that it is often hard to delineate the rise and fall of one from the other. I have made it clear that democracy depends on journalists, but equally valid is the point that the work of journalists is often only possible in countries with democratic systems. This is more than correlation, it is causation. There are many freedoms widely considered human rights. John Locke saw life, liberty and property as natural human rights. I would like to throw a free press into the ring. Every liberty ordained upon those that live in the free world is protected by the press. A free press isn't free though. Most of us in the J+C wing will not go on to become journalists. Everyday people have a role in the press, though. As press defends people against tyranny, people must defend press from that same threat. The press is not the enemy of the people. The press and people are symbiotic. If journalists are expected to continue to be committed to truth, people must commit to trust it. This vital relationship must continue for the benefit of everyone. All of us must commit to truth and trust, that way the world as we take it for granted can continue to spin.
Mama Mia, here we go again with historical connections to what we learn in class
Why does fake news exist? I have briefly dabbled into the topic of fake news in previous posts, but today seems like the perfect time to do a deeper dive as we talked about yellow journalism in class on Wednesday. More specifically, what happens when a news organization is willing to compromise its integrity, truth, and loyalty to the people in order to sell papers or today, ads. This year's J+C freshman class has had it drilled into our minds from day one that a journalist's first loyalty is always to the people, and for good reason.The original era of yellow journalism was born from a natural and capitalist desire of corporations to make money, and from the public's desire to be entertained. In class my classmates and I learned about yellow journalism in the context of Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst, not Rupert Murdoch or Ted Turner. But would the general premise of The New York World or The New York Journal look at all out of place in today's news media environment? I would unfortunately have to say no. The defining characteristics of yellow journalism include eye-catching headlines, shallow reporting, exaggerated stories and many other aspects that can be frequently found on the front pages of some of today's most viewed and trusted news sources.
But so what if we have a little fear-mongering here and there, a little dose of "alternative facts" and some opinions fed to us based on our own pre-conceived notions? Well, nevermind that is already starting to sound pretty bad. The dangers of this are not exclusive to today's America. Yellow journalism back in the late 20th century arguably culminated in 1898 with the news media's massive blowing up of the blowing up of the USS Maine. The public, being used to clickbait-esque titles, believed the press when it blamed the explosion aboard the mighty battleship USS Maine on Spain. This led to one of only eleven times the U.S. has declared war, the Spanish American War. This goes to show that not telling the complete truth and nothing but the truth can be deadly. Now, having news organizations with political leanings is not the same as outright untruth, but getting partial information or information that is chosen to get views does not equate to being an informed citizen. The framers of the constitution realized that our representative democracy would depend on people having correct and complete information about issues that concern them and how they are being represented. If people don't know enough to cast an informed ballot, democracy is pointless. Now, when people are given their truths by neo-yellow journalists, how can we expect democracy to function?
I have ended many posts on a speculative note about how western democracy can function in the modern day, and I don't want to rewrite the same paragraph again. Despite the recent decline of democratic systems in Hungary, Turkey, Venezuela, Poland and a plethora of other nations, I am not pessimistic about the future of the world's greatest invention. I am aware that my posts are supposed to be primarily focused on journalism, not democracy as a whole. But the democracy and the free press are so interdependent and intertwined that it is often hard to delineate the rise and fall of one from the other. I have made it clear that democracy depends on journalists, but equally valid is the point that the work of journalists is often only possible in countries with democratic systems. This is more than correlation, it is causation. There are many freedoms widely considered human rights. John Locke saw life, liberty and property as natural human rights. I would like to throw a free press into the ring. Every liberty ordained upon those that live in the free world is protected by the press. A free press isn't free though. Most of us in the J+C wing will not go on to become journalists. Everyday people have a role in the press, though. As press defends people against tyranny, people must defend press from that same threat. The press is not the enemy of the people. The press and people are symbiotic. If journalists are expected to continue to be committed to truth, people must commit to trust it. This vital relationship must continue for the benefit of everyone. All of us must commit to truth and trust, that way the world as we take it for granted can continue to spin.
Comments
Post a Comment