I feel like any magazine or celebrity tabloid is very similar to Yellow Journalism. There is a major headline that may not be entirely true or just a flat out lie but tabloids still publish the article to get sales. Not only is Yellow Jouralmism just for getting sales it is also for getting views, for example, but Nancy Grace, who was a former CNN news anchor who had skyrocketing views when she harshly covered a story "Who Killed Caylee Anthony". She said very bitter things about Caylee's mother and when asked if it was "Overboard" her response was still quite harsh and essentially said
definitely not.
Can you think of a news source that seems like Muckraking?
One of the major modern-day sources that seem like muckraking is Wikileaks. A muckraker is someone who exposes established institutions and leaders as corrupt. Wikileaks did this on their website, they showed the public what is really going behind the senses. They were responsible for posting multiple US military and diplomatic documents. This case is very controversial; because he did not expose a corporation, but an entire government.
Is there a qualitative difference between the two? In other words, is one inherently bad but the other useful or productive? And is there a clear line between the two?
I think this is a very opinion-based question, however for me. There is defiantly a clear line between these two techniques. I would say anyone who is not giving the full truth or flat out lying in a headline just for views or sales is considered bad. Whereas on the other hand if someone is really just trying to help society by exposing corporations that could possibly be doing harm I do not see any bad in that. So, overall Muckraking is much better than Yellow Journalism on the qualitative scale and way more useful.
Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muckraker
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny_press
https://themuckraking.weebly.com
No comments:
Post a Comment