Yellow journalism is a form of journalism that uses emotion and exaggeration to lure in readers. It has exaggerated headlines and lurid pictures and is often based on insufficient or even incorrect facts. It began in the 1890s when newspaper publishers were competing with each other for readership. The publishers who produced the most lurid stories about crime and scandal won the readership. It was further encouraged by the sensationalist coverage of Cuba and the Spanish-American War.
What Is Yellow Journalism, And Why Did It Spread In The 1890S?
One definition of yellow journalism is journalism that is written to provoke fear, excitement, or anger in the reader. It often uses fabricated information, rumors, exaggeration, anonymous sources, and even outright lies. It’s not just that the article is inaccurate, it’s that yellow journalism prompts you to have an opinion about a situation before you’ve taken the time to evaluate the facts.
Yellow journalism worked particularly well for major metropolitan newspapers in the 1890s, which were vying for customers on busy city sidewalks. A punchy headline brought in a buyer, whether or not they read the contents. Headlines grew larger, images grew darker. Crime, sex, corruption, disaster, political scandal, and war fueled the lead. In cases where a publication could not verify a story, it relied on anonymous sources, rumors, or emotional appeals.
This is what made the style effective. It offered readers something that more traditional news publications sometimes lacked: speed, excitement, immediacy. A thoughtful dispatch from a war reporter cannot compete with a story about starving citizens, a bizarre incident, or a crooked mayor. The sensationalistic newspaper made distant events seem relevant and nearby.
The two largest newspapers in New York City, The World, published by Joseph Pulitzer, and The Journal, published by William Randolph Hearst, became the most popular of the yellow press publishers. Their circulation competition cemented yellow press as a familiar type of American newspaper. They weren’t the first to publish exaggerated, one-sided news stories, but they demonstrated that it could be lucrative when combined with the latest printing technology, low costs, widespread availability, and the demand for a growing city’s needs.
The name comes from The Yellow Kid, a comic character created by Richard F. Outcault. The Kid appeared in the comic sections of both the World and the Journal during their feud, and the term evolved to describe the entire style of bold, pushy, mass-media reporting. It was never a compliment. It was an insult, a style of reporting that valued sales over discernment.
yellow journalism had its drawbacks, too. A fast-moving paper could uncover instances of fraud or corruption, or raise awareness of a problem that was being ignored. But the speed of yellow journalism also encouraged unverified or false statements. If a yellow paper covered mistreatment in Cuba, the sentiment could be valid, but the specifics would have to be based on secondhand reports and unverifiable claims.
So what does this mean for you? What is yellow journalism, and why did it take off in the 1890s? When you encounter the term in a history class, don’t just assume it means “old-timey fake news.” Consider it a media landscape where news, entertainment, activism, and promotion were blended. It may have been based on real events, but it transformed news stories into cautionary tales, often before all the details were available.
The Newspaper War Between Joseph Pulitzer And William Randolph Hearst
This demographic of city dwellers was the perfect target audience for Joseph Pulitzer’s New York World and William Randolph Hearst’s New York Journal. Because these papers could be purchased from street hawkers rather than ordered via mail on a weekly or monthly basis, they could be bought with pocket change. This meant that the business model of the penny press was important: the more purchasers, the more profit. Each additional reader was one less reader for another paper, and therefore more ad revenue. To increase sales and ad revenue, a paper had to compete for eyeballs with other publications. The definition of yellow journalism relates to this concern with selling newspapers because Pulitzer and Hearst both used oversized headlines, cartoons/illustrations, scandals, and human interest stories to lure readers. Furthermore, the term “Yellow Journalism” is rumored to have been coined after The Yellow Kid comic, as its bright colors gave the papers of the era a distinctive and catchy moniker. Thus, yellow newspaper has become synonymous with sensationalist news since then.
Common Features Of Sensational Reporting
Common search queries for yellow journalism spanish american war are about how the images used to depict a story were used to make the story seem true before the reader had the chance to read any real evidence.
- The use of big headlines on the front page to make a statement that was speculation. – The use of emotive words like “slaughtered,” “betrayed,” “crushed,” or “avenged” rather than just describing what had happened. – A fixation with crime, sex, scandal, threats of war, and fear. – Vague use of “sources” or “witnesses.” – Illustrations of things that didn’t happen. – The most scandalous part of the story is presented without any context, disclaimers, or denials. – Sensationalized storytelling that makes a complicated situation into a simple story of good versus bad, victim and revenge.
How Sensational Newspapers Helped Push The Spanish-American War
But why does the relationship between sensational newspapers and the Spanish-American War matter? Sensational newspapers can generate a sense of public demand for policy changes, but it’s not always the reason those changes happen. The United States did not go to war with Spain simply because the newspapers said so. There were other issues, too: diplomacy, strategy, domestic politics, the condition in Cuba, Spanish imperialism, etc. However, the press certainly did make the Spanish-American War seem more relevant to Americans in the years 1895-1898.
The primary arena of the conflict was Cuba, where the Spanish fought against Cuban rebels. American newspapers saw that a story that would excite humanitarianism, violence, imperialism and patriotism would be exactly the thing. The reports said how Spain mistreated Cubans, including the reconcentration camps, where Cuban civilians starved and died. A portion of this reporting resulted from genuine concern for the well-being of Cuban civilians, while the rest was designed to stir feelings with colorful language, selective facts and preaching to attract customers and increase sales.
But there’s another way that the press helped. A yellow newspaper could take a real issue and turn it into a continuous battle cry. Americans didn’t need to understand all the nuances of the negotiations between the US and Spain to know that the bad guys were Spain, and that Cuba was the victim. Time and time again they read stories of innocent victims being harmed, of the terrible things that Spain had done, and of America’s duty to act.
In February 1898, the Maine sank and that gave this narrative a hook to cling to. Even before the final determination of the investigation, most newspapers blamed Spain. “Remember the Maine” was a slogan. The news article went from something that sounded like a question to something that sounded like an exhortation. A sober newspaper would have differentiated between what they knew and what they thought; what they could confirm, and what they needed to check out. But they didn’t. The papers made it a story of Spanish evil and American justice.
But we should not assume, of course, that Americans were merely victims of newspaper manipulators. They held views on Cuba, Spain, and expansion long before yellow journalism. Some newspapers promoted these views; others simply echoed them. Opinion was formed by humanitarianism, imperialism, economics, politics, sermons, clubs, lectures, campaigns, letters, family talk, and so on. How did the press form opinion? It created images, catchphrases, villains, etc.
I just want to say that I am mentioning the U.S. State Department and PBS because they are found in a lot of educational materials about this period (even if some books/curricula disagree with each other about their involvement). However, the most important things to understand are the historical events: Cuba’s rebellion, America’s response, the Maine, and the War. The parts that will change over time are how educational resources describe the situation today, which is why you should always go back to the texts you’re working with for the most accurate phrasing.
That is a thing worth thinking about. The press helped foment the warmongering spirit; they didn’t make it, but they limited the possible choices for a course of action. Americans weren’t compelled to enter the war, but they were urged to see neutrality as inhumane, non-intervention as a sign of cowardice, and war as something glorious.
Cuba, Spain, And The American News Market
The story of Cuba was very easy for American newspapers to latch onto since there was a very clear emotion to be gained. People were ruled over in Spain, people were rebelling against them, and many innocent civilians were caught up in this turmoil. Americans felt sympathetic to the Cuban rebels. Stories of reconcentration camps, starvation, Spanish atrocities. The issue, though, was verification. Some yellow journalism headlines would use unverified stories as fact, when in reality the better form of journalism would make clear distinctions between fact, hearsay, rumor, opinion, and allegation.
The USS Maine And The “Remember The Maine” Narrative
Following the explosion of the USS Maine in Havana harbor on February 15, 1898, which killed nearly 300 sailors, tensions heightened even further. Before all the details of the incident were revealed, Spain was frequently blamed for the tragedy, particularly by the sensationalist press. The New York World and the New York Journal vied with each other to be the first to publish the most sensational account of the sinking of the Maine, a race between Pulitzer and Hearst pulitzer and hearst which may be the most well-documented instance of sensationalism in war reporting.
Famous Examples From The Yellow Press Era
Below is a list of famous examples from this era. These articles illustrate how entertaining, reportorial and persuasive content were blended into the daily newspaper:
- The Yellow Kid was a character created by Richard F. Outcault. This character represents a significant way in which newspaper competition was played out in the mass market by using color printing, urban humor and newspaper branding.
- Both the New York World and the New York Journal used large pictures to transport the reader to far off places, at least in the reader’s mind.
- Stories about Spanish atrocities in Cuba mixed genuine suffering with rumored atrocities to convince the reader of right and wrong without first determining the facts.
- Interviews were often faked during this period of highly competitive journalism when a sensational interview could make a paper stand out from the rest.
- Stunt reporting was also popular during this era as reporters put themselves in dangerous and/or absurd positions and became part of the story themselves.
- Serial crime stories were a popular way to continue sales of the paper by utilizing cliffhangers and other attention grabbing techniques.
Was It Always False, Or Just Exaggerated?
And so, what is the best answer? The best answer is that it wasn’t always false. It sometimes described real things, real pain, real arguments. What was bad about it was the framing. It picked out facts with the intent of provoking the greatest possible reaction, then placed them under a headline designed to provoke even more reaction, along with a thrilling photo and “sources” that a reader wouldn’t be able to verify. It was possible, and likely, that a writer would start with some truth and make it become something different.
It’s worth being careful about the language we use here. Fabrication is when a newspaper makes up a fact, a scene, a quote, or an event. Exaggeration is when a newspaper magnifies or overstates something that probably actually happened. Bias is when a newspaper tells the facts from a particular ideological standpoint. Advocacy is when a newspaper pushes a specific agenda. A sensation may include one or more of those, but they’re not all the same thing.
Take Cuba, for example. There was no fabrication of Spanish behavior or Cuban suffering. But it’s easy to imagine how a journalist would emphasize some things and leave out others, or turn speculation into fact. The reader would walk away angry and feel righteous, perhaps without realizing much about the rebels, their cause, the generals, the Washington embassy, or how much the US government knew then.
These days we generally link 1890s sensationalism with tabloids. That’s a good match when you mean sensationalism as clickbait, titillation, or drama. It’s a poor match if you mean tabloid as “fictional” or sensationalism as “worthless.” A tabloid can run a real court document. A propaganda newspaper can print a real quote without explaining what it means. A Twitter post can show a real photograph, taken at the wrong event.
What a lot of people don’t realize is that the most egregious offense can be a matter of degree. If a newspaper runs one real fact, but gives it the weight of a crisis, the reader may be led to misunderstand its importance. If a newspaper repeats something until the reader believes it, a correction printed a week later won’t necessarily change the reader’s mind. If a newspaper reduces a complicated issue to a simple binary, you lose nuance.
You can evaluate a sensation by looking for parts. Look for facts that are true. Identify sources, such as eyewitnesses, official statements, enemy reports, and anonymous tips. Look for emotional content. See what background has been left out. This is better than asking if it is right or wrong. Many big stories were half-made up and half-unfair.
So, why does it matter now? It matters because the term describes a way of shaping the news, not just a type of bad news. It can rely on true information but still lead you astray.
Yellow Journalism Today: Modern Parallels And Limits
Yellow Journalism Today: Modern Parallels And Limits
As a rule of thumb, yellow journalism is often compared to clickbait: a headline that opens up a large curiosity gap and promises the reader a shocking revelation, but gives them little reason to believe it really is worth clicking on. On social media, the clickbait problem is further intensified because content is being presented to readers at the same time they are deciding what to watch. In many cases, headlines, images, or snippets of an article may become more widely shared than the actual article, if they validate a certain readers’ biases or make them feel fearful.
There are differences between the media environment of the 1890s and today. Pulitzer and Hearst was faced with a very physical situation, with papers being printed and sold on streets, and read by locals. Online, attention is mediated by platforms, search engines, algorithms, influencers, partisan video, newsletters, group chats, short form videos, etc. There is far less control per “front page”, but algorithmic amplification can produce similarly powerful results.
Yellow journalism is sometimes used to describe news which seems to be overly sensational, partisan or manipulative, but this usage should be kept in check. If every misleading tweet, article and social media post is called yellow journalism, then the word becomes too generic to mean anything, and the historical record gets blurred together. A misleading headline, a biased TV program, a viral rumor and an altered photo may all have things in common, but they are still different things.
Instead, look to the incentives. The reason why sensationalism thrives is that it attracts more engagement by being fast, dramatic, unifying and certain. A tweet which says the government is lying to you is more likely to get retweeted than one that says we don’t know what’s going on yet. A thumbnail of someone looking angry is more likely to get clicks than one which says a range of policy options are possible. A partisan TV show may build a loyal following of viewers if each new development can be spun as evidence that the other side is corrupt.
It’s in these dynamics where the modern parallels lie. Not the printing press, but the incentives. If your revenue, visibility, social capital, or political influence depend on how many people interact with your content, then there are strong reasons to inflate the importance of any given news story. You don’t even need to lie. Just change the framing from “the government has mixed readings of the data” to “the government is covering up the truth”, or from “we don’t know yet” to “the truth is something the government doesn’t want you to hear”.
This post is not immutable in its details. A company can change its policies on content, its algorithm, its labelling system, and its correction mechanisms quite quickly. Claims about the way a platform prioritises its information may be rendered obsolete within days, or even hours. Other facts, such as those concerning the New York World, the New York Journal, The Yellow Kid, Cuba, Spain, Havana Harbor, and the Spanish American War, are unlikely to change much. Still, it might be interesting to check how these assertions hold up now.
Ultimately, the takeaway is the same. The goal of sensationalism is to encourage readers to spread news quickly, without thinking hard. The best defence is not cynicism, but thoughtfulness, healthy scepticism, and critical analysis. Check the claim, review the evidence, and spot the emotional appeal.
How To Spot Modern Sensationalism
Have you come across an article that feels less informative and more designed to tug on your emotions? It may be worth wondering if you’ve encountered some yellow journalism today.
- The headline is an overgeneralization that is not supported by the content of the article.
- An unnamed person is making an outlandish allegation, with no supporting evidence.
- Important details have been left out (date, place, person, entire quote, retraction).
- The photographs are graphic and unsourced (no caption, no verification of the photo’s relevance to the piece).
- The writer is attacking a person or praising a person, and inciting anger among readers.
- There is no correction policy, author bio, masthead, or editorial guidelines page.
- The story was syndicated across numerous sites and social media, with no clear indication of its original source.
- The author is telling readers to share it, give money, or be outraged without doing any research.
How Yellow Journalism Changed Journalism Ethics
How Yellow Journalism Changed Journalism Ethics
As a negative example, Yellow Journalism served as a model against which subsequent editors, educators, and professional associations could define their own standards. That response spurred the entrenchment of norms regarding verification, sourcing, correction, and news versus opinion. These norms were not established instantly, nor have any editorial offices followed them flawlessly. Yet this period gave detractors a stark demonstration of the necessity for public confidence to require something beyond timeliness and thrill.
One major one is a greater emphasis on verification. A trustworthy news story describes what it knows, how it knows that, and what it doesn’t know. It’s fairly simple, but it’s the direct opposite of the urge to turn gossip into a storyline. In ethical reporting of a developing story, journalists should not make up parts of the story for readers to enjoy.
The other response to yellow journalism was the need to separate news from opinion. The old sensationalist front page combined fact, moral judgment, and advocacy all in one bundle. Modern media must distinguish opinion, analysis, editorials, and news reporting so the reader can tell what they’re going to get from that article. It’s never a clean split of course, since the content and the articles chosen still matter. However, there is at least a line of distinction that gives you some basis to evaluate the reporting.
Another issue that has arisen is that corrections are now seen as a litmus test of ethical standards in news organizations. The reason for doing yellow journalism is that its effects on audiences depend mostly on the initial encounter, but professional principles demand that newspapers acknowledge their mistakes. One way to judge a newspaper’s approach to corrections is by looking at the extent to which it seeks to maintain the quality of its content over time. If a newspaper changes a fact without saying anything, nobody knows what was changed. But if it publishes a correction, people can evaluate how honest the publication was.
Source norms changed, too. Anonymous sources can be necessary in some instances, but they can also be dangerous. Ethical journalism should explain the reasoning behind anonymity, rather than using nameless sources solely for dramatic effect. Reporting with “some people say” gives you very little you can fact-check. Reporting from documents, process, people, testimony, or observation gives you much more.
This is a good, practical test. Is the journalism verifiable, on the part of the reader? Is the journalism able to distinguish between fact and claim? Is the journalism able to identify its sources, if it can? Is the journalism transparent about making corrections? Is the journalism avoiding the use of images as evidence? Is the journalism clear about distinguishing opinion from fact?
These are the pillars upon which trust in journalism is built. And while sensationalism might be good for business in the short term, constant hyperbole destroys readers’ confidence in the accuracy of the news. And there are consequences beyond the individual publication or outlet: if we think all news is propaganda, it’s much easier to ignore real news stories and real warnings.
The legacy of Yellow Journalism is not only in headlines. Journalism ethics matter because words matter. They can influence markets, reputations, elections, demonstrations, even wars. The more crucial the story, the greater the discipline.
Key People, Publications, And Terms To Know
The following table provides information about key individuals, texts, icons, and incidents. These are not synonyms.
Key takeaways
Yellow journalism was focused on getting the readers attention, inciting emotion, and growing readership rather than doing research and fact checking. Yellow journalism was popularized in the 1890s by the circulation war between Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst. The most famous connection to Yellow journalism is the Spanish-American War and Cuba (USS Maine). While Yellow journalism may not be entirely fabricated, they did exaggerate, simplify, and sensationalize real stories. New York World, New York Journal, and the growth of the yellow press
Frequently asked questions
What is red journalism?
Broadly speaking, red journalism is partisan, ideological journalism, particularly when that ideology deals with radical, socialist, communist or other partisan political movements (though the exact definition depends on how it’s being used). However, red journalism in the 1890s was not as fixed a concept as the earlier one I laid out above. Make sure you understand exactly what the journalist means by the term before you assume it’s referring to some specific thing.
What is blue journalism?
Blue journalism is less well-defined. In American politics it has been occasionally used to describe liberal, Democrat, or otherwise left-leaning journalism. Since there’s no set definition of what blue journalism is historically, if you hear someone use the term, you’ll have to determine what they’re trying to convey with it. Don’t assume it’s a real term of journalism.
Who was the most famous yellow journalist?
Hearst was the best-known face of yellow journalism in the 1890s, largely because his New York Journal was one of the papers engaged in the “war” reporting and competition. However, Pulitzer was important as well, since the New York World was another paper involved in that same type of competition and reporting. Neither Hearst nor Pulitzer are particularly known for individual pieces or stories, however. Their newspapers are their primary fame.
What term best describes yellow journalism?
It’s called sensationalism; yellow journalism is journalism aimed at grabbing readers’ attention, and therefore increasing circulation, without regard to whether the story is true or covers all the facts. This involves hyperbole, scandalizing, and low-quality sourcing. In other words, yellow journalism is more than just outright lies.
How did yellow journalism affect public opinion before the Spanish-American War?
Yellow journalism drew Americans’ attention to the situation in Cuba, Spain’s policies there, and the USS Maine incident by making the stakes feel intensely personal and emphasizing Americans’ moral obligation to intervene. Yellow journalism didn’t cause the Spanish-American War in isolation; rather, it ramped up public anger, and shortened the amount of time it took the U.S. to decide that they’d put up with Spain long enough. Yellow journalism built the case for war.
Conclusion
The reason why Yellow journalism has stuck in our minds is because it shows us what happens when the purpose of producing news is to sell and excite. In the 1890s at the height of yellow journalism, this type of journalism was being created by real newspaper owners, and was dealing with real wars and their effects on public opinion, particularly with Cuba and the U.S.S. Maine. But this isn’t just a story of inaccurate reporting in the past, it’s also a story of exaggeration, missing facts, sensational titles and dramatic images being used to sway audiences. This history will help you recognise these things in modern reporting and social media without mistakenly labelling all bad journalism as yellow journalism.
