Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What's black and white and yellow all over?
Aberdeen American News ^ | July 25, 2008 | Art Marmorstein

Posted on 07/25/2008 11:08:37 AM PDT by jwalburg

In the late 19th century, crusading journalists helped identify and correct some of the worst problems American society faced at that time. Newspapers like The New York Times and the New York World and journals like Harper's Weekly and Cosmopolitan (a very different kind of magazine than it is today) led campaigns that exposed and helped eliminate problems ranging from the sale of patent medicines to corruption in city government.

Newspaper and magazine sales soared - and publishers knew a good thing when they saw it. If stories exposing evil sold papers - why, give the public what it wants; and more. By the 1890s, leading publishers (including, especially, William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer) turned more and more to what came to be called “yellow journalism,” lurid, flamboyant stories designed less to inform than to stir up emotion.

Well, it worked - too well. The Hearst and Pulitzer papers pushed the country into the probably needless Spanish-American War. And both papers fanned to a flame hatred of President William McKinley. One particularly vitriolic anti-McKinley diatribe in Hearst's New York Journal concluded, “If bad institutions and bad men must be got rid of only by killing, then the killing must be done.” It's no wonder that when McKinley was actually assassinated a few months later, angry crowds burned Hearst in effigy.

Unfortunately, yellow journalism of the Hearst type seems to making a big comeback in some news organizations. Particularly worrisome is the trend to “accountability journalism,” a journalistic style pushed strongly by Ron Fournier, the new head of the Associated Press Washington bureau.

In a June 2007 article, “Accountability Journalism: Liberating reporters and the truth,” Fournier describes his journalistic philosophy: “Why force the readers to read between carefully parsed lines when the facts are clear? Why not just get to the point? The president of the United States was wrong. The governor lied. The congressman broke his promise. The preacher, the CEO, the banker, the coach or whomever, failed. Don't mince words.”

Fournier cites approvingly this AP lead: “At every turn, political leaders failed Katrina's victims. They didn't strengthen the levees. They ceded the streets to marauding looters. They left dead bodies to rot or bloat. Thousands suffered or died for lack of water, food and hope.”

He likes also this: “The fatally slow response to Hurricane Katrina unleashed a wave of anger that could transform people's expectations of government, the qualities they seek in political leaders and their views of America's class and racial divides.”

Editorializing? Not at all, says Fournier, just “the conclusions of an impartial observer who understands the context that drives news events.”

Yet is this really so impartial? A much more sober analysis (published in Popular Mechanics some months after the hurricane) called the “slow response to Katrina” idea to be, in large part, a journalist-generated myth. It argued that, in actuality, local, state and national emergency workers responded amazingly quickly to the disaster, saving thousands of lives.

Unfortunately, stories of heroes and successes don't fit easily into the “accountability journalism” model. The reporter's job is to find problems and affix blame.

But isn't this exactly what a journalist should do? Isn't he supposed to be a muckraker? In part, yes. As Teddy Roosevelt noted a century ago, there's a lot of filth in the world and the man who rakes up the muck performs an invaluable and absolutely necessary service.

But, Roosevelt warned, “The man who never does anything else, who never thinks or speaks or writes, save of his feats with the muckrake, speedily becomes, not a help to society, not an incitement to good, but one of the most potent forces for evil.”

Roosevelt was right: The corrosive cynicism of journalists like Fournier may be as much a danger to American society as any of they evils they are trying to expose and correct.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Editorial; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: ap; fournier; journalism; propagandawingofdnc

1 posted on 07/25/2008 11:08:37 AM PDT by jwalburg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jwalburg

Dang - I thought the answer was going to be Obama.


2 posted on 07/25/2008 11:20:59 AM PDT by CT-Freeper (Said the frequently disappointed but ever optimistic Mets fan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalburg

Today it is not “ yellow journalism” it is “RED journalism”


3 posted on 07/25/2008 11:21:21 AM PDT by Ouderkirk (I will not vote for Obama not because he is black, but because he is RED)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalburg

The Baltimore Sun after I piss on it?


4 posted on 07/25/2008 11:28:11 AM PDT by gate2wire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CT-Freeper

I thought it was a Penguin fighting over a french fry...


5 posted on 07/25/2008 11:28:34 AM PDT by Raineygoodyear (AKA Crimmy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CT-Freeper

LOL. Me too.


6 posted on 07/25/2008 11:47:37 AM PDT by Girlene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jwalburg

Barack Obama.


7 posted on 07/25/2008 11:50:05 AM PDT by dforest (I had almost forgotten that McCain is the nominee. Too bad I was reminded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalburg
What's black and white and yellow all over?

Obama's genealogy? (was that racist?)

-PJ

8 posted on 07/25/2008 11:51:35 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (Repeal the 17th amendment -- it's the "Fairness Doctrine" for Congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalburg

“What’s black and white and yellow all over?”

Can’t answer that, but I know the answer in order;

Obama, Obama’s enemies, and Obama’s spine.


9 posted on 07/25/2008 11:56:59 AM PDT by RWB Patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalburg

10 posted on 07/25/2008 12:02:13 PM PDT by Bean Counter (Stout Hearts.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalburg

So “accountability journalism” is what they are calling blatant bias nowadays?
The papers aren’t dying, they are killing themselves.


11 posted on 07/25/2008 12:07:56 PM PDT by IrishCatholic (No local communist or socialist party chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CT-Freeper
Dang - I thought the answer was going to be Obama.

My thoughts exactly.

12 posted on 07/25/2008 12:19:16 PM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall cause you to vote against the Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic

Yes, “accountablity journalism”=blatant bias. See Fournier’s article at the link below.

http://www.poynter.org/forum/view_post.asp?id=12666


13 posted on 07/25/2008 12:20:33 PM PDT by jwalburg (I live in the 57th state.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: CT-Freeper

You beat me to the answer...good one.


14 posted on 07/25/2008 12:36:58 PM PDT by indcons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bean Counter

I’m no Obama fan, but that image is way over the top. Its the kind of stuff that FR critics will love to use against us.


15 posted on 07/25/2008 12:59:14 PM PDT by rbg81 (DRAIN THE SWAMP!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jwalburg
... One particularly vitriolic anti-McKinley diatribe in Hearst's New York Journal concluded, “If bad institutions and bad men must be got rid of only by killing, then the killing must be done.”

I would apply this standard to those in the marxist media today. If it was good enough to say about a President (who was later assassinated) then surely it's good enough to say about demons like Fournier and his ridiculously obvious propaganda machine.

16 posted on 07/25/2008 1:27:25 PM PDT by smedley64 (UHbUHmUH- The incoherent candidate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalburg
FIRST, we follow up. The AP devotes thousands of hours in Washington and the state capitals to cover legislative debates and bill signings. That makes sense; people want to know what their elected officials are doing. But too often we stop there; we forget that people want to know what their elected officials are doing for them. We have an obligation to follow up on the law that received so much attention upon passage and see what worked, what didn’t work and where legislators might go from here.

Good link, and a nice idea, but I betcha the Associated Press never even considered writing a story that said the D.C. handgun ban was a disaster.

17 posted on 07/25/2008 2:52:41 PM PDT by sig226 (Real power is not the ability to destroy an enemy. It is the willingness to do it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson