Yellow
Journalism is by no means a new development in modern forms of media like the
articles Paris Wade and Ben Goldman produce for their website. In fact, the
term yellow journalism predates the internet, and goes as far back as the
1800's, during the time where people's primary news source was newspapers.
The phenomenon of yellow journalism has begun to creep up again in digital
forms of media, because of how easy it is for someone to put their work into
the open air. Any person with access to the internet can put out their views,
no matter how biased they are, and present those views as fact.
In
the case of Wade and Goldman, the pair produce content for their website LibertyWritersNews.com,
where they are given free rein to produce whatever content they see fit. In the
article by Terrence McCoy,
when asked if he would like to publish works that he believes in, Wade replies
with “In a perfect world”. This shows that the author acknowledges the fact
that the content that he is putting out isn’t being held with high standards
for him. His motivation for writing his short-sensationalized articles instead
of ones that require time and thought is “because no one would click on it, so what would be the
point?”
The goal for what Wade and Goldman isn’t
to produce content of quality, but to produce content that grabs the attention
of a specific audience and gets them to click on their articles. The more
clicks the article gets, the more money they are able to make off it. Using emboldened
headlines such as “THE TRUTH IS OUT! The Media
Doesn’t Want You To See What Hillary Did After Losing...” and “CAN’T TRUST OBAMA, Look At Sick Thing He Just Did To STAB
Trump In The Back…”, Wade and Goldman are able to capture the attention
of their niche audience and convince them to click on their articles. The more that Wade and Goldman are able to make their headlines stick out, the more likely people are going to want to click on their articles and assess the content for themselves.
While most people would see these headlines
and think that they are too outlandish for their content to be of any
substance, Wade and Goldman aren’t writing their articles for them. Their
articles are written for the people who don’t take in information with a grain
of salt and will click on the most exciting headline they see. The reason that
the people who read their articles believe so hard in them is because Wade and
Goldman know what kind of audience they are writing for and are able to
sensationalize the headlines and articles to appease them. Their true focus
group is people who don’t take the time to analyze headlines for what they
really are, which is bait to get them to click on it.
I like your academic choice of words!
ReplyDeleteGood choice of words
ReplyDeleteEverything in this article was well stated and well researched!
ReplyDeleteVery well written!
ReplyDeleteHayden,
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I like the title of your blog post; it’s on-topic and to the point. I feel that the balance of analysis of the assigned reading, as well as the tidbits of research you added into your post is appropriate and informative. The quotes you’ve included that highlight the methods and work ethic that the writers Goldman and Wade live by tell a lot about their value (or lack thereof) as news writers. I absolutely agree with what you have pointed out in your post, “the goal for what Wade and Goldman isn’t to produce content of quality, but to produce content that grabs the attention of a specific audience and gets them to click on their articles,” and as an informed reader this observation is infuriating!
Yellow Journalism is a topic that will continue to frustrate me – I wonder if you feel the same? Thank you for taking the time to do research and analysis on this topic! I think that when fake news – real fake news, not news that disagrees with peoples’ morals and beliefs – is talked about, the problem of uninformed/non-critical thinkers will begin to decline. Hopefully.
Have a wonderful week!
Sincerely,
Emma
Hayden,
ReplyDeleteGreat post! I agree with you--the goal here has nothing to do with quality journalism. It has more to do with grabbing the attention of a "rube," which makes me think of carnival hawkers trying to get attendees into the tents with the "carnival freaks." I do appreciate the fact that you qualified this--that most people don't believe everything they read on the web. But I wonder--what do we do with those who do? Those who happen to be in our families, in our classrooms, in our government? And they vote, too. Maybe what we have to decide next is, like Emma suggests, how do we get people to begin to think critically?