Sensationalism

Sensationalism is an editorial bias in mass media in which events and topics in the news over exaggerated.  Sensationalism can be controversial, shocking, attention grabbing, and can be published to attract readers regardless of whether the information is accurate or informative. 

Sensationalism is nothing new.  Mitchell Stephens is a Professor at New York University.  In his book “A History of News” he writes that sensationalism has been around ever since early humans began telling stories, ones that invariably focused on sex and conflict.

Journalists, however don't need to fall victim to using sensationalism in their work.  A well written title and lead can get enough attention if the event or issue is in fact significant or interesting.  I feel journalists need to build their reputations around the quality of their writing.  If they develop a good reputation based on their work then they don't have to worry about using sensationalism to grab reader's attention.

Even though Journalists don't need to use sensationalism to get readers, sensationalism is still a tool that works in getting people's attention.  We experience sensationalism everyday whether we notice it or not.  Whether it is your friend telling you about their date last night, or you find yourself telling your parents about how swamped you are with school, we all fall victim to sensationalism.  When we are telling people information it's natural to want to make it sound as exciting and interesting as possible to get the attention of our audience.  

Public Forums

A public forum is also known as a marketplace of ideas.  With modern technology and the internet it's become easier than ever to express one's opinion.  These public forums present a great opportunity for people to present their ideas and have discussions.  However people can say what ever they want, and that can mean less thinking and just simply looking to make an argument.  

Christine Chinlund of the Boston Globe states, "True, technology gives us the potential for a more open debate than ever before, and that should excite the little “d” democrat in all of us. But the new communication format, the authors warn us, already has demonstrated that the “urge to comment replaces the urge to verify.” It is often more about delivering news (and concurrent comment) than gathering it. As a result, it devalues expertise—thus, the rise of inexperienced young pseudo-expert commentators (sometimes misconstrued by viewers as being journalists) who are the rage today."

I think people get too excited about their comments before they actually think them through.  Before people comment on forums they should check their facts and use the system of verification.  If more people did this, it would provide a better environment for debate and would add more quality to the discussions.  

Chinlund says, "As if all of this were not enough to discourage public participation in the forum, one final thing might: Call it the “food fight” factor. Too many of today’s talk shows proceed on the theory that everyone likes a good fight. Polarization, not conversation, become the defining principle. We forget that the job of journalism is not just to foster an exchange of ideas, but to make that exchange a civil one in which truth is a requirement."

I think Journalists should provide a public forum, however it is out of the journalists cannot control who says what.  If I was the journalists providing the forum I would encourage people to review their comments and check their facts before posting.  

http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/article/101687/Is-Journalism-Losing-Its-Place-in-the-Boisterous-Public-Forum.aspx

The importance of verification

According to Kovach and Resentiel being neutral isn't a core principle of Journalism.  When trying to accomplish the truth and informing citizens, independence is the key, not neutrality.    

"The second implication is that this neutral voice, without a discipline of verification  is a veneer atop something hollow.  Journalists who select sources to express what is really their own point of view, and then use the neutral voice to make it seem objective, are engaged in deception.  This damages the credibility of the whole profession by making it seem unprincipled, dishonest  and biased.  This is an important caution in an age when the standards of the press are in doubt (Kovach, 83)."


One of the most important parts of journalism is verification.  Especially in this present time where the standards of the news are in doubt.  From what I've learned about the importance of verification, it is essential in today's world or journalism.  If one wants to be respected and to maintain a good reputation, verification is crucial.  Journalists not being neutral doesn't really effect my perspective of the news.  I feel that good journalists do their best to get all the facts of both sides of the story.  They verify their facts and then try to inform the public of event or issue the best that they can.  They are dedicated to bringing the citizens accurate information.  

http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/article/102544/Journalists-Must-Maintain-an-Independence-From-Those-They-Cover.aspx