Sensational Journalism: Don’t Trust Everything You See, or Read

            Just like that kid that always had to outdo you in the third grade; often journalists like to stretch the truth about certain stories. However it is not their intention to be cooler than you, but instead to manipulate you. Not in a sense that they want to control what you do, but what you watch and see. Journalists often work for businesses, and the number one goal of a business is to make money. Any respectable and professional journalist will follow the set of ethics to promote reliable and credible news to the public, however to some the money becomes more important than the truth. To obtain more viewers and better ratings, which leads to more money, journals will unfortunately go to certain lengths to stretch the news. Recently, long time news anchor and journalist Brian Williams was indefinitely suspended from NBC. Williams did not falsify events that happened, but often made up stories about his own experiences. For example, during a riot in Egypt that he was reporting on site for, he stated that he looked rioters straight in the eyes, when in fact he had been watching from his hotel room. This is a breech of pathos. The emotional and sympathetic response a people will give when they hear a story of another person in danger is enough to intrigue a person so much that they would watch this story, and most likely come back to this news source. Brain Williams was also a well known journalist and on prime time for NBC, which is part of Comcast Corporation the biggest media company in America.

            Sensationalism is something that will always be present in journalism. Jim Neustadt, Director of Communications at Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission and former Special Products Producer at NBC4 says that journalism is something that, “will always be prevalent,” based on the desire to be first. Competition in media is very extreme, in terms of fame and money, it is difficult to get the top rankings and build media corporations into well-known, successful outlets of information for the public. 

Sensationalism in Media Started Through Yellow Journalism

Sensational media relates to the long history of yellow journalism. Early muddruckers investigated parts of society, such as meat factories, and found groundbreaking problems. They found just how disgusting meat factories were, this was from the book, the Jungle, written by Upton Sinclair in 1906. Before that in 1887, Nellie Bly investigated insane asylums in New York City and discovered the mistreatment of women with perceived mental illnesses.

            These discoveries were very startling for the project. People couldn’t believe how secretive certain parts of life were and how harmful they could be. Yellow journalism helped bring to light many stories that had been previously unknown in dramatic ways. However, eventually certain journalists began to use the sensationalism without the factual evidence used by Sinclair and Bly. Instead of focusing on the truths that were so riveting in these investigations, certain journalist began to report what would be the most sensational and interesting to get more viewers. The facts and morals of journalism became less significant at times. Neustadt says during his time at NBC4, often there was a need for, "merchandising," that leads new journalists to stretch facts to create better stories.

 

How Small Sensational Stories Can Be Harmful

Returning to Brian Williams unfortunate situation brings up one of the oldest sayings in journalism “don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story.” In a minor example of how facts can be distorted to support a story, the exaggerated article about the Department of Justice spending 16 dollars on muffins for its members. This story criticized the government’s spending tendencies at described it as a, “waste during a time when everyone is pinching pennies.” However, Sam Stein of the Huffington Post went further into investigation about the story and researched the 16$ included a number of items far exceeding just the muffins. The 16 dollars was the number spent during a conference that included the cost of not only muffins but, fruit, other baked goods, coffee, tea, soft drinks, tax, and tips. Although the amount of money spent on muffins or other foods may not seem to be an important story, it is a harsh criticism of the government and could be taken as political writing. By criticizing incumbent members of the government, media could possibly be attempting to disgrace government workings and create change through their own views, regardless of the facts. Of all the articles written about this story, 178 were critical of the government spending, while only 37 tried to correctly explain the situation, and eight refrained of explaining whether it was a valid or false claim.

According to a study by the fact checking source Pundifact, of the three companies FOX, MSNBC, and CNN, each had large amounts of using untrue facts. The study says that of the FOx news is truthful just 18 percent of the time. MSNBC tells the truth 31 percent of the time, and CNN is 60 percent truthful. This is not an exact study, as not every fact produced by each source can be checked, but it displays that evidence is often stretched by three of the United States' largest media outlets.

Percentage of True Facts used by FOX, MSNBC, and CNN

 

 Baltimore Riots and the Modernity of Sensationalism 

Sensational journalism plays a large part in current events and social issues. One of the most recent events to receive a large amount of media coverage was the Baltimore riot. This coverage is very difficult to cover because the origin of the riots was from alleged police brutality when a young African American man was arrested, and then severely injured by police who refused to take him to a hospital leading to his death. To correctly convey the entire story to public, factual evidence has to be known, and reviewed by the media sources. At the initial time of the riots, this was difficult to do because the police had not given their full report on the young man, Freddie Gray, being hurt. The reporters must instead focus on the events surrounding the main story, which can distort news. There is nothing wrong with reporting about the riots as they are a major part of the story, and have major relevance to the public as it can affect public safety and any protest can be taken as a message that current societal practices are not working. Even if the practice is not accepted by everyone, and is dangerous, it is certainly newsworthy. The only question is whether that news is being correctly covered. In a media clip by Wolf Blitzer, he interviewed a community activist that admitted to promoting non-violent protest, however the interviewee, Deray Mckesson, went on to add that he supports the rioters and that change is needed. Blitzer’s questions were clearly marked against the violence and provided stats only supporting that claim. He left out the reasons for the violent, did not mention Freddie Gay or police brutality and determined police were more victimized in general.  Blitzer never suggests that’s McKesson says he accepts violence or condones it, but continues to ask him on how protests should be conducted without accepting the statistics brought forward by McKesson. Blitzer cites well-known people who have spoken against violence, Obama for this particular incident and then he also refers to Martin Luther King Jr. as a past example for peaceful protest.

 

Blitzer’s video can be seen as taking lurid information and focusing on one side. This is unfortunate for a major news source. However, many newscasts have aired fair points about the Baltimore riots. Jim Neustadt believes that reporting has been just towards the entirety of the article and reports that the media has focused on the riots and the untimely death of Freddie Gray. On MSNBC, Rachel Maddow interviewed Nick Mosby, Baltimore City Council Member, who does not, "condone " the violence, but both Maddow and Mosby acknowledge the wrongness of violence, as well as the the reasons behind the rioting. They acknowledge that,"communication is imbalanced and is not intellectual.. and plague urban America." This is a much more just analysis of the situation, as the focus is not only on the fault of the rioters, but on the factors that lead to the rioting as well.