.svg)
1,326
edits
Sensationalism: Difference between revisions
m
robot, dating maintenance tag modified: {{Citation needed}}
No edit summary |
m (robot, dating maintenance tag modified: {{Citation needed}}) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
In the late 1800s, falling costs in paper production and rising revenues in advertising in the U.S. led to a drastic rise in newspaper's circulation,<ref>{{Citation|last=Kaplan|first=Richard L.|title=Yellow Journalism|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781405186407.wbiecy001|encyclopedia=The International Encyclopedia of Communication|place=Chichester, UK|publisher=John Wiley & Sons, Ltd|doi=10.1002/9781405186407.wbiecy001|isbn=978-1-4051-8640-7|access-date=2021-03-31}}</ref> which attracted the growing audiences that advertisers desired. One presumed goal of sensational reporting is to increase or sustain [[Nielsen ratings|viewership]] or readership, from which media outlets can price their [[advertising]] higher to increase their [[Profit (accounting)|profits]] based on higher numbers of viewers and/or readers.<ref name="whatswrong">[http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=101 "What's Wrong With The News?"] [http://www.fair.org Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting]. Accessed June 2011.</ref><ref name="advertiserinfluence">[http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=7&issue_area_id=60 "Issue Area: Advertiser Influence."] [http://www.fair.org Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting]. Accessed June 2011.</ref> Sometimes this can lead to a lesser focus on [[objective journalism]] in favor of a [[profit motive]],<ref name=watersen /> in which editorial choices are based upon sensational stories and presentations to increase advertising [[revenue]].<ref name=watersen>[http://econpapers.repec.org/article/oupecinqu/v_3a25_3ay_3a1987_3ai_3a1_3ap_3a135-44.htm Sensationalism, Newspaper Profits and the Marginal Value of Watergate] Accessed September 2012</ref> Additionally, advertisers tend to have a preference for their products or services to be reported positively in mass media, which can contribute to bias in news reporting in favor of media outlets protecting their profits and revenues, rather than reporting [[Journalistic objectivity|objectively]] about stated products and services.<ref name="advertiserinfluence"/><ref name="censorship">[http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=7&issue_area_id=31 "Issue Area: Censorship."] [http://www.fair.org Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting]. Accessed June 2011.</ref> | In the late 1800s, falling costs in paper production and rising revenues in advertising in the U.S. led to a drastic rise in newspaper's circulation,<ref>{{Citation|last=Kaplan|first=Richard L.|title=Yellow Journalism|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781405186407.wbiecy001|encyclopedia=The International Encyclopedia of Communication|place=Chichester, UK|publisher=John Wiley & Sons, Ltd|doi=10.1002/9781405186407.wbiecy001|isbn=978-1-4051-8640-7|access-date=2021-03-31}}</ref> which attracted the growing audiences that advertisers desired. One presumed goal of sensational reporting is to increase or sustain [[Nielsen ratings|viewership]] or readership, from which media outlets can price their [[advertising]] higher to increase their [[Profit (accounting)|profits]] based on higher numbers of viewers and/or readers.<ref name="whatswrong">[http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=101 "What's Wrong With The News?"] [http://www.fair.org Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting]. Accessed June 2011.</ref><ref name="advertiserinfluence">[http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=7&issue_area_id=60 "Issue Area: Advertiser Influence."] [http://www.fair.org Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting]. Accessed June 2011.</ref> Sometimes this can lead to a lesser focus on [[objective journalism]] in favor of a [[profit motive]],<ref name=watersen /> in which editorial choices are based upon sensational stories and presentations to increase advertising [[revenue]].<ref name=watersen>[http://econpapers.repec.org/article/oupecinqu/v_3a25_3ay_3a1987_3ai_3a1_3ap_3a135-44.htm Sensationalism, Newspaper Profits and the Marginal Value of Watergate] Accessed September 2012</ref> Additionally, advertisers tend to have a preference for their products or services to be reported positively in mass media, which can contribute to bias in news reporting in favor of media outlets protecting their profits and revenues, rather than reporting [[Journalistic objectivity|objectively]] about stated products and services.<ref name="advertiserinfluence"/><ref name="censorship">[http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=7&issue_area_id=31 "Issue Area: Censorship."] [http://www.fair.org Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting]. Accessed June 2011.</ref> | ||
However, newspapers have a duty to report and investigate stories related to [[political corruption]]. Such [[investigative journalism]] is right and proper when it is backed up with documents, interviews with responsible [[witness]]es, and other [[primary sources]]. Journalists and editors are often accused of sensationalizing [[scandals]] by those whose public image is harmed by the legitimate reporting of the scandal. News organizations are not obliged to (and are often [[Journalism ethics and standards|ethically]] obliged ''not'' to) avoid stories that might make local, state and national public figures uncomfortable. Occasionally, news organizations mistakenly relay false information from unreliable anonymous sources, who use mass media as a tool for [[Revenge|retaliation]], [[defamation]], victim and witness tampering, and monetary or personal gain. Therefore, any story based on sources who may be reasonably assumed to be motivated to act in this way is best interpreted with [[critical thinking]].{{Citation needed}} | However, newspapers have a duty to report and investigate stories related to [[political corruption]]. Such [[investigative journalism]] is right and proper when it is backed up with documents, interviews with responsible [[witness]]es, and other [[primary sources]]. Journalists and editors are often accused of sensationalizing [[scandals]] by those whose public image is harmed by the legitimate reporting of the scandal. News organizations are not obliged to (and are often [[Journalism ethics and standards|ethically]] obliged ''not'' to) avoid stories that might make local, state and national public figures uncomfortable. Occasionally, news organizations mistakenly relay false information from unreliable anonymous sources, who use mass media as a tool for [[Revenge|retaliation]], [[defamation]], victim and witness tampering, and monetary or personal gain. Therefore, any story based on sources who may be reasonably assumed to be motivated to act in this way is best interpreted with [[critical thinking]].{{Citation needed|date= June 2023}} | ||
In extreme cases, mass media may report only information that makes a "[[anecdote|good story]]" without regard for factual accuracy or social [[relevance]]. It has been argued that the distrust in government that arose in the aftermath of the [[Watergate scandal]] created a new business tactic for the media and resulted in the spread of negative, dishonest and misleading news coverage of American politics;<ref name=watersen /><ref name=waterzzv /> such examples include the labeling of a large number of political scandals, regardless of their importance, with the [[List of scandals with "-gate" suffix|suffix "-gate"]].<ref name=waterzzv>[https://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-06-16/watergate-scandal-changed-political-landscape/55639974/1 Watergate scandal changed the political landscape forever] Accessed September 2012</ref> Such stories are often perceived (rightly or wrongly) as [[partisan (political)|politically partisan]] or biased towards or against a group or individual because of the sensational nature in which they are reported. A media piece may report on a political figure in a biased way or present one side of an issue while deriding another. It may include sensational aspects such as [[zealots]], [[:wikt:doomsayer|doomsayers]] and/or [[junk science]]. Complex subjects and affairs are often subject to sensationalism. Exciting and emotionally charged aspects can be drawn out without providing the elements needed (such as pertinent [[Source (journalism)|background]], [[Investigative journalism|investigative]], or [[Context (language use)|contextual]] information) for the audience to form its own opinions on the subject.{{Citation needed}} | In extreme cases, mass media may report only information that makes a "[[anecdote|good story]]" without regard for factual accuracy or social [[relevance]]. It has been argued that the distrust in government that arose in the aftermath of the [[Watergate scandal]] created a new business tactic for the media and resulted in the spread of negative, dishonest and misleading news coverage of American politics;<ref name=watersen /><ref name=waterzzv /> such examples include the labeling of a large number of political scandals, regardless of their importance, with the [[List of scandals with "-gate" suffix|suffix "-gate"]].<ref name=waterzzv>[https://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-06-16/watergate-scandal-changed-political-landscape/55639974/1 Watergate scandal changed the political landscape forever] Accessed September 2012</ref> Such stories are often perceived (rightly or wrongly) as [[partisan (political)|politically partisan]] or biased towards or against a group or individual because of the sensational nature in which they are reported. A media piece may report on a political figure in a biased way or present one side of an issue while deriding another. It may include sensational aspects such as [[zealots]], [[:wikt:doomsayer|doomsayers]] and/or [[junk science]]. Complex subjects and affairs are often subject to sensationalism. Exciting and emotionally charged aspects can be drawn out without providing the elements needed (such as pertinent [[Source (journalism)|background]], [[Investigative journalism|investigative]], or [[Context (language use)|contextual]] information) for the audience to form its own opinions on the subject.{{Citation needed|date= June 2023}} | ||
== In broadcasting == | == In broadcasting == | ||
Sensationalism is often blamed for the [[infotainment]] style of many news programs on radio and television.<ref name="stephens"/> According to [[John Thompson (sociologist)|sociologist John Thompson]], the debate of sensationalism used in the mass medium of broadcasting is based on a misunderstanding of its audience, especially the television audience. Thompson explains that the term 'mass' (which is connected to broadcasting) suggests a 'vast audience of many thousands, even millions of passive individuals'.<ref name="thompson">{{cite book |last=Thompson |first=John |author1-link=John Thompson (sociologist) |editor1-first=Hugh |editor1-last=Mackay |editor2-first=Tim| editor2-last=O'Sullivan |title=The Media Reader: Continuity and Transformation |publisher=Sage Publications Ltd |chapter=The Media and Modernity |isbn=978-0-7619-6250-2}}</ref> Television news is restricted to showing the scenes of crimes rather than the crime itself because of the [[Predictability|unpredictability]] of events, whereas newspaper writers can always recall what they did not witness.<ref name="stephens"/> Television news writers have room for fewer words than their newspaper counterparts. Their stories are measured in seconds, not [[column inch]]es, and thus (even with [[footage]]) television stories are inherently shallower than most newspaper stories, using shorter words and familiar idioms to express ideas which a newspaper writer is more free to expand upon and define with precision.{{Citation needed}} | Sensationalism is often blamed for the [[infotainment]] style of many news programs on radio and television.<ref name="stephens"/> According to [[John Thompson (sociologist)|sociologist John Thompson]], the debate of sensationalism used in the mass medium of broadcasting is based on a misunderstanding of its audience, especially the television audience. Thompson explains that the term 'mass' (which is connected to broadcasting) suggests a 'vast audience of many thousands, even millions of passive individuals'.<ref name="thompson">{{cite book |last=Thompson |first=John |author1-link=John Thompson (sociologist) |editor1-first=Hugh |editor1-last=Mackay |editor2-first=Tim| editor2-last=O'Sullivan |title=The Media Reader: Continuity and Transformation |publisher=Sage Publications Ltd |chapter=The Media and Modernity |isbn=978-0-7619-6250-2}}</ref> Television news is restricted to showing the scenes of crimes rather than the crime itself because of the [[Predictability|unpredictability]] of events, whereas newspaper writers can always recall what they did not witness.<ref name="stephens"/> Television news writers have room for fewer words than their newspaper counterparts. Their stories are measured in seconds, not [[column inch]]es, and thus (even with [[footage]]) television stories are inherently shallower than most newspaper stories, using shorter words and familiar idioms to express ideas which a newspaper writer is more free to expand upon and define with precision.{{Citation needed|date= June 2023}} | ||
== Online == | == Online == | ||