Sensationalism vs. Journalism

So most of you who actually read my articles would probably notice that I idolize Jon Stewart. Which is both a good and a bad thing. Although sometimes I disagree with him on certain views (videogames specifically). During the Sunday Morning Fox News show with Chris Wallace appearance, Jon Stewart brought up a good point: the difference between sensationalism vs. journalism.

Sensationalism is the use of exciting or shocking stories or language at the expense of accuracy, in order to provoke public interest or excitement. However, sensationalism can also include adding a sense of theatricality at the expense of an informative approach, and/or the enhanced presentation of information. Sensationalism is the plague that is dominating the current journalism community. Instead of a hard truth approach that journalism should uphold and a goal to seek answers to daring questions, most of what we account as 'journalism' is merely stories with theatricality. What news networks search for are ratings, nothing more, nothing less. High ratings bring money and more advertising, low ratings equate to no money and folding. 

Journalism, in recent times, can be seen as key political tool for politics.  This is where it all goes wrong. Journalism should not be a footstep for political figures to use, rather, journalism should report to the general public what exactly these political figures are doing, and seek answers to questions the public has. Questions on platforms, future plans, and hard-hitting facts should be answered through journalism. Yet, journalism now focuses on the personal lives of politicians, overlooking what they are doing and what is needed to be informed to the public. It is Sensationalism that turns journalists into personalities and crafts the public mindset that they are one and the same.

Major news networks now only seek the stories that society wants rather than what society needs. An example of this was when Nancy Pelosi was hyped to talk about the Anthony Weiner scandal. All major news networks were there, ranging from the 'liberal' MSNBC to the 'fair and balanced, but really right-winged' Fox News were filming. As Nancy Pelosi arrived to begin her speech, cameras zoomed in. She then announced that she will not be answering any questions about the Weinergate scandal and will not discuss it at all. Instead she decided to address more important issues, such as education and the current debt issue. As soon as she said these words, the networks were turned off. CNN went back to their normal programming and Fox News just cut the live footage off. All they wanted was the ratings. The ratings that could have been given if Nancy Pelosi had decided to address the recent scandal.

In regards to the Weinergate scandal, Anthony Weiner was a pretty decent representative and posting an 'improper' link should not have been such a big deal. Okay, so he did show his male genitalia to the public. But one mistake does not have to count so much. Take a look at track record vs. mistake and this would have been a small issue. Sensationalism brought it dow, with investigative 'speculation' not investigative 'search for the truth.'


Sensationalism has also become a tool for the now-corporate news channel. To appeal to an audience, news networks generally 'pick-a-side.' Fox News with their right-wing agenda, and MSNBC with their 'liberal' agenda. Networks generally spin their stories and create a form of bias to push these agendas forward towards the viewer... to create a sense of appeal. 

This isn't what Journalism should be. Journalism wants the truth. The truth that cannot be changed by an agenda, by an individual, or by some corporate giant. What talks is what is happening, nothing else. More on this topic in the future.