Sensationalism and It's Part in Journalism

There obviously has to be some truth to the headline, or at least an element of CYA. For instance "Corey: Allegedly Depraved and Sadistic Murderer" is acceptable. I find myself sexing up the headlines of the articles I want read. I think everyone does this to some extent. I probably should have called my fire report "Bush Ignores Plight of Innocent Mountain Fire Victims" or "Aaaaiieee! Fire Bad!"

I probably shouldn't joke about this.

"Corey Burns an Ant"

Woa, did Corey burn an ant? Holy smoke! And I just endorsed his column...

Sorry I missed this article earlier, I was out beating homeless people with a hammer. What are we all talking about?

Your commentary on sensationalism reminds me, oddly enough of an old SNL sketch with Jerry Seinfeld:

Connor Stands: Our top stories tonight: the president has been assassinated. But president of what? We'll tell you in the next half-hour. Taffy?

Taffy Davenport: Connor, it's no bark and all bite for golden retrievers and other so-called family dogs. What's causing these sweet and furry creatures to viciously attack sleeping toddlers? Stay, and we'll tell you in a minute.

Connor Stands: Also tonight: a common household item - something we all have in our homes and are probably using right now - is found to be full of lethal poison. We'll tell you what it is at the end of the hour.

There will always be some small amount of sensationalism in the professional media - editors have newspapers to sell, and tv execs have ratings to get. That said, however, genuine news shouldn't resemble a supermarket tabloid - which in some aspects, it is approaching everyday.

Now journalism really has one main goal - to get readership. Nobody does journalism without hoping it will be read, so this point is fairly stable.

While this is true to the extent that news outlets require money to exist and money comes from advertisers who and sales, if any journalist gets into the profession because they want readership they really need to leave it right now. I would say the readership angle is a side goal of journalism used to advance the main goal, which is to inform people. It's the difference between doing it because "I want people to read me" and "I can show people the things they need to see."

I personally think sensationalism has little to no place in journalism. The good reporter conveys what he/she sees and that is it. That is a reporter's job. To be the eyes for all the people who could not be there to see whatever event is being covered.

If I write an article about Corey burning an ant with a magnifying lens, and title the article "Corey - Horrific Murderer", some would say it is far too sensational. However, is the title inaccurate? Death by being burned alive is quite horrific in my mind, and killing an animal is murder, so where is the problem?

The problems are that:
1) You have to know people will assume things about your headline that are not true (in this case) and you should be trying to be as denotative as possible (I would assert that the word "Horrifying" should NEVER have a place in a headline)

2) The headline is not sufficiently descriptive of what is in the story. The purpose of headlines are to be as detailed as possible while fitting into the allotted space to give people the greatest idea of what is in your story. The headline you've described in the article could mean a ridiculous amount of things and leaving that up to the speculation of the reader is misleading.

If the primary goals of journalism was actually getting people to pay attention, neither of these would be a problem and sensationalism would be acceptable. But, as I said, the primary goal of journalism is to report. Not editorialize.

I probably should have written this response when I was either more rested or more caffeinated.

(As an aside, I kind of think it's funny that the spell checker didn't like my spelling of caffeinated, but when I clicked on it, it suggested "decaffeinated" - note that the spelling is just adding de to what I wrote - as an alternative.)

Prompt, I would answer your question in two parts:

1) As a principle, each news media should have the liberty to decide how sensational it wants to be. There are readers for every type of news, so I see no problem in a paper deciding it wants to cater for the sensationalism-seeking crowd.

2) What puts me off is inconsistency. I would never buy a sensationalist paper, and I don't like it when the non-sensationalists try to use sensationalism to attract a few more readers. If you opt for sensationalism, do it with gusto and zest; if you didn't, avoid it like the plague.