Yellow Journalism is a term first coined during the famous newspaper wars between William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer II. Yellow journalism, or the yellow press, is a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers. Techniques may include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, or sensationalism. By extension, the term yellow journalism is used today as a pejorative to decry any journalism that treats news in an unprofessional or unethical fashion.
Joseph Campbell defines yellow press newspapers as having daily multi-column front-page headlines covering a variety of topics, such as sports and scandal, using bold layouts (with large illustrations and perhaps color), heavy reliance on unnamed sources, and unabashed self-promotion. The term was extensively used to describe certain major New York City newspapers about 1900 as they battled for circulation.
Frank Luther Mott defines yellow journalism in terms of five characteristics:
1. scare headlines in huge print, often of minor news
2. lavish use of pictures, or imaginary drawings
3. use of faked interviews, misleading headlines, pseudoscience, and a parade of false learning from so-called experts
4. emphasis on full-color Sunday supplements, usually with comic strips
5. dramatic sympathy with the "underdog" against the system.
Yellow journalism is exaggerated or biased media reporting that is disguised as fact. Originating out of an intense competition between rival newspapers in the late 1800s, it involves taking a factual story and presenting it in a sensational or distorted way. It may be used to invoke fear, loathing, uncertainty or even sympathy in readers, but often, the bottom line is an attempt to boost sales or viewer ship and gain more market share. Although people generally regard this type of reporting as unprofessional and a violation of journalistic ethics, it appears frequently today, with perhaps the best example being tabloids.
Although the tactics that people in the media use to capture a reader or viewer's attention can vary a bit from location to location, typically, yellow media features very bold, large pictures and headlines, and layouts are designed to immediately grab the reader's interest. In the case of radio, Internet and television, journalists sometimes use flashing banners and sound alerts, as well. The company that is providing the news often openly promotes itself and tries to make itself look more credible by presenting "experts" who aren't truly qualified to provide information. Claims usually are exaggerated and melodramatic, and there generally are few to no citations.
Experts generally attribute the beginning of yellow journalism to William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer. The industrial revolution brought about a printing press that could create thousands of copies of a newspaper overnight. In 1895, Pulitzer's paper, New York World, was the top paper in New York City and the surrounding area. When Hearst bought the New York Journal, he quickly became Pulitzer's main competition.
The competition between Hearst and Pulitzer quickly spiraled out of control, and soon, they were in a war over who could sell the most copies. To achieve this goal, they started using sensationalism, altering or completely making up the facts, and writing outrageous or emotional headlines to attract sales. This bid for market share came to a head during the Spanish-American War in 1898.
<>Pulitzer and Hearst both had a huge role in how the American public viewed Cuba in its bid for independence from Spain. Through their papers, both journalists emphasized the wrong-doings of the Spanish army, breezing over any faults of the Cuban troops. They also called for United States intervention, leading to the country's involvement in the war. The conflict sometimes is referred to as the "media war" because of how strongly the publications altered public opinion.
Yellow journalism has been a feature of nearly every war in the 20th century, usually portraying the opposing side as evil, subhuman or similarly worth attacking. The media has been used not only for political gains, but to win social benefits, as well. Fear mongering and exaggeration of the facts is still a popular way to alter what people individually and collectively think.
Although this type of journalism is much less common now than it was in the early 1900s, it is still around. Some newspapers, magazines, Internet sites and even television news channels may present information with a spin on the facts to support their own views or to increase the number of readers or viewers. Shocking headlines still typically sell more papers than regular ones do.
Yellow journalism has stayed alive in media partly because, like Pulitzer and Hearst's papers, contemporary companies need to have good market share to stay profitable. A large number of free information sources, many of which are available online around the clock, are available that provide added competition. The response has been to be generally more accepting of drama, opinion and conflict pieces.
Many professionals who work in media are concerned about yellow journalism from an ethical standpoint. They typically believe that the public always deserves the truth, and that this kind of reporting makes it hard to get it. A major worry is that it can pervert justice, leading people to opinions, decisions and actions that they wouldn't have or do if the journalist remained objective.
Despite this, some say that big headlines and dramatic content can draw attention to news elements that otherwise would not get much notice, which can be beneficial. The typical concentration on the underdog in the stories might help to correct power imbalances, and when successful, the reporting can keep a media company financially afloat. Supporters also assert that the approach journalists usually take is better at keeping audiences engaged.
Legal treatment of yellow journalism varies depending on location. In the United States, for example, the First Amendment protects the right to free speech and, therefore, essentially allows the media to have a very loose reign on their reporting. Even so, America does have laws related to liable and slander, which basically say that someone cannot damage a person or company's reputation by printing or saying something that isn't true. This helps keep sensationalist reporting contained a bit, but defamation lawsuits are notoriously hard to win. Many areas that are politically unstable have passed or are trying to pass regulations that would limit what and how journalists report.
Checking facts and using several sources are both ways to determine whether something is really true or merely a product of yellow journalism. It also often helps for readers to analyze the news source and consider the reason for the particular spin on a story. Paying more attention to language — in particular, looking for adjectives that have specific connotations — is another strategy that often reveals bias. People who find that a news source isn't following good ethical standards can contact the media company with complaints or leave comments on online pieces that call out the sensationalism, lack of truth or citations, and similar problems.
Yellow Journalism is a mutated division of Journalism that goes against the key principles of reporting as an unbiased and objective tool for conveying the news. Yellow Journalism is “journalism that exploits, distorts, or exaggerates the news to create sensations and attract readers.” Yellow journalism ‘believes’ in a gross misreporting and underreporting of facts, in playing up news that is likely to create a frenzy, stringing an emotional chord with the masses, feeding the appetite for sensationalism, scandal mongering and exciting public opinion
India has increasingly fallen prey to this contagion and stands today under its heavy and gaudy canvas. Written and televised media, in an attempt to boost circulation and enhance viewership, have resorted to these devil-may-care tactics and it appears that there is no looking back. Distinguished and renowned media people, writers, correspondents and editors have routed to garish and often lewd news items with each channel in a rush to ‘break’ news or catch an exclusive which flash far too often to be taken seriously. Controversy is not allowed to take its usual course and die a natural death; it is instead dredged up and twisted to keep animate and breathing.
The average Indian will identify the symptoms of this jaundiced journalism with ease. On one level the foul play is visual. Large fonts, dramatic colours, irrelevant and theatrical photography are used in an attempt to embellish the most trivial news. At the same time the language used for the bold headlines or newsflashes is inflaming and exaggerated, forcing the reader or viewer to halt abruptly and take notice. The media often plays along with the rumour mill not bothering to verify fact, faking quotes and printing bogus interviews. Once reputed newspapers and media channels are turning into trashy tabloids
Instances of the above in India’s recent history are far too many. On the July 26, 2005, the media had a field day as it reported the administrative failure of the Brihanmumbai Muncipal Corporation in its role in providing relief to those who had suffered because of the unnaturally heavy rain in Mumbai. Images of the average Mumbaikars struggle with the flood water flashed again and again on the TV screen for days, much after the water had long receded in most places. The Mumbai attacks once again saw the media doing nothing to pacify the heightened anxiety of the country, but instead thriving on the panic it fuelled as Operation Cyclone was shot at from different angles with an obnoxious disregard for the safety of the people trapped. Distinguished journalists spotted at the scenes of crime have been heard time and time again asking questions structured to enrage and outrage the people
Newspapers, not to be left behind, have played just as strong a role. What was the need to blow the Shahrukh – Salman – Katrina fiasco, or the Mallika and Minissha Lamba or for that matter, the Sourav Ganguly – Greg Chappell controversy to humongous proportion, when matters of far more relevance to the average Indian were grappling for attention?
Let me illustrate with some of the headlines carried by newspapers about Chappell fiasco: I wasn’t comfortable with Chappell: Sehwag (Press Trust of India Players were scared during Chappell’s tenure: Bhajji (Zeecric Beaureau).The headlines are so often relevant only to page 3, if even that. I mean, we all want to know that Ranbir and Deepika broke up, but wouldn’t we be just as well off not knowing about Saif’s tattoo or for that matter, why was Amitabh Bachchan’s views of Slumdog Millionaire making the headlines? Granted that he is the God of Indian cinema, but the man is entitled to express his opinion without being flogged for it.
The media in India, in a number of ways, exists as a degraded inferior version of itself, compromised in its ethics, stirring panic and grappling for attention in ways that should have been outgrown long ago. India as a newly born country needs pure unbiased news of relevance. As all infants, Young India can’t always be expected to tell the difference between what it needs to know and what it wants to know. One would expect the experienced media moguls to be in a better place to decide upon what news deserves notice and what can be thwarted. But perhaps this discretion is blurrier than anticipated. India needs facts, not biased opinions. Our media needs not to stand big and looming, but instead, to mature and grow.
