The Medias Failure in Rwanda

Interview with Allan Thompson, professor of journalism at Carleton University and editor of the book The Media and the Rwanda Genocide The 1994 Rwanda genocide is undeniably one of the most atrocious events in recent history. But during the most tragic, deadly days in the small African nation in 1994, most media organizations failed to report on the events. Even worse, Rwandas own RTLM radio station actually incited people to commit mass killings. In The Media and the Rwanda Genocide, scholars, journalists, and lawyers including retired LieutenantGeneral Romo Dallaire who led the UNAMIR mission present their own perspectives on the media and the events. Allan Thompson is the editor of The Media and the Rwanda Genocide. Francis Plourde met with him during his stay in Vancouver, where he spoke about the medias responsibility in the genocide. Thompson worked for 17 years for the Toronto Star and now teaches journalism at Carleton University. He is also the founder of the Rwanda Initiative, a partnership with the National University of Rwanda. You had a long career as a journalist at the Toronto Star before taking an academic turn and focusing on Rwanda. How did you become interested in Rwanda in the first place? I was not in Rwanda in 1994. At the time, I was at the foreign affairs bureau in Ottawa for the Toronto Star. It should have been my job to go there, but I didnt. I was not engaged, the story didnt capture my attention. Since then, I think I have been trying to make amends for not having been there in 1994. I went for the first time in 1996, to report on the repatriation of Hutu refugees. Back in Canada in 1996, I made it my mission to know more about Romo Dallaire and to write about him. Youre here to promote your book The Media and the Rwanda Genocide. What are the main lessons readers should take from this book? People were made familiar with the [Rwandan] medias responsibility in the genocide through the media trial [against RTLM], but not enough attention was drawn to the role of the western media in 1994. They are part of the equation. The international community missed the most important story that year, even though there was compelling evidence of what was going on. In the US, we were covering the OJ Simpson trial and Tonia Hardings story. In South Africa, it was the end of the Apartheid. There was still a war in the Balkans. When the media left [Rwanda] in April 1994, the killings intensified immediately. In physics, theres the Heisenberg effect a theory according to which the observer influences the behavior of his subject. I believe the media can have the same impact. In 1994, by not reporting the story, the international media contributed to the inverse. The perpetrators could act with impunity. The media seem to share a great deal of the criticism

Some journalists could do a good job, but the media at large failed to make it the big story of the day. In April and early May, there was no coverage. But in April 1994, 8,000 to 10,000 people were killed every day! Later, in July, hundreds of news organizations covered what was going on in Rwanda to some degree the elections in South Africa were over then but they were covering the story of the refugees. The problem is that people think it was the story of the genocide. It wasnt. We have to go back and look more closely at the process of selecting what is news and what is not, because it was not always logical. You also say that the media misunderstood the nature of the killings in Rwanda. They portrayed it an instance of tribal warfare rather than a genocide. Whats the difference? In the news coverage, there was a sense of two ethnic groups killing each other indiscriminately. But it was a fairly organized massacre of one group by another one. Its still a massacre, but its different. Mark Doyle [the east Africa correspondent in 1993-1994 for the BBC, who wrote a chapter in Thompsons book] states that there were clear references to government-backed massacres in the first couple of days of the killings. [Doyle] was one of the first to use the word genocide, at the end of April, but he started reporting it initially as chaos and indiscriminate killings. The recognition of the genocide gave it a sense of morality. You also refer to RTLM its leaders were convicted in 2003 to explain how media failed. How can we set rules to avoid another RTLM? RTLM is probably the most extreme case of media failure. It was a radio station that was specifically created to spark the genocide. They had good music, they were different from Radio Rwanda, and they incited the population to hate the Tutsis and commit murders. Romo Dallaire was aware of the impact of RTLM, but for some reason his mission had no media capacity. Now, most of the UN missions have their own radio stations to counter the effects of these messages. Im reluctant to suggest that we regulate the media, but we have to try to build a professional media, so the extreme media are marginalized. Id rather add something than take something away; its easier and its less problematic. Carleton University created the Rwanda Initiative in 2004. Can you describe its main objectives? In 2003, I went to Rwanda as a freelancer, and I organized a conference at Carleton University. I invited someone from Rwanda [to talk about the state of journalism in Rwanda]. We agreed that we should continue to work on something after the conference. He said there werent enough teachers to teach journalism in Rwanda. Its how the Rwanda Initiative started. We sent 12 journalists and 12 journalism students last year. And we intend to do the same this year. You went to Rwanda to help train media in 2006. How was the experience? Its still fragile. The media will report about the ministers and the policies, but they wont criticize the president [Paul Kagam who was the leader of the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) in 1994] directly. Despite the self-censorship and lack of professors, though, I have hope that things can get better. There are good students, and I hope they do good journalism.

With movies being filmed and books getting published, the Rwanda genocide is getting a momentum, but the media seem less likely to point out the events in Darfur. Are we repeating the same mistakes? We have not fully absorbed the lessons from the genocide yet. At the technological level, we are in a much better position for Darfur than for Rwanda. In 1994, we didnt have a phone network, and we didnt have the Internet. But there are still the same problems. There are no journalists there, its far away, the resources for international reporting in the newsroom have decreased. There are only four or five Canadian journalists covering Africa: the Globe and Mail, CBC, CTV, Radio-Canada, and thats about it. There is no other full-time journalism devoted to Africa. How can we, as journalists, prevent another event like the Rwanda genocide? With the 24-hour news trend, its becoming harder and harder to bring an issue onto the news agenda, but I think that individual journalists have to be more influential. They have to try to make a difference themselves. They have to fight for their stories rather than being passive players.

Ref: http://www.journalismethics.ca/ Definition : yellow journalism

n. Journalism that exploits, distorts, or exaggerates the news to create sensations and attract readers.

yellow journalism
the practice of seeking out sensational news for the purpose of boosting a newspapers circulation, or, if such stories are hard to find, of trying to make comparatively innocuous news appear sensational. Also called sensationalism. yellow journalist, Yellow journalism, or the yellow press, is a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well[1] researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers. Techniques may [1] include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, or sensationalism. By extension, the term yellow journalism is used today as a pejorative to decry any journalism that treats news in an [2] unprofessional or unethical fashion. Campbell (2001) defines yellow press newspapers as having daily multi-column front-page headlines covering a variety of topics, such as sports and scandal, using bold layouts (with large illustrations and perhaps color), heavy reliance on unnamed sources, and unabashed self-promotion. The term was extensively used to describe certain major New York City newspapers about 1900 as they battled for circulation. Frank Luther Mott (1941) defines yellow journalism in terms of five characteristics : 1. scare headlines in huge print, often of minor news 2. lavish use of pictures, or imaginary drawings
[3]

3. use of faked interviews, misleading headlines, pseudoscience, and a parade of false learning from so-called experts 4. emphasis on full-color Sunday supplements, usually with comic strips 5. dramatic sympathy with the "underdog" against the system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

Yellow Journalism
Yellow journalism, in short, is biased opinion masquerading as objective fact. Moreover, the practice of yellow journalism involved sensationalism, distorted stories, and misleading images for the sole purpose of boosting newspaper sales and exciting public opinion. It was particularly indicative of two papers founded and popularized in the late 19th century- The New York World, run by Joseph Pulitzer and The New York Journal, run by William Randolph Hearst. It all started, some historians believe, with the onset of the rapid industrialization that was happening all around the world. The Industrial Revolution eventually affected the newspaper industry, allowing newspapers access to machines that could easily print thousands of papers in a single night. This is believed to have brought into play one of the most important characteristics of yellow journalism - the endless drive for circulation. And unfortunately, the publisher's greed was very often put before ethics. Although the actual practice of what would later become known as yellow journalism came into being during a more extended time period (between 1880-1890), the term was first coined based on a series of occurrences in and following the year of 1895. This was the year in which Hearst purchased the New York Journal, quickly becoming a key rival of Pulitzer's. The term was derived, through a series of peculiar circumstances, from a cartoon by the famous 19th century cartoonist, Robert Outcault called "The Yellow Kid" (seesecond from top). The cartoon was first published in The World, until Hearst hired him away to produce the strip in his newspaper. Pulitzer then hired another artist to produce the same strip in his newspaper. This comic strip happened to use a new special, non-smear yellow ink, and because of the significance of the comic strip, the term "yellow journalism" was coined by critics. Sadly though, this period of sensationalist news delivery (where the so-called yellow press routinely outsold the more honest, truthful, unbiased newspapers) does stand out as a particularly

dark era in journalistic history. The demand of the United States people for absolutely free press allowed such aforementioned newspapers, which often appealed to the shorter attention spans and interests of the lower class, to print whatever they so desired. This means that they could easily steal a headline and story directly from another paper, or simply fabricate a story to fit their particular agenda. One of the more disturbing features involved with the former practice of yellow journalism, and the period in which it was most active in is that there is no definite line between this period of yellow journalism and the period afterwards. There only exists evidence that such practices were frowned upon by the general public - by 1910, circulation had dropped off very rapidly for such papers. But regardless, does this mean that yellow journalism simply faded away, never to return? Or did it absorb itself into the very heart of our newspapers, where it will remain forever? One thing is for certain - after the late 1800s, newspapers changed drastically, and still show no sign of changing back. The modernly present newspaper appearances of catchy headlines, humorous comic strips, special interest sections, intrusive investigative reporting, et cetera serve as a constant reminder that one must always stay skeptical when examining our news sources. What is the remedy to yellow journalism? Simply double- and triple-checking one's sources and reading between the lines. If one disregards the obvious marketing that is used to hook readers, newspapers may actually prove to be reliable sources of information.
http://library.thinkquest.org/C0111500/spanamer/yellow.htm

Storys
Propaganda of the SpanishAmerican War
The Spanish-American War (AprilAugust 1898) is considered to be both a turning point in the history of propaganda and the beginning of the practice of yellow journalism. It was the first conflict in which military action was precipitated by media involvement. The war grew out of U.S. interest in a fight for revolution between the Spanish military and citizens of their Cuban colony. American newspapers fanned the flames of interest in the war by fabricating atrocities which justified intervention in a number of Spanish colonies worldwide. Several forces within the United States were pushing for a war with Spain. Their tactics were wideranging and their goal was to engage the opinion of the American people in any way possible. Men such as William Randolph Hearst, the owner of The New York Journal was involved in a circulation war with Joseph Pulitzer of the New York World and saw the conflict as a way to sell papers. Many newspapers ran articles of a sensationalist nature and sent correspondents to Cuba to cover the war. Correspondents had to evade Spanish Authorities; usually they were unable to get reliable news and relied heavily on informants for their stories. Many stories were derived from second or third hand accounts and were either elaborated, misrepresented or completely fabricated by journalists to enhance their dramatic effect. Theodore Roosevelt, who was the Assistant Secretary of the Navy at this time, wanted to use the conflict both to help heal the wounds still fresh from the American Civil War, and to increase the strength of the US Navy, while simultaneously establishing America as a presence on the world stage. Roosevelt put pressure on the United States Congress to come to the aid of the Cuban people. He emphasized Cuban weakness and femininity to justify America's military intervention.

background
The United States had long been interested in acquiring Cuba from the declining Spanish Empire. Prompted by John L. O'Sullivan, President Polk offered to buy Cuba from Spain for $100 million in 1848, but Spain declined to sell the island. O'Sullivan continued to raise money for filibustering expeditions on [ his own, eventually landing him in legal trouble.

Propaganda and the media

"Shooting Captured Insurgents", reenactment probably filmed in New Jersey.Edison films catalog description: A file of Spanish soldiers line up the Cubans against a blank wall and fire a volley. The flash of rifles and drifting smoke make a very striking picture. Duration: 0:22 at 34 frame/s.

Before the sinking of the USS Maine, one American media correspondent stationed in Cuba was quoted as saying that the American people were being greatly deceived by reporters sent to cover the revolution. According to him an overwhelming majority of the stories were obtained through third hand information often relayed by their Cuban interpreters and informants. These people were often sympathetic to the revolution and would distort the facts to shed a positive light on the revolution. Routinely small skirmishes would become large battles. Cuban oppression was depicted through inhumane treatment, torture, rape, and mass pillaging by the Spanish forces. These stories revealed heaps of dead men, women, and children left on the side of the road. Correspondents rarely bothered to confirm facts; they simply passed the stories on to their editors in the states, where they would be put into publication after further editing and misrepresentation. This type of journalism became known as yellow journalism. Yellow journalism swept the nation and its propaganda helped to precipitate military action by the United States. The United States sent troops to Cuba as well as several other Spanish colonies throughout the world.

Yellow Journalism and the Rise of American Anger: 1895-1897

Summary The atrocities General Weyler committed in Cuba were massively hyped and sensationalized in the US newspapers, then engaged in a practice known as "yellow journalism". The two kingpins of the press at the time were William R. Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer, who were embroiled in a vicious circulation war, in which Hearst even "stole" Pulitzer's most popular writers by convincing them to defect through promises of money and positions. Hearst's major publication was the New York Journal and Pulitzer's publication was the New York World. In order to grow their circulations, both men were willing to go so far as to make up stories. In response to the rumors of Weyler's abuses emerging from Cuba around 1896, Hearst sent artists to Cuba to paint and draw the atrocities, in hopes that the pictures would sell more papers. Foremost among Hearst's artists was Frederic Remington. After arriving in Cuba, Remington reported back to Hearst that the rumors were overblown. To this, Hearst famously replied, "You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war." Although Hearst's statement was egomaniacal and boastful, it was not all that far from the truth. Remington's pictures in Hearst's magazines did a great deal to arouse mass concern for Cuba in the US. Though American yellow journalism exaggerated Weyler's activities, those exaggeration were nonetheless based in some measure of fact. Realizing that Weyler had gotten out of hand in Cuba, Spain recalled him in 1897, hoping to quiet the yellow presses. Back in Spain, some citizens and legislators started discussing Cuban independence from Spain. The Spaniards in Cuba, who were afraid their property and their lives might be in danger if Cuba got independence, immediately started rioting.

http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american/spanishamerican/section2.rhtml

fter the war

Hearst placed his newspapers at the service of the Democrats during the 1900 presidential election. He later campaigned for his party's presidential nomination, but lost much of his personal prestige when

columnist Ambrose Bierce and editor Arthur Brisbane published separate columns months apart that called for the assassination of William McKinley. When McKinley was shot on September 6, 1901, the Republican press went livid, accusing Hearst of driving Leon Czolgosz to the deed. Hearst did not know of Bierce's column and claimed to have pulled Brisbane's after it ran in a first edition, but the incident [3] would haunt him for the rest of his life and all but destroyed his presidential ambitions. Pulitzer, haunted by his "yellow sins," returned the World to its crusading roots as the new century dawned. By the time of his death in 1911, the World was a widely-respected publication, and would remain a leading progressive paper until its demise in 1931.
[4]

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Yellow_journalism Bush Calls for the Mass Murder of Iranians

According to Bush, Iran is responsible for training extremist Shia factions in [Iraq] which it supplied with arms and weapons, including sophisticated roadside bombs. He referred specifically to 240mm rockets that he said had been made in Iran this year and smuggled into Iraq by Iranian agents, the Guardian reports from Reno, Nevada, where Bush read from a yet another neocon generated script, this time at the 89th annual American Legion convention. Members of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Qods Force are supplying extremist groups with funding and weapons, including sophisticated improvised explosive devices (IEDs). With the assistance of Hezbollah, they have provided training for violent forces active inside Iraq, a White House press release , released to coincide with Bush's speech, or rather script reading, would have us believe. Of course, all of this nonsense, a fact pointed out by McClatchy Newspapers back in February. Sunni Muslim insurgents remain by far the biggest threat to American troops in Iraq, despite recent U.S. claims that Iran is providing Shiite Muslim militia groups with a new type of roadside bomb, a review of American casualty reports shows, writes Drew Brown . While U.S. military officials have held briefings to publicize their concerns about the potent bombs known as explosively formed projectiles (EFPs) or penetrators, casualty reports suggest that such weapons in the hands of Shiite militias are responsible for a relatively small number of American deaths.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/ww3/iran_bush_calls_for_mass_murder_of_iranians.htm
The Casey Anthony Complex By Justin Schuster

The "Casey Anthony Complex" reveals worrying patterns of American behavior We live in an era of media sensationalism. From the courtroom to the campaign trail, inflammatory rhetoric and opinion based journalism is disguised as non-biased reporting. Fox News slogan We report. You decide. pays ironic homage to a style of reporting from days long past or perhaps that never were. The amorous courtship of media and pundits is hardly a new phenomenon; it conjures memories of the medias notorious influence just before the 1898 Spanish-American War. Today theUSS Maine conjures images not of the war but of yellow journalism offshoots of which can be seen today. Perfected by Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst, yellow journalism sensationalized stories, exhausted scandals, and captured the public with attention-grabbing headlines and pictures. One apocryphal story claims that Hearst remarked, You furnish the pictures and Ill furnish the war. With its head-turning appeal, yellow journalism, like ancient Helen of Troy, launched a thousand ships to the Cuban harbor that is. Since the days of Pulitzer and Hearst, journalists and intellectuals have debated the role of reporting. Walter Lippmann and John Dewey encapsulate the two schools of thought surrounding early modern journalism in the twentieth century. A writer unparalleled and a two-time Pulitzer Prize recipient, Lippmann represented the camp of elitism journalism. Positing that the public is not smart enough to understand complicated, political issues, he defended a model of journalism that distilled news and interpreted it for the masses. For Lippmann, the journalist was the voice and the mind of the news.

In contrast, the philosopher and American intellectual John Dewey advocated for an unbiased media. Unlike Lippmann, Dewey demonstrated a fundamental confidence in the ability of the masses to interpret news. Discussion among the populace would form a marketplace of ideas that would highlight the best ideas. Todays journalism is Lippmanns vision taken to a devastating extreme. Though Lippmann defended journalism with significant interpretive license, even he would be slightly repulsed by the status quo. Enlightened journalists have been replaced with a constant inundation of opinions. What accounts for this neo-Lippmanism? There are three factors: the 24-hour news cycle, twenty-first century technologies, and intense economic pressure on the media. CNN introduced the world to 24-hour television news coverage upon its launch in 1980. Shortly before this moment, Ted Turner presented his station by famously saying, We wont be signing off until the world ends. Well be on, and we will cover the end of the world, live, and that will be our last event. 24-hour news coverage has radically reshaped how people view the world. Its impact was first felt in the first Gulf War, and later on with the failed Ranger Task Force in Mogadishu and the atrocities in the Balkans. 24-hour news has made it such that no event goes uncovered. Moreover, the CNN effect suggests that 24-hour news significantly influences a countrys foreign policy. As discussed by Steven Livingston in his book Clarifying the

CNN Effect, 24-hour news has the power to shape, impede and accelerate a countrys foreign policy via public opinion. Whereas 24-hour news has revolutionized the viewers access with respect to time, new technology has transformed news in terms of space. Internet, and more specifically social media, has redefined a generation by creating unprecedented levels of interconnectivity. The uprisings in the Arab World demonstrate how Facebook, Twitter and YouTube can galvanize the youth, but these new technologies are also instrumental for a new era of reporting. CNNs iReport has resulted in a new trend of citizen journalism. This initiative, which solicits pictures, videos and reports from people around the world of breaking news events, is made possible largely due to social media. At the benefit of instant, first-hand news, it comes at the cost of trained and professional reporting. Finally, the news outlets are beginning to encounter financial challenges as they compete with free online sources and struggle through a recession. Pressed to sell, the medium has become electronic and the content has become streamlined. In this rapid digital age, patrons of the news have moved toward digestible information: news that is concisely presented, the significance explained and rife with opinion. As a consequence of increased competition in the digital battleground, journalism has shifted towards provocative and controversial thought pieces. In order to combat a hemorrhaging audience, mainstream media has turned towards opinion journalism as the new frontier. We see the confluence of these forces playing out in the Casey Anthony case this past year. In May of 2011, 22-year-old mother Casey Anthony was tried for the first-degree murder of her two-year-old daughter Caylee Anthony. For six weeks, the prosecution tore through the defendants troubled past, her salacious activities immediately after her childs disappearance, the gruesome details of young Caylees death and every dimension of her family history. After a trial where CNNs Headline News (HLN) achieved its most watched hour in network history with 5.205 million viewers when the verdict was read, Casey Anthony, dubbed the Tot Mom, was acquitted of all felony charges. Described by Time magazine as the social media trial of the century, this trial gave HLN its best ratings month in the channels 29-year-old history. However, in a case where the defendant was guilty until proven innocent, a national outrage exploded in the wake of the verdict, fueled by the ratings-hungry media. Standing at the vanguard of this media inquisition was HLNs Nancy Grace. Glenn Calvin of the Vancouver Sun argued that Grace almost single-handedly inflated the Anthony case from a routine local murder into a national obsession. With daily attacks against the

Tot Mom, a term she coined, Grace rivaled Anthony for national attention, affirmed by her appearance on ABCs Dancing with the Stars just three months after the verdict. While entertainment encroaching into news is disturbing, journalists rivaling their stories for media attention can be flat-out dangerous. In an era of opinion journalism, journalists have a vested interest in being right and being unique. A journalist or pundits voice has sway, and when the news breaks the proverbial fourth wall; real people are affected by ratings-driven stations. One thing differs greatly between Lippmanns vision of the news and that of today, which is that Lippmanns premise hinged upon a fundamentally enlightened reporter. Far too frequently today intellectualism loses out in the war of ratings. The medias exploitation of the Anthony trial is inherently troubling; however, what is more disturbing is the potential it has to pervert the judicial system. Regarding Anthonys acquittal, UCLA forensic psychiatrist Dr. Carole Lieberman, said, The main reason that people are reacting so strongly is that the media convicted Casey before the jury decided on the verdict. The public has been whipped up into this frenzy wanting revenge for this poor little adorable child. And because of the desire for revenge, theyve been whipped up into a lynch mob. Opinions have no place outside of their courtroom lest their influence be felt in the jury room. Although the national media can be blamed for elevating the Anthony trial to the degree that it did, partial onus of this media circus must be placed on the American public. The story featured every element that resonated with the macabre chords of a drama-fixated society: young, pretty girl, dysfunctional family, murder and mystery. Dick Wald, professor of journalism at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and a former ABC News president said, we are a society of people who look for novels in our general appreciation of life. Saying that we look for novels is putting it kindly. One woman when interviewed about the Casey Anthony verdict by Geraldo Rivera enthusiastically remarked, This is better than Jersey Shore! Lament the day the American judicial system was compared to reality television. It would be one thing if the Anthony trial generated a groundswell of attention to missing children or troubled relationships. Granted, in some states Caylees Law has gained momentum. This law would impose stricter requirements on missing persons reports. However, such efforts have been local and neglected by a disinterested media and a fickle populace. In the period following the verdict, the fixation with Casey Anthony has become unabashedly shallow, following her wardrobe, book deals and pornography offers.

This Casey Anthony Complex reveals worrying patterns of American behavior and also distorts the public understanding of the reality of the criminal justice system. Over the past decade and a half, more than sixty people have been executed per year. Though by no means should one belittle the terrible tragedy that befell Caylee Anthony, the trial of Casey Anthony is far from an accurate vignette of the American judicial system. The media attention devoted to this case is horribly misrepresentative and an affront on the American judicial system. TMZ should not be the face of criminal reporting. A pretty blond girl dies somewhere in a resort island in the Caribbean, and the whole world gets fascinated, notes Professor Wald, but you have to be blonde and pretty. It is tragic, but it sells, and the bottom line has all but consumed the media. The public is fixated with these human-interest stories to the extent that they have become a predictable mold, and the media has been capitalizing. The media will continue to tug on the heartstrings of Americans through these humaninterest stories until the cows come home. To an extent, an element of human-interest is necessary in the media to remind the viewership of the consequences of events. However, what has greatly risen in frequency in recent years has veered away from human-interest; it is the blurring of the line between entertainment and American jurisprudence. The United States is caught in a nasty positive feedback loop: Americans crave glitzy stories, and the media is all too eager to provide what the people want. Through the 24-hour news cycle, twentyfirst century technologies and economic hardship for the media, the resurgence of opinion-based journalism has perpetuated this cycle. By capitulating to public interest, the media has skewed the judicial process and jeopardized its integrity through its opinion-based sensationalism. The media has shown that it can determine elections, most clear during this campaign season in the era of the Super-PAC, and for decades politicians have had to work the media in order to win the election. However, the courtroom is no game, so leave the opinions to those twelve in the box.

http://thepolitic.org/?p=1150

n the late eighteenth century Americas New York World was owned by Joseph Pulitzer and the New York Journal was owned by Randolph Hearst. The term Yellow Journalism was first coined during the newspaper wars between these two leading newspapers. In an attempt to increase sales both these papers changed the content of their newspapers, adding more sensationalized stories and increasing the use of cartoons and drawings.

In 1896, Pulitzer published a cartoon of his own called the Yellow Kid. Yellow kid was an overnight success. Pulitzer built The New York World in to the highest circulating and most popular newspaper in New York. The mix of solid news coverage with sensationalism made for a heady mix and the citizens of New York lapped it up. Eventually Hearst managed to lure many of Pulitzers staff to his paper. Their rivalry only served to stoke the competition. The news was largely over-dramatized and altered so that it would evoke strong interest from the public. The term Yellow Kid became synonymous with sensationalized stories that discredited the stories of other papers. Somewhere along the way objectivity had been compromised. When Remington one of Hearsts reporters sent him a telegram from Cuba stating that there was not much going on there, Hearst wrote back saying you furnish the pictures and ill furnish the war. Yellow journalism is now over hundred years old. Back then it emphasized on sex, violence and crime sprinkled liberally with emotionalism, inaccuracies and exaggerations. Most journalists claim that Yellow journalism has now been replaced with informed, intelligent and unbiased reporting. They claim that the Yellow Kid is now dead. But critics beg to differ. Their views are amply supported by the news articles we see in papers these days and the news that is broadcasted to us throughout the day. It is increasingly apparent today that yellow journalism sells. Sex and violence are the most important topics after money. Television has taken it a step further. The line between news and entertainment is so distorted, one can hardly tell the difference anymore. The newspapers carry articles based on the claims of unnamed sources that are given an opportunity to express baseless allegations. Journalists seem to increasingly display motives that have nothing to do with social conscience and the disclosure of injustice. They are not aimed at uncovering the truth. They no longer carry the voice of the voiceless. The goal of journalism today is profit and record sales. Its the new face of yellow journalism-news that is tainted and smacks of unprofessionalism; news that feeds off the lives of celebrities. A good example of yellow journalism is that associated with the death of Princess Diana. To what level does one stoop??? Has the need for

sensationalism so superceded the need for truth that journalists are ready to drive the truth in to the ground??? Where does yellow journalism draw the line? Closer home, the much talked about wedding of Aishwarya Rai-one of the leading ladies of Indian cinema to Abhishek Bachchan-the countries most eligible bachelor was covered like no other. Hours on end, TV channels showed reporters contemplating the type of Mehendi that Aishwarya might choose to wear. It was hilarious, the amount of prime time television that was wasted on the speculations of who would be invited to the wedding. Surely there are more newsworthy stories. Mother Theresa and Princess Diana died on the same day. But Mother Theresas death was relegated to just a passing mention, while Princess Dianas death was glorified a thousand times over with almost all news time dedicated to it. It didnt matter that Mother Theresa was a Nobel Peace prize winner; it didnt matter that she was a renowned social worker; what mattered was the sensationalism afforded by the death of Princess Diana. The absence of truth and propriety in newspapers today, the poverty of serious interest in reporting news as is without sensationalizing it is what makes one believe that yellow journalism has not yet been done with. Its still yellow only a different shade perhaps!
http://www.shareyouressays.com/84580/essay-on-yellow-journalism

Green Is the New Yellow

On the excesses of "green" journalism.
By Jack Shafer|Posted Friday, July 6, 2007, at 4:21 PM ET
0

Yellow journalism now comes in a new color: green. Often as sensationalistic as its yellow predecessor, green journalism tends to appeal to our emotions, exploit our fears, and pander to our vanity. It places a political agenda in front of the quest for journalistic truth and in its most demagogic forms tolerates no criticism, branding all who question it as enemies of the people.
Advertisement

Not all green journalism harangues, but even the gentlest variety sermonizes, cuts logical corners, and substitutes good intentions for problem solving. For an example of creepy gentle green journalism, there's no better example than the " Slate Green Challenge," a series that Slate started publishing last fall in conjunction with TreeHugger.org. I've got no fundamental quarrel with TreeHugger. They're propagandists who are "dedicated to driving sustainability into the mainstream" and don't really pretend to be journalists. My bitch is that Slate, which ought to know better,boarded the trendy greenwagon to publish the group's flawed, if wellmeaning, guide to reducing carbon dioxide from one's "diet." Now, don't get me wrong. Carbon emissions may indeed be causing harmful climate change, and dramatic reductions by Americans may actually do some good. But in typical green journalism fashion, the feel-good TreeHugger copy gives equal emphasis to reducing your airline travel and installing an aerating shower head in your bathroom. (Carbon saving from canceling that New York to Los Angeles roundtrip: about a ton. Installing new shower head: about a thimble.) There's not much in the TreeHugger-Slate package we haven't heard a million times since the first oil embargo: Install storm windows. Insulate. Weather strip. Keep the furnace settings low and the AC settings high. Turn things off. Buy energy-efficient appliances and cars. Avoid unnecessary trips. Carpool. Don't waste. But that's not good enough for the green worshippers at TreeHugger, whose aesthetic is ascetic. The series counselsreaders to decarbonize by resisting new purchases of cotton clothesunless of the organic varietyand to seek fibers made of hemp, bamboo, ramie, linen, silk,

and lyocell (wood pulp). In greenifying Christmas, one must give up the carbon gluttony of Xmas cards, Xmas wrapping paper, Xmas trees, and electrified Xmas decorations. "If you're decorating with candles, choose the ones made from soy wax or beeswax," the article seriously advises. And, if you must eat, TreeHugger says, eat locally and organically, and avoid processed food and meat. Slate isn't the only victim of green-brain disease. The malady swept through the New York Times Magazinein May as it published a feature on the glories of an experimental solar-hydrogen house "that might very well change our lives forever." The piece read great until a less-than-worshipful letter writer caught up with the magazine two weeks later. Using hydrogen as an energy-storage medium is wasteful, A.R. Martin wrote to the magazine. "For every 100 kilowatts of electricity produced by the solar cells, only about 40 kilowatts is recovered from the hydrogen fuel cell. By contrast, as much as 80 kilowatts could be recovered from a storage battery." The entertainment press corps genuflected in Hollywood this year when the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences staged a "carbon neutral" Oscars ceremony. The academy accomplished the feat by paying the carbon-offset service TerraPass, which in turn pays landfills, foresters, and others to reduce greenhouse gases. In March, Business Weekremoved the eco-glitter of offsets with a feature, writing, "When traced to their source, these dubious offsets often encourage climate protection that would have happened regardless of the buying and selling of paper certificates. One danger of largely symbolic deals is that they may divert attention and resources from more expensive and effective measures." Equally skeptical of the carbon credits has been the Financial Times. "Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on 'carbon credit' projects that yield few if any environmental benefits," the newspaper reported in April. Another brilliant FT piece cites several academic studies to show that imported foodstuffs aren't necessarily the carbon bombs that "localvores" make them out to be. The piece speculates that the car ride back from the grocery store might be the most carbon-intensive part of a fruit, vegetable, or leg of lamb's journey from farm to pantry. Compare this with the TreeHugger catechism in Slate, which holds that "there's no question that eating locally grown foods and shopping at your farmers' market help reduce CO2 emissions by cutting down on transport." I don't mean to suggest all greenies are well-meaning dolts or propagandists. Some possess all the skepticism of their more enlightened brothers and sisters in the capitalist press. The troublemakers at the Center for Media and Democracy, for example, point to dozens of examples of "greenwashing," which they defined as the "unjustified appropriation of environmental virtue by a company, an industry, a government or even a non-government organization to sell a product, a policy" or rehabilitate an image. In the center's view, many enterprises labeled green don't deserve the name. If only a certain online magazine were so skeptical.

YELLOW JOURNALISM The negative side of mediaWe all know what is journalism .The fundamental aim of journalism is reporting n e w s a n d t o m a k e p e o p l e a w a r e a n d t o k e e p t h e m w e l l i n f o r m e d a b o u t t h e i r surroundings and real world. But there are always two sides of a coin or we can say everything holds something good or bad. So the second side of journalism isYELLOW JOURNALISM Now let me tell you what is yellow journalism is all about. Yellow journalism is thenegative side of journalism. Journalism that exploits, distorts, or exaggerates thenews to create sensations and attract readers. In a more simple language we can s a y y e l l o w j o u r n a l i s m i s n o t h i n g b u t c r e a t i n g h y p e o r m a k i n g m a s a l a n e w s t o attract readers and viewers in order to increase the TRP and to get more publicity.Sometimes yellow journalism has a very bad impact. We can see yellow journalismthrough various examples. We all know about the incident of terrorism attack onTaj hotel, Mumbai on 27 November 2008.what media was doing in this case mediawas continuously covering the whole incident and showing that news which should not be disclosed, just to increase their TRP ratings but because of this news our secret news is being transferred to the terrorist sitting at Pakistan and resulted inheavy loss of our police man and army people because due to the continue telecast of the news even terrorist were able to trace our soldiers. Although media was supposed to reveal only that news which is essential and beneficial for common people and not the news which can create more panic among common public. But media was reveling every news live on channels regarding our rescue operations,regarding strategies our soldiers adopting and about every movement and plan of o u r g o v e r n m e n t w h i c h s h o u l d n o t b e o p e n e d o r d i s c l o s e . T h i s i s n o t h i n g b u t termed as yellow journalism.W e d a i l y o p e n t e l e v i s i o n t o w a t c h n e w s w h i c h i s e s s e n t i a l f o r o u r growth and development but now a day we often see media is more i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e n e w s related to the celebrities, their affairs and their break ups. Different news channels s h o w a b o u t t h e i r p e r s o n a l l i f e m a n y t i m e s c o n t i n u o u s l y i n a day instead o