By
(O)CT(O)PUS
If
this title caught your attention, you have come to right place. The art of
headline writing is a lesson learned in Journalism 101 and a convention of
‘yellow journalism’ born in the Gilded Age. Yellow journalism is a derisive
term that has become synonymous with sensationalism, pandering, and
journalistic misconduct. When discussing the failings of contemporary
journalism, the era of the yellow press is likely to be invoked. The criticisms
are valid because the conventions of yellow journalism continue to live and
thrive in the age of cable TV news.
My purpose
in writing this post is to critique a column by Paul Janensch that appeared in
the pages of our local newspaper: “Trump understands how to feed media to his advantage” [July 22, 2015]. Everyday we
witness examples of cringe worthy headlines turned into newsworthy events. We understand how charlatans and
shameless hacks play the media; but how many journalists ask the more pertinent
question: Why does our media allow
itself to be played? In his
commentary, Janensch merely scratches the surface.
Yellow
Journalism. The story of yellow journalism begins
with publishing legend Joseph Pulitzer.
An ambitious and aggressive newspaper entrepreneur, Pulitzer pioneered
the use provocative headlines, pictures, games, and novelties to attract
readers and build circulation. Yet, his motives were not entirely self-serving.
Pulitzer also believed in journalism as a civic responsibility whose mission is
to improve society. In an era marked by immigration, labor unrest, abuses of
power, and injustice, Pulitzer transformed his newspaper into a leading voice
of reform.
In
short order, yellow journalism spread to Boston, Chicago, Denver, and beyond.
The staid establishment tabloids of the era denounced the excesses of the
yellow press, as evidenced in this 1906 commentary by Harper’s Weekly:
”We
may talk about the perils incident to the concentration of wealth, about the
perils flowing from a disregard of fiduciary responsibility, about abuses of
privilege, about exploiting the government for private advantage; but all these
menaces, great as they are, are nothing compared with the deliberate,
persistent, artful, purchased endeavor to pervert and vitiate the public
judgment.”
Sound
familiar? Even in a bygone era, critics called attention to the power of media
to shape public opinion, a concern still voiced more than a century later. All
told, yellow journalism has been described as irritating yet irresistible,
imaginative yet frivolous, aggressive yet self-indulgent, and activist but
arrogant. The history of ‘yellow journalism’ informs our concerns about the
failings of contemporary journalism:
What has changed since the Gilded Age?
Is
modern mass media serving the public interest?
Should we be concerned?
Media
Consolidation. In the Gilded Age, there were
thousands of independently owned newspapers, and no tabloid had the market
reach or power to influence national opinion. By mid century after a succession of wars, the focus of
public attention shifted to national and world events. By 1975, two-thirds of all independently
owned newspapers and one-third of all independently owned TV stations had
vanished. Today, less than
two-dozen companies control 75% of the print market, and only five companies
dominate the cable news network segment – the same ones that own the top
Internet news sites.
What
has changed from the Gilded Age to the present? Media consolidation has
concentrated power in the hands of very few players that now have the means to
“pervert and vitiate the public judgment.” In
recent times, media conglomerates – grown too big to fail -- measure success in
terms of ratings and audience share (which translate into advertising revenue).
Roger
Ailes, chief architect of the Fox News stratagem, openly admits: He sees
himself as a producer of ratings, not journalism; audience share is his
only yardstick. Roger Ailes knows the conventions of yellow journalism. He also knows his audience better than
most: Middle Americans with traditional values who dutifully practice their
faith weekly in church pews and want their opinions shrink-wrapped on the
nightly news.
Crosstalk.
To avoid charges of promoting a partisan
bias, news networks often interview opposing stakeholders to create an
appearance of balance and objectivity.
We know this formula all too well:
He claims the sky is falling; she says the sky is blue. Which one tells the truth; who among them is the liar? All too often,
the burden of unbundling fact from fiction is left to the viewer.
When
broadcasters fail to check the veracity of competing claims (when lies are treated as newsworthy events), deceptions are legitimized upon a national stage. Staged confrontations further antagonize an angry public already mired in partisanship. How polarized have we become as a
nation? On any given day, read the
opinion pages (and share your impressions here).
Donald
Trump, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Bill O’Reilly are the ‘yellow kids’ of
broadcast journalism. When we catch them in the act of dissembling, they
reflexively lash out when criticized, or feign innocence by masquerading as
entertainers, or defame and demonize their opponents. From the Gilded Age to
the present, much has remained the same.
When sensational headlines scream for attention, nothing succeeds like
excess, and Donald Trump is the most consummate troll of all.
Should
we be concerned? You betcha! We have long known how media can be
played and manipulated – by paying journalists to promote an industry
viewpoint; by hiring PR firms to feed stories to the press; by faking news with
maliciously edited videotape; by using smear tactics to destroy reputations; by
repeating hot-button weasel words to spread suspicion and fear; by leveraging
the powers of government to shape public opinion; to sell a bogus war on flimsy
evidence. We understand intuitively how often our networks have failed in their
mission to report honest and trustworthy news -- leading us astray.
Finally, consider the impact of the Citizens United decision that opened a new era of Super PACs and dark money from anonymous donors whose identities and motives are no longer transparent to the public.
In
closing, I leave you with this thought. As Hannah Arendt once observed, a
disciplined and well-funded minority of totalitarians can use the instruments
of democratic government -- namely free speech and freedom of the press -- to
undermine democracy itself.
Interesting informative article. I will be running this on RN USA before leaving on a short vacation (with proper acknowledgement and linkage).
ReplyDeleteLes
Interesting indeed but depressing. The original intent and the original attempt of our government was to provide checks and balances against contrasting or opposing interests and the removal, the avoidance and the elimination of these has been aided by persistence, technology, delusion and apathy. The science of bullshit has progressed as much if not more than any other science and technology and the separation of powers, the separation of wealth and hereditary status from political power, the separation of religion from the secular, scientific and political life of the nation have been eroding steadily. Some might argue and convincingly that it is accelerating as the ability to spread lies, misinformation, bigotry, propaganda, fraud, war and even pestilence expands geometrically. Of course it's not just them to blame, it's us. It's our bickering short sightedness and uncompromising gullibility; arguing about nuance of terminology and in each other's faces.
ReplyDeleteThe success of this experiment depends entirely upon a rational, informed and responsible public and whether or not we ever had one of those, it's hard to say that body of good folks still has much influence. We may think we have discussions of substance, but I fear we're just ordering off the menu and we don't know who's in the kitchen and what he just put in the soup.
The idea of a free press and a public free to voice and print an opinion has been swept away by a flood of unlimited wealth able to sell any idea, distort any truth to the point where the few and the mighty have more power than the institutions of the Old World with the additional capability of the Roman Empire to distract us and buy our favors with games and spectacles. There is no hero not demonized, no demon not made a hero and no freedom, either guaranteed or implied that is not used to promote bondage and servitude.
In one simple and straight forward statement...
ReplyDeleteAmerica, in large degree, has become gullible. Either laziness, lack of education and the
Inability to reason, or both is at the core of the problem.