Talk:Yellow journalism/Archive 1

Archive 1

FOX News viewers see FOX as inclusive of the liberal point of view?

"FOX News viewers, on the other hand, see FOX as inclusive of both points of view, liberal and conservative, and as a healthy alternative to other channels."

Don't FOX News viewers generally watch FOX so that they don't have to listen to the liberal point of view? I don't think many FOX viewers would really agree that the channel offers a liberal point of view... Rather provide a NPOV by just saying what the next paragraph says -- something like:

"FOX News viewers, on the other hand, argue that FOX's coverage is impartial and that the coverage of other so-called 'mainstream' networks is liberally slanted." Yes? No? Rossvdlinde 1 July 2005 17:54 (UTC)

Agreed. Someone challange the Netural POV. I made some minor changes so it reads "Some FOX News viewers..."

Please revert due to vandalism efforts. Pan 19:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

RAI Fallujah Documentary is the perfect example...

All flash, no substance. Bodies, bodies, bodies, and testimony from questionable sources. Very little fact.--BohicaTwentyTwo 20:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Fox News deserves mention.

In response to the previous poster, Fox News deserves mention. Unlike "RatherGate", which was an isolated event perpetrated by Rather himself, Fox News is an entire network that spins news stories to benefit the GOP. Not only does Fox News not have any of their own journalist, the network is owned and operated by Rupert Murdoch, who is well known as a staunch supporter of the Republican party.

All Fox does is take news stories off the AP wire and spin them to shed the GOP is a favorable light. Often they take gross liberties with the facts and rarely if ever offer corrections for mistakes they made, especially if it involves in any way making the GOP look bad. --Dino213aa 17:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Remove POV

I took out the Fox News portion, and rewrote parts of the stuff on the bottom. I don't hold a torch for Fox News, but any praise or criticism directed at that channel could be directed to any number of outlets on the media spectrum, and to cite them in an article about "Yellow Journalism" (a problematic term in any event) is not NPOV.

There was also a portion rehashing that tired old cliche about television journalists being airheads compared to their print counterparts. As I noted, if you can't bring home the reporting(Peter Jennings in the 60s, though he got a lot better; Connie Chung in the 90s), you go down fast.--Idols of Mud 19:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

More history

I also expanded the history of yellow journalism to focus on Hearst and Pulitzer. Some of the stuff in the top I moved down to the currency section, and I adjusted the size of the images.--Idols of Mud 23:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

New York Press reference

Interesting note here about the New York Press coining the term "yellow journalism" -- do we have a reference?--Idols of Mud 13:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Never mind -- I found it. Thanks. Good addition.--Idols of Mud 13:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Currency

I moved down the "Currency" paragraphs, which appear to be off topic and/or garbled to the point that I'm giving up.

there are some interesting points there... i was thinking it might work better as more of a "current events" section. in particular i thought this could use a cite to judith miller perhaps, it took me a second to understand what they were saying: Well-established institutions such as the New York Times are often leading purveyors of disinformation, especially when the U.S. government is anxious to gain support for aggression abroad or repressive policies at home.

also, i was looking at this page hoping to find info about fcc guidelines that might have come as a response. is there an existing page that seems relevant? Uncleosbert 21:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Current vandalism

The current revision of this page has been extensively vandalized, including references to "Lines of Little Suicide Bombers" and living conditions in heat during "cold waves". 76.176.31.101 17:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Failing GAN

I am hereby failing this article as a Good Article Nominee by means of "quick failing". The fact that two sections of the article are completely unreferenced and one carries a "neutrality" tag (while in fact both can be tagged with a few more), is enough.

That said, I would like to expand a bit more on the article in general - this kind of article can describe either a concept or a phenomenon - while the lead section and the last two sections try to purport "yellow journalism" is a concept (without much going for it, due to the lack of references), the history section deals with it as a historic phenomenon. While an entertaining read, the mid section is full of statements bordering POV and in general, being a good piece of writing, is hardly encyclopedic. It is a story of two newspapers and, in part, their owners during a certain period - much information contained therein could just as well go into articles on the journals or the gentlemen themselves, or perhaps the Spanish-American War. However sad consequences this may have for the involving narration of the article as presented now, I believe it would have more encyclopedic sense.

Of course, it might be the case that established and reliable external sources do refer to the events described in the article as an identified phenomenon referred to as the "yellow press" (in a way similar to e.g. a much larger-scale pheomenon known as "industrial revolution"), then an article would make sense. That said, even if it is so, a big refurbishment would be necessary. PrinceGloria 14:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Weasel in currency

"Some claim that a Fox News internal memo uncovered in late 2006 reveals evidence of that organization's bias in favor of the Republican Party."

Who are these some, and what was in the memo? If there are no objections I would like to remove this statement, as it does little to support the main argument of the paragraph (which is simply making a distinction between yellow journalism and media bias). If there is a good reason to keep the information, it needs to be clarified with proper citations.

I can't resist pointing out the irony of having weasel terms in a page about yellow journalism. Robnpov 23:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The "Currently" section deals with current journalistic abuses. which are not derived from or directly related to Yellow Journalism. They comprise a different topic and do not belong in this article. Rjensen (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Libel?

The source of the "not quite libel" quote is not given and I cannot find it in books.google, amazon or jstor. hence deleted as unverified. It only adds confusion since "libel" is a legal term and a quite different phenomenon than yellow journalismRjensen (talk) 23:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Divide up this article?

I read this article after doing a major re-write (principally for grammar/form) of muckraker.

I find the "Yellow Journalism" article very engaging, but feel that it would benefit from more focus on yellow journalism per se, and splitting off the involved discussion of Hearst vs. Pulitzer and the NY newspaper wars into a separate location. Reading the entry "Failing GAN", I felt that view closely matched mine.

I propose to subdivide the content in this way. I am interested to know if anyone else has an opinion pro/con. Shi Gelei (talk) 00:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think every history links Yellow Journalism very closely to Hearst and Pulitzer, so taking them out leaves not much left.Rjensen (talk) 03:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

After thinking about this some more . . . I think there should be articles on the following topics:

• Spanish American War
• Hearst-Pulitzer newspaper wars
• Yellow Journalism

The Yellow Journalism article should touch on some of the most crucial aspects of the former two topics, insofar as they help give meaning to Yellow Journalism, but should direct the reader to those two articles for full details.

Further, I think the Yellow Journalism article should devote more room to clarifying (a) the difference between "Yellow Journalism" as a broad trend in its time and a fairly specific implication when it is used today, and (b) the similarities and differences between Yellow Journalism and some other social phenomena (in particular "tabloid journalism" and "jingoism"). Shi Gelei (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yellow journalism, eugenics and racism

About the link of yellow journalism, eugenics and racism ; there's nothing in the article.Was yellow journalism more racist or eugenicist, than normal journalism? The article doesn't tells nothing about this.Agre22 (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)agre22

Picture

Does anybody have access to a higher resolution version of the cartoon from Puck? If so, it would be good to upload this, replacing the current one, so that the writing on the demons is more legible. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Origin

This article in Time Magazine claims the term was coined by the publisher of the New York Herald, not the New York Press, as claimed by the source used here. bobanny (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Protection

I've semi-protected this after a request on RfPP. I wasn't sure at first because it looked possibly like a content dispute, but the sources the anon says support his edit don't mention "yellow journalism" that I can see, so I went ahead with the protection. If the anon has a legitimate edit to make with good sources, post here and I'll consider lifting protection. I'll put it on my watchlist. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Persistent IP Vandalism

I am getting very annoyed at this persistent vandalism by IP users trying to put 'Daily Mail' into the article. The Daily Mail is NOT 'yellow journalism' and these edits are completely unsourced. Please stop posting these edits they will be reverted and further action may be taken against persistent offenders. I have applied for semi-protection to put a stop to this abuse 77.100.207.175 (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Media Coverage of Catholic Sex Abuse Scandal

The exaggeration and excessive coverage of the Catholic sex abuse scandal and the defamation of the current reigning pope over it by major news organizations could be considered a significant example of yellow journalism. It's easier to publish stories that demonize Catholics, popes, and priests based on hearsay and lawyers walking out of courtrooms than it is to publish stories concerning the successes of the Church and its agents before and after 2002 in combating abuse. 76.210.248.83 (talk) 23:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

That is a personal interpretation which many would disagree with. If you have multiple clear examples of reliable sources describing the coverage of these events using the specific term "yellow journalism" then maybe that would be worth including in the article but it can't go in just because you disapprove of the coverage. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Here you go: http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/03/scoundrel-times and http://catholicanchor.org/wordpress/?p=60175.37.239.18 (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Neither linked page contains the phrase "yellow journalism". --DanielRigal (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

They don't have to specifically mention the phrase to make the accusation. Both articles describe situations in the press that exactly fit the definition of yellow journalism by the Yellow Journalism wiki: "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."75.37.239.18 (talk) 00:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Need for Dispute Resolution

The following is a direct quote from Christian1985

"It doesn't matter if they are actual covers"

In this editors opinion, no facts, not even the actual text of the newspaper itself are valid.

I think that is totally outrageous and anti wiki.

It is entirely reasonable to look at the covers of the Daily Mail, which are objectively in large text and meant to provoke indignation.

Now, if you look in the wiki article itself, this is precisely one of the main characteristics of yellow journalism.

So, there are two choices:

1. In a neutral worded way, include the tactics used by the Daily Mail as a contemporary example of yellow journalism.

2. Edit the Yellow Journalism article so that it no longer describes what the Daily Mail is. 83.59.242.124 (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I have made a formal complaint about your abuse to the administrators and you may be blocked. All the above is just your opinion. Mailwatch is NOT a reliable source as per Wikipedia guidelines, why can you not accept that. Please stop insulting and attacking me there is no need for it. Christian1985 (talk) 13:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

MailWatch is not a reputable source and I agree that we should not use it. However, if you directly cite the Daily Mail itself... and stop complaining about him "bullying and attacking you". He hasn't made an aggressive comment against you, just against your views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.82.26.156 (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

6RR report given to an admin. This IP will be blocked, just like earlier incarnations of IPs with identical edits. Collect (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC) AND ALSO TUNAFISH

Please at least pretend to be neutral. This section is not for settling personal scores, it is for a serious discussion of the issues at hand. The source is not mailwatch per sey, it is the Daily Mail itself. If you would like I can link to the last ten headlines for the mail, would that be acceptable? 83.59.242.124 (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I am being neutral following Wikipedia policy, Mailwatch is not a reliable source and nor are the Mail headlines because it is all just your opinions. Now please just accept you are wrong and stop bullying and abusing me. Christian1985 (talk) 13:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Since the source does not aver "yellow journalism" specifically with regard to the Daily Mail, and is not RS for anything other than having an assortment of various papers' front pages, the source is not valid for use for any claims whatever with regard to the Daily Mail. Collect (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Yellow Journalism/ Gossip Magazine

Hi Collect. When you deleted my "See Also" entry I should have left it at that - I have learnt to see the signs of those whose hubris cannot allow to be contradicted. So, as I don't waste time on these puny ego battles, you can have it your way. But out of curiosity, are your two motivations for removing "Gossip Magazine" from the "see also" section slighty at odds with each other? 1. you say: "rm as no direct connection to term "yellow journalism" is sourced)" 2. you say: ""tabloid journalism" is already linked - rather than have a list of every tabloid aro)". So, shall we go for "no direct connection is sourced" or should we stick to "rather than have a list of every tablois aro"? You decide, you are the boffin here. Oh, as an after-thought: I've seen far more weirder stuff included unded "see also", so please, seeing that you are so good at weeding out out the unnecesary entries, please do that for us. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 08:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Try looking at WP policies and guidelines first. 1. GM does not have anything in its article using the term "Yellow Journalism" 2. I do not find sources saying "Yellow Journalism" with regard to GM 3. Using "see also" for the purpose of making a connection between YJ and GM where there is no source making that connection is inherently against the guidelines for "see also" link. 4. There is a link to "tabloid journalism" and it is in that article that GM would be a possible "see also" link. Cheers. And "hubris" does not apply to "following WP policies and guidelines." Collect (talk) 11:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Alive

Yellower Journlism is still very much alive like the U.S.S Maine being blamed on the Spanish, Mohamed Al le was automatically blamed for the Two Towers.

Wouldnt you say that[Fox News]engage in Yellow journalism?

It's an interesting question, might have to do with Outfoxed... the thing is does O'Reilly and others precisely count as a part of Fox News, or just the Fox channel team. - RoyBoy [∞] 02:42, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page doesn't seem very NPOV to me... Especially the use of the word misnomer. Perhaps euphemism would be a better term? Supersheep 13:43, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See the News International phone hacking scandal.82.2.69.100 (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hurricane Katrina

This would be PERFECT for this article. Such as baby rape, gang shootings inside superdome, and exaggeration or downright false reports made by CNN/NBC/CBS/other liberal media. JONJONAUG 21:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

No -- the media correctly reported what local officials were saying. The media did not invent the horrors--it was later discovered the local mayor & police chief invented the false news. Rjensen 21

39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

But it may have exzaderated them.82.2.69.100 (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

News International phone hacking scandal

We need to add a link to the News International phone hacking scandal and Media bias in the United States!82.2.69.100 (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

If and only if you can provide reliable sources making a factual connection directly to the historical Yellow journalism. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Section title issue?

Origins: Pulitzer vs. Hearst makes it sound like this was centered around a legal battle, and yes, I realize it is traditional to abbreviate "versus" in a court case as "v." and not "vs." but I think that tidbit is lost on many readers.67.142.178.20 (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

the "vs" suggests a boxing match rather than a court case--and boxing it was indeed. Rjensen (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

That's sort of my point. If you don't know the distinction between the abbreviations and their implications (which I believe a sizable enough portion of the readers do not), the title seems to imply a court case.67.142.178.25 (talk) 07:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Formatting of first paragraph

The opening of the first paragraph seems to be using some bastardized version of the MLA citation format, rather than the Wikipedia standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.102.218 (talk) 06:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Alternate Definition of Yellow Journalism

This definition is quite different from the one I learned in my American History class in high school in the 60. Sensationalism was NOT a major part of that definition, but rather the lack of any sense of "balanced" reporting. Indeed, most larger towns had a conservative and a liberal newspaper. Those papers would debate political issues in a somewhat strident manner. The political cartoons and editorials were a forum for a vigorous debate, without the pretense of objective "fairness". Personally, I feel that such editorial policy is a positive, where editorial bias is not concealed under a cloak of selective coverage of the news to support an unrevealed, unacknowledged bias. The attacks on monopolies, the skewering of teapot dome style scandals and the political bosses and graft were more open and honest than current coverage. Anything evil happening on your side, and the loyal opposition would gleefully expose it in the most partisan terms. It is this political and ideological openness which was taught was a primary characteristic of Yellow Journalism. This is distinctly different from mere sensationalism. It's an important and valid use of free speech in a forum with unrestrained free speech.

Think of the best political cartoons ever... Weren't they a product of, or a conceptual descendant of editorial tone in the age of Yellow Journalism? In summary, the definition currently in the article looks at only the sensationalism dimension, not the political free speech dimension. The Yellow Press was a hotbed of political debate far more important than a lurid photo of a murder on the front page.

Gregscott humbird (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Yellow Journalism and Yellow Kid(s)

I published an article in 1995 --> Winchester, Mark D. (1995), "Hully Gee, It's a WAR! The Yellow Kid and the Coining of Yellow Journalism", Inks: Cartoon and Comic Art Studies 2.3: 22–37

The article contains a number of editorial cartoons related to the Yellow Kid, Hearst and Pulitzer. I have extra copies of this article's offprint if anyone is interested. My article is listed in the references on this wikipedia Yellow journalism page.

File:Sa-war-yj.jpg

Yellow Kid, Yellow Journalism and the Spanish American War

If anyone is interested in including content from the article to the page, just let me know.

Thanks,

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Emdedub (talk • contribs) 20:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Origin of the phrase

Where does the term come from? I've heard that the term comes from a 1890's comic strip character (thanks to Trivial Pursuit), but I haven't heard that anywhere else.

Professor Suman supports this claim in his lectures on the history of mass media here at UCLA. The comic in question was 'Hogan's Alley' which had a character known as the Yellow Kid. I don't know much more than that sadly. (FossaFerox 04:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC))

The Hearst-Pulitzer squabble about the Yellow Kid comic strip coincided with the Spanish American War sensationalism and what one editor called a fascination with "crime, underwear and pseudoscience"... so the "Yellow Kid papers" with the comics became "yellow journalism" to critics at the more serious newspapers. Good book: The Yellow Kids by Joyce Milton (1989), mostly about war coverage at the turn of the (previous) century but good section on the Kid too. (oops, where's that password.)

My father was a journalist and told me that the term "yellow journalism" originated from the cheap newsprint used by the downmarket papers employing yellow journalism, which went yellow much more quickly than higher grade newsprint. Does anyone have any information on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plerdsus (talk • contribs) 22:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm a complete amateur here so I'll leave it to someone more tech-savvy to incorporate this information: the word "yellow" was common slang in the 19th and early 20th centuries (and possibly earlier) for "traitorous" or "cowardly". It could be argued that the application of such a label to this kind of journalism was coloured originally by conservative notions of class loyalty (the lower classes being expected to be loyal to the upper) and national ideology which were themselves under fairly vigorous threat at the time. 14.200.158.233 (talk) 01:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I've always heard -- and, being a comic book and comic strip fan, took for granted -- that the term "yellow journalism" referred to the Yellow Kid. However, Gustave Flaubert's unfinished novel, BOUVARD ET PECUCHET (1881), published posthumously a year after his death, contains his "Dictionary of Received Ideas", a pseudo-dictionary of cliches (more or less), and under the entry "Newshounds" it says "Journalists: when you add 'yellow', this is the depth of contempt." Obviously, this was written at least a decade and a half before the Yellow Kid came along. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foopgoop (talk • contribs) 03:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Expansion?

It seems like this entire entry (or 95% of it) is about the rivalry between Joseph Pulitzer's New York World and William Randolph Hearst's New York Journal. The term certainly didn't die in 1900 when the feud died down and there should be some accounting for the term in the 20th and 21st century. Or is the lack of any further content about this topic due to people writing controversial assertions that were later deleted? 69.125.134.86 (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The Daily Mail Is Yellow Journalism

Look at the first line of the wiki article - "presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers"

This perfectly describes the Daily Mail.

If you doubt this, look at this recent collection of Daily Mail front pages - http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/category/front-pages/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.59.242.124 (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

No it does not describe the Mail, that is just your opinion. Also Mailwatch is just a biased left-wing site, it is not a reliable source. I have warned you to stop posting these edits. I will make a formal complaint because you have ignored the warnings. Christian1985 (talk) 12:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not just an opinion your right wing extremist, that NEUTRAL website, only directly uses the Daily Mail. Look at those covers, do you deny that they are actual covers of the Daily Mail? Sorry if the truth gets your panties in a bunch, but an ace is an ace and a spade is a spade. 83.59.242.124 (talk) 12:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't you speak to me like that. Mailwatch is NOT a neutral site by any means, it is a biased left-wing hatred site. I have made a complaint because you ignored my warnings. Christian1985 (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, are those actual covers of the Daily Mail? Yes or no? I am waiting for your answer.... 83.59.242.124 (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if they are actual covers, it doesn't prove anything. Mailwatch is a biased spam site unacceptable by WP guidelines, now please stop abusing me it will get you nowhere. For the record I am NOT 'her' I am 'he'. Christian1985 (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It's important to mention that "biased" DOES NOT mean "untrue". There are actually many different types of biases (a fact you may not be aware of) and this is likely an example of cherry-picking. However, given the fact that even with cherrypicking it still managed 16 Daily Mail front pages in two months (checking the first three pages of that site) that gives at least a 25% rate (I'd guess the actual rate at closer to 50% looking at how far back page 50 goes assuming the Daily Mail makes up 50% of those posts: http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/category/front-pages/page/50/) of "exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, or sensationalism" and using "eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers". This should be enough to qualify as yellow journalism. 188.221.161.189 (talk) 03:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Do we have any RS sources calling the Mail yellow? If not then it simply can't go into the article. Personally, I would be very happy to see almost all of the UK newspapers listed in this article with the Mail given pride of place at the top of the list of shame, but that is my opinion not encyclopaedic content. It can't go in. Nothing can go in unless it is supported by RS references and written in a neutral way. I know it is galling but at least we Wikipedians can sleep at night knowing that we uphold decent standards in what we publish. ;-) --DanielRigal (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree that the Daily Mail should be listed as Yellow Journalism. Not because I have any love for the Daily Mail, but because IMHO "Yellow Journalism" is an American English term. This is supported by all the category listings you can see on this talk page, such as "Mid-importance United States articles". Your logic is not necessarily wrong though. That is why I think the first line of the article (which you quote) needs to change to something like "Yellow journalism, or the yellow press, is a pejorative term used in the USA for a type of journalism that presents little or no ..." Until then, I would argue this needs Template:Globalize/US. Thoughts/objections anyone? Open4D (talk) 05:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the above but the DM is not yellow journalism full-stop, American, English or otherwise. It is a completely inappropriate label and does not describe the DM. Daily Mail does not belong in the article. Christian1985 (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree that the first sentence of this article needs to be rewritten as you suggest. The original newspapers that were vilified with the term 'yellow journalism' (specifically the Hearst and Pulitzer papers) offered what was arguably the most informative, courageous, and thought-provoking journalism of their time - which has largely been overshadowed by their provocative headlines and anti-Spain, pro-war propaganda surrounding the Spanish-American War. Corey Finnegan (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)Corey Finnegan

Hearst and World's influence on Spanish-American War

Contrary to what is stated in this article, Hearst's and Pulitzer's papers did have great influence on the outbreak of war with Spain. The clearest example of this is the publication in Hearst's Journal on February 9, 1898 (only a week before the explosion of the Maine) of a stolen letter written the Spanish Minister to the U.S., Enrique Depuy de Lome, which revealed that Spain had been negotiating in bad faith with the McKinley Administration and that its recent granting of limited 'autonomy' to Cuba was nothing more than a propaganda ruse intended to buy time to suppress the Cuban rebels. This completely discredited "the president's lone argument against the use of force in the name of humanity." Given the timing, the importance of this 'scoop' can't be underestimated, having a huge influence on Congress's view of the situation during the lead up to the war. What's more, the reports on the sinking of the Maine by the New York World's correspondent, Sylvester Scovel, built the strongest case that the Maine had been sunk by an outside explosive device. While it can't be said for certain just how influential these 2 papers were in whipping up 'war fever', their influence on events should not be underestimated.

The de Lome letter is very important. Cuban rebels got a copy and gave it to the Hearst papers--but WHICH paper they gave it to did not matter, for within hours every other daily paper in the USA reported it in big headlines. The Hearst paper was read by working class people in New York City, --that is a formula for making money but not a formula for national influence. The great majority of decision makers in Washington (or Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, etc) never read it. As for the Maine, all newspapers speculated one way or the other on the causes, but they generally agreed that the explosion itself could not necessarily be blamed on Spain. Rjensen (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2013

Could someone fix the first sentence in the second paragraph? The link doesn't follow the usual style guidelines. Thanks :) MjolnirPants (talk) 14:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: Could you be more specific? Thanks, Celestra (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. I think this is referring to the intra-article reference link Campbell (2001) in the lead. I've removed the link and also the year reference from the paragraph underneath it. --ElHef (Meep?) 02:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I know it took a while to say it, but thanks. :) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

The link to Joseph Campbell is to the wrong Joseph Campbell.

The reference looks like it's to someone who's a journalism academic, but the link is to the mythologist (who died before the document referred to was published anyway). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.16.254.44 (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2014

Hi, since this sentence is clearly drawn on my article on yellow journalism,can you cite me: this entry's sentence: "The term originated during the American Gilded Age of the late nineteenth century with the circulation battles between Joseph Pulitzer's New York World and William Randolph Hearst's New York Journal." And see the first sentence in my article: https://www.academia.edu/8114924/Yellow_Journalism_of_the_1890s_--_Encyclopedia_Entry Thx Rich Kaplan

184.189.233.120 (talk) 00:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I do not think your article was ever used in the preparation of this one, but I have now linked to it. I change the sentence in question based on the information in a Oxford English Dictionary. Rjensen (talk) 00:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rjensen. Thanks for the change. Not sure the new sentence works that well. BTW, I much admire your historical work and relied on it extensively in writing my book, Politics and the American Press. Much obliged -Rich — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.189.233.120 (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

hey thanks! Rjensen (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Examples.

We need an examples section for known YJ media outlets, Fox News is a good example but it's A/V so may not meet the requirement. News.com.au, huffington post, and a lot of News Corp websites all meet ALL the elements outlined, including using 'if it bleeds it leads' images of gore, clickbait, and making up interviews extensively (news.com.au get's caught out daily, with several of it's main authors notorious for inventing witnesses and interviews, with modern technology it's easy to check too when they're citing someone who 'commented on X about Y') and using their social network friends on Facebook, etc, and the drama they get into as 'news' ('You won't believe what this mother of six had to do to get a refund from this big chain outlet!' kind of stuff.) there's also Gawker, one of the inherently self-confessed immoral tabloid journalism hot spots that will out a gay man the same day they'll expose someone for outing a gay man for example. It's usually always gossip related stuff, identity politics, and all have an underlying element of delusional belief they're an actual journalism outlet mixed with a strong social justice agenda and overt cultural marxism / cultural relativism. But just off hand those are the biggest examples I can think of. It may even be doing the project a lateral service by encouraging media outlets to pick their game up if they were truly deluded that they weren't tabloids or yellow press media. What do you think? 121.211.33.244 (talk) 05:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

"Historians now believe..."

This line seems like "weasel language" and though it links to two sources, they are both actually just linked to the same original source.

And all a historian now can say is "I can no longer find proof this occurred despite the fact that it's been repeated & repeated & repeated over & over again." And to draw the conclusion "It was never said" from that is... inaccurate.

You see what I'm getting at here? Why are we assuming a historian in 2016 (or 2001 or 2003) now knows more about what a man said over a hundred years ago without proof to the contrary?

I understand that the opposite is also true - there isn't much truth in the current narrative based within provable fact - but then does the history not speak for itself in a way?

Perhaps a more accurate statement would be "A present day historian speculates that this may not have been said..." At least that would be something a bit closer to accurate.

Because there are also plenty of historians who do indeed "now believe" that the exchange happened [source needed]. So, who's right? (unsigned)

We use what reliable sources state - and Campbell appears to be a reliable source when he says no such telegrams have surfaced, and that Hearst denied the anecdote. I trust this works for you. Collect (talk) 01:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Collect. The anecdote occasionally appears in textbooks but i have not found any specialist in recent decades who says it's true (they say "alleged"). 1) Hearst denied it. 2) No one ever claimed to see the telegrams. 3) It's not likely Spanish censors would allow it to pass. 4) The only source was Creelman who was not in Cuba or NY at the time (he was in Europe) and could only have heard it third hand later. 5) Historians demand better evidence nowadays. 6) The story was popular in an era when historians knew and hated Hearst --not because it was factual (Remington in fact "disobeyed" and did leave Cuba) but because it gave a sense of Hearst's heavy-handed falsifications. Evan Thomas (2010). The War Lovers: Roosevelt, Lodge, Hearst, and the Rush to Empire, 1898. p. 113. Rjensen (talk) 01:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

1) I think Hearst's word should be discounted entirely. He created a massive legacy that is still in business today. In business. No business wants to be associated with a quote about how its founder started a war. There is a conflict of interest there, and Hearst himself is an unreliable witness. He was a master of spin. To think he wouldn't lie about this is folly.

2) SOMEONE must have claimed to see the telegraph, or at least pretended to. Otherwise this anecdote wouldn't even be a thing. Should we ask this person?

3) It's not likely... that a 2016 historian can truly presume to know what Spanish censors would allow to pass... Especially under the duress of war or potential for it. We don't trust what our governments say now, why would we trust what other governments said before?

4) This is a fair point, and requires examination.

5) Okay, so? Revising history based on today's contexts without proof is as silly is letting the unprovable stand.

6) 'Hate' is a strong word and once again we have a historian presuming to understand the feelings others (who aren't alive) had for another (who isn't alive)

I guess I have to buy Campbell's book now to see if there's more to it - but on the surface, if these are the arguments, they are weak at best. Revision is useful but not if it seems whimsical.

to repeat: the only source is Creelman's memoir written several years later. he was not present at the time (he was in Europe) so he relied on hear-say or rumor or anecdote. So historians look at the preponderance of the other evidence--which is zero in favor of telegrams. let me add point 7: if true what we have is Hearst ordering the artist to remain in Cuba. In fact we know that he instead left Cuba--either he disobeyed a powerful boss or there was no order given. We know why later writers WANTED to use the quote: it helps them attack Hearst for falsification. As for understanding the feelings of others, that's the line of work historians are in. don't draw images they paint the mood. Rjensen (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, he certainly knows more about the topic than I do - this is obvious and I'm not sure why the work itself was brought into the argument, or why I bothered to argue against it - it's not the point.

This point I was trying to make was that "Historians now believe..." is painting with way too broad a brush when it's really "A historian believes... " or "A historian speculates..." or broader, but still more accurate "Some historians now believe..." The way it's worded makes it sound like all historians now agree that this is likely the case, and this seems unlikely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.94.69 (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

"Historians now believe" is accurate phrasing. They work as a collective group with editors, editorial boards and reviewers working together to seek a consensus. Drafts are circulated and tested at conferences and conventions to check on the consensus. Mistakes on a matter this well known are immediately pointed out. Indeed there are some issues that do have 50-50 splits or minority views --but not in this case. Historians who have looked at the matter deny the truth of the claim--if they mention the old claim they say "allegedly". Rjensen (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Unclear phrase

"The term was coined in the mid-1890s to characterize the sensational journalism that used some yellow ink in the circulation war between Joseph Pulitzer's New York World and William Randolph Hearst's New York Journal." The bolded phrase there is... unclear. What does it even mean? That the newspapers used spot color to highlight things? Some of the other examples imply that it's a reference to the Yellow Kid, who appeared in these papers. Which is it? The article also contradicts itself, saying that Wardman coined the term, but it was possibly already in use. Magic9Ball (talk) 14:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Yellow journalism & tabloid journalism.

Yellow journalism & tabloid journalism: compare and contrast, please? I am confused by the obvious overlaps in the descriptions. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 07:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

"Yellow journalism" was also associated with broadsheets - it also includes such topics as promoting wars and the like. "Tabloid journalism" frequently includes "celebrity scandal" articles as well as "grossly overstated headline" articles. There is some overlap, but the two terms are not congruent. Collect (talk) 12:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it is unwise to merge the pages for "yellow" and "tabloid" journalism, given they are slightly different concepts. Carolinesafran (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

FOX is the Perfect Example...

Is there any wonder why it was the first 'news' station mentioned?

FOX is the epitome of Yellow Journalism. Read the first page definition of Yellow Journalism right here on WIkipedia. ""Yellow journalism" may for example refer to sensationalized news reporting that bears only a superficial resemblance to journalism." Regardless of whether or not you consider yourself conservative, liberal, progressive, or evangelical right wing nut, it is obvious that FOX is totally sensationalized pseudo-journalism. Is it really necessary to site specific examples of this? Not even the blind could miss the voices of the announcers who immediately cut off anyone who does not implicitly agree with FOX's conservative bias. Sure CNN and CBS are getting more and more the same as FOX, but that is more because they are letting the market lead their journalistic integrity down the hole along with FOX. It is sad that people would rather watch narrow minded partisan hacks rather than get the simple facts of a story and make up their minds on their own. It is as if Americans enjoy their freedom, as long as they are told exactly what they can and cannot think or do.

You shouldn't make the comment about "all" americans. many of us hate Fox new, and detest the effect on right-wingers whootherwise might be sane. Joesolo13 (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Amazing how blinkered is the left wing criticism of Fox, when corresponding hosts on MSNBC (Maddow and the former host Olberman) are every bit as strident and polarizing as O'Reilly and Hannity. Plainly criticism of media outlets holding an opposite view to the writer fails the most basic tests of neutrality. --621PWC (talk) 05:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The difference...the truth generally has a liberal bias. I'll grant you that Olbermann and O'Donnell have a huge liberal bias, but that doesn't make the facts wrong. On the other hand, Hannity, Beck, O'Reilly, etc just plain make stuff up with the knowldege that their followers won't question it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.209.12.162 (talk) 13:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

This article explaines that the world should express the featers of how the world use to be. Fox news was sued in to the News International phone hacking scandal!82.2.69.100 (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I am surprised a lot of the comments on this page single out Fox News as being sensationalist, but fail to comment on liberal mainstream media sensationalism and fake news ... suggesting the commenters themselves are biased and would have a reader believer that liberal mainstream media is fair and balanced, non-sensationalist .. talking CNN, MSNBC, NYT, Washington Post, New Yorker, Vanity Fair, etc. The editors and op-ed contributors on CNN, MSNBC, NYT and Washington Post are hardly neutral, unbiased. Perhaps also suggesting that this Wiki article is biased. Biased, slanted "yellow journalism" is but one type of fake news; in today's world of the internet, Facebook and Twitter ... forwarding and retweeting are the ultimate / epitome of fake news and yellow journalism is a sliver of history of little comparison. Sad people just do not have any other meaning in their lives. Guess 95% plus of FB forwarding and retweeting is nothing more than fake news - feeding the forwarders and retweeters own CONFIRMATION BIAS, for what ... A false feelgood of (phony) self importance ... hoping to stir up a ferver based on lies in the internet world. Just fake news from fake people with little meaningful to contribute except fake baloney ~ fake news is fake news.Danleywolfe (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Danleywolfe: We're not a discussion forum, talk pages are for article improvement. This discussion was several years dead when you replied to it; what were you hoping to accomplish besides finding false feelgood of (phony) self importance or hoping to stir up a ferver based on lies in the internet world.? Wikipedia regards mainstream sources such as (and particularly) the Washington Post and the NYT as quite reliable, and if you can't accept that you're gonna need to find a different site. Your guess that 95% plus of FB forwarding and retweeting is of no use whatsoever to the article because we stick to citing professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, not user "guesses". Ian.thomson (talk) 18:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Why isn't Fox News Mentioned?

Seriouly, why aren't they mentioned??? Dumaka (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

All major 24 hour news networks now focus on sensational stories as opposed to real news. As a recent example, note the wall-to-wall coverage of Michael Jackson's death on ALL networks for two weeks while ignoring more important stories such as health care and the massive deficit. Another example would be the day and night coverage of every blond haired girl that is kidnapped. To mention Fox without mentioning any others would just be an overt attempt to inject partisan politics into Wikipedia. MrDestructo (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

In a well developed paragraph respond to the following. After reading about yellow journalism, explain how the media may or may not influence American foreign policy? Basically, what affect can the media have on the government’s decisions? Be sure to state specific examples from the reading. You may also want to include current issues that may be affected by the media. Be very specific and write a proper well-developed paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.242.145.219 (talk) 02:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Seriously ? Someone was giving out homework... Claverhouse (talk) 09:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

History keeps repeating it self what happend during the Spanish-American war is more or less the same as Vietnam with the Gulf of Tonking incident or Iraq with WMD all being hyped up by an American media hunting for headlines. This article or a new article should focus more on the media's influence on foreign policy or vice versa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

"How do you like the Journal's war?"

The entry cites this as Hearst "claiming credit" for the war, but this source suggests this is not true: https://mediamythalert.com/2013/06/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9E29:8440:F0F1:9959:C2CE:717D (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I've requested the mentioned book from my library, it'll be a good source to add that subtle point to the article. Schazjmd (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

There's always going to be sources that contradict when it comes to history. What is amazing to me is that some historical events that were never really challenged a few decades ago, like the idea that the media plays a role in moving public opinion, almost always in the direction of war for profit, are now being denied by many historians according to this article. This article is gas lighting us in its entirety, basically saying we all just dreamed up the idea that the media at the time pushed for war and it actually helped to change public opinion. This article states that historians largely agree that news media had no effect whatsoever on people of the time. This is something that is not humanly possible to know. Zengalileo (talk) 05:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)