Senstionalist News - The Muckrakers

Newspapers today cover world news to local sports. They have a touch of everything for everybody. Today in the digital age, not just hard paper news is published. Online articles and newspapers are published online every day. With the addition of online news sources, the game has changed. Monetization of websites has provided a huge incentive for websites to procure readers. More views directly equates to more money for newspapers, as ad revenue is generated by a per view basis. With google including targeted ads and with the ease of creating a website and hosting ads, news sites and newspapers goals have been skewed. Creating news articles solely for the thought of clicks (and money), and reporting the news differently. This type of news reporting is called sensationalist news. The news will publish shocking or exciting stories which sometimes may not be accurate or may have stretched the truth. This is not a new phenomenon.

During the presidency of Teddy Roosevelt, sensationalist media really began to emerge. Teddy became famously associated with sensationalist reporting for his nickname for it and his strong dislike for sensationalist news. Teddy Roosevelt is credited with popularizing his description for sensationalist media. He called them Muckrakers starting in 1906. He called them muckrakers comparing the mud slinging reporters to workers who shoveled manure. Teddy Roosevelt strongly believed that the muckrakers were bad news. In his famous muckraker speech (1906), Roosevelt claimed that But the man who never does anything else, who never thinks or speaks or writes, save of his feats with the muck-rake, speedily becomes, not a help to society, not an incitement to good, but one of the most potent forces of evil¨. Back then the newspapers and media were doing some good work. Scathing news articles about apalling social, economic, and political conditions helped shine the light on some of the issues in America that needed fixing. Articles such as Ida M. Tarbells roasted the Standard Oil Company, exposing some of the wrong doings and faults that big trusts and monopolies could bring. Although this is one case of doing some good, a majority of articles did more harm than good. As time progressed towards the modern age, sensationalist news evolved from what it started as.

Sensationalist news may seem harmless, but there are many instances where the news coverage of an event and how they cover it has had an extremely negative effect. A prime example of media coverage having negative effects is the media's coverage of terrorism. When a terrorist organization or an act of terrorism has been committed, the media pounces. They attempt to cover every detail and even an unassuming and unimportant piece of information can be blown out of proportion. According to Michael Jetter, a researcher at the Institute for the Study of Labour, ¨a New York Times article about a terrorist attack will produce 11% to 15% more violence. The fact is that the media's coverage creates more violence. Publicity is the goal of terrorist organizations, and with huge media coverage they can grow and spread. The media gives exactly what the terrorist organizations want. Although one could argue that the news is meant to cover stories, and that any violence resulting is not the fault of the news, the news agencies are directly responsible for sensationalist articles that they post. Many articles cover every detail of the attack and most importantly focus on the killer or terrorist doing the terrorizing. This view on the victim creates a level of infamy for the shooter or killer. This media coverage of the killer shows possible killers out there that if they commit such attrocious acts they will get attention, and they will be remembered. This sensationalist news is harmful, and many news agencies should stop the harmful practice of producing sensationalist articles about terrorism and providing so much coverage for the terrorist organization or the shooter.