Sensationalism: Who’s to Blame?

Image Source

A sprinkle of sensationalism and a dusting of fact, a formula some journalists like to use when their story just doesn’t hold enough wow factor, creating what we call yellow journalism.

Of course this is no new phenomena, yellow journalism and sensationalism has been a part of the journalism world since the printing presses. However it’s continuing and heightened use in todays news is cause for concern.

While the aim of a journalist is to seek out and report the truth to the public, John Daly tell us that “the more exotic journalists can make the story, the better it is for readership and ratings,” with the example of the hundreds of conspiracy theories in the media surrounding the Malaysian Airlines flight MH370.

The competition between media sources, for example newspapers, is a defining factor in sensationalism. Along with the decline in print media the competition to sell the most and to raise profits is as high as ever. Lulu Brenda Harris tell us that to raise these profits newspapers often create sensationalised headlines that can stray from the stores contents in order to entice the reader. “Very few people can afford to buy more than one newspaper, thats why newspapers create these screaming headlines to entice a reader to but their copy foregoing the rest,” said Innocent Kurwa, a former editor of The Daily News.

This sensationalism and blurring of the truth may be a problem but where does the problem lie? What do we find more interesting, a man saved from drowning, a cancer patient surviving or the workings of a serial killer? While the thought that our news outlets using sensationalism and hype outrages us, we as consumers should consider what we find interesting enough to consume and to pay for.

“Sensation sells, and more people are more interested in the latest crime than they are in the development of a new form of energy,” says George Taber, past business editor at Time magazine.

Preserveing Net Neutrality and Journalistic Freedom

Image Source: Amy Schatz

The FCC’s new Net Neutrality rules may be about to bring the freedom of internet journalism crashing down.

Right now we have what is described as Open Internet, or net neutrality. As John Wihnbey explains, broadband providers provide equal treatment in the traffic of internet sites, however net neutrality may become a thing of the past. The reality of paying for a fast speed connection with the public will have drastically negative effects on smaller websites who are not able to pay these premiums and may limit the voices of journalists who use these smaller platforms such as blogging.

Pew Research Centre tells us that “71% of those 18-29 cite the internet as a main news source.” With quite a large amount of people going to the internet to get there news sources, the control over censorship and distribution of faster or slower broadband lanes put forth by the ISP’s could have a large impact on the access and freedom of online journalism.

Josh Stearns states “the [Net Neutrality] decision means that a company like AT&T or Verizon could decide where their users can go for news and what stories get buried or blocked online.” He argues that this monopolisation by ISP’s will cause a decline in independent journalism and silence many of the diverse array of voices that we currently have access to.

With the decline of print media and the increase of online media there has been a significant decline in the revenue. State Of The Media tells us that in May of 2013 revenue was 45% of what it was in 2006.

While news sources that rely on online outlets, such as KY Post, can acquire their money by online advertising there is less money to be made here than previously in print advertising. Therefore many small online news outlets may not be able to afford to pay the ISP’s for faster service, ultimately resulting in a decline of consumers and possibly even the extinction of some online media outlets.