Yellow Blogging

[geminilove]

I'm no expert in anything.

It's a fact I admit freely. I can give an opinion, even a thought-out opinion, or a fairly well (in my mind) informed opinion. But in the end, it's still only the opinion of a single person, who is self-educated and certainly unlicensed, unregistered, uncertified, and has no specialized degrees. About the only "certification" I have is the fact that I've passed the Food Handler's certification in two different states.

But opinion does not equal fact. It's a perspective and a personal conclusion, based on the information we have and formed and colored by our past experiences and prejudices. (*gasp* Yes, I admit it, no matter how much we say we don't have them, we ALL have our personal prejudices.)

How many of the moms here have degrees in microbiology? Medicine? Psychology? Psychiatry? Comparative Theology? I would imagine not many, and certainly not the majority. If we take ourselves as a representative sample of the population, I would expect perhaps 100 moms total have a Bachelor's or higher in any of the aforementioned majors.

So why do so many of us post journals or answers in the Q&A that imply we're so much more informed and "factual" than any other mom? I mean, just my opinion here, but it seems to me, your "facts" are really just your "opinion". And in my opinion, it's still only an opinion if you only base your answer on the "factual" sources that back up your opinion.

I studied journalism in high school, and at one point, even considered journalism school. My first lesson (and it seems one forgotten by both the media and the private sector) is that to report "facts", you must report *both* sides of the story, with data from multiple sources, preferably unbiased or at least of opposing bias, and without including (as much as possible) your personal slant on the situation. Instead, what we see borders on yellow journalism, and reporting of facts in a way that would make William Randolph Hearst sit up in his grave and applaud.

So what is "yellow journalism"?

According to Frank Luthor Mott, http://books.google.com/books?id=3lTybuXbGVsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=mott+%22american+journalism%22&hl=en#v=onepage&q=&f=false, it has 5 major characteristics, which I've paraphrased below:

1. scare headlines in excessively large print, often of comparatively minor news
2. lavish use of pictures, or imaginary drawings - sometimes lacking significance
3. use of faked interviews, misleading headlines, pseudo-science, and false learning from "experts"
4. full-color Sunday supplements, often with comics and trvial articles (who doesn't see these in their Sunday newspaper? It's expected anymore!)
5. ostentatious sympathy with the "underdog" or the "common man"

According to the The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition (copyright 2005), yellow journalism is: "Inflammatory, irresponsible reporting by newspapers."

While Hearst certainly contributed to the modern culture and the term yellow journalism (who remembers the phrase "Remember the Maine!" from US History class?), he was not the first (or in my opinion, the last) to engage in it. I think we can certainly see examples of yellow journalism in our every day lives. Who doesn't see magazines with taglines on the front that say... "What common household food may be KILLING your family?" or hear the words "Horrific conditions uncovered in THIS local neighborhood. Tonight on our ten o'clock report...." in an advertisement for the evening news?

And we certainly (in my opinion) see it proliferate on the Internet. Anyone who pays the fee can register a domain can get a website up and running fairly quickly. And there's no "authority" out there who verifies the accuracy of the information that they provide. (*cough*PAGESIXPEREZHILTONDRUDGEREPORTANDAHOSTOFOTHERS*cough*) Given that we've seen reports that certain "expert" advice on websites has been faked, misrepresented, taken out of context, or taken from blatantly biased sources, it's my opinion that any bozo with an agenda can spend the $20 to get a site hosted, throw up a website that has sensationalized headers, photoshop in a few pictures or just get lazy and post some pictures and lie about what they actually are, toss in some "expert" advice from non-existent "sources" that they wrote up themselves and call themselves an authority on a subject.

Blogging has made this even easier, because who needs a host? Just register an anonymous username using a free email address and you can post anything you want, capable of being read in most of the world, in the time it takes to hit the "submit" button.

But if yellow journalism was irresponsible and inflammatory, what is yellow blogging?

Is posting a journal headlined with the words "Facts About ________" or "The Truth About ________", with "facts" culled from sources who may, actually, be participating in their own yellow journalism or who certainly seem to be biased in a particular direction and only one direction, posting genuine facts and truth, or it is simply another form of yellow journalism and irresponsible reporting?

The definition of "true and unbiased" I was given when I studied journalism (a practice that was also used in my science classes) was as follows:

What are your sources? Are they biased? What is their accreditation? From where was their research derived? Do they have a motivation (financial or otherwise) to report their information in favor of a particular direction?

If your source has a bias (implicit or explicit), do you have a source of opposing bias to provide balance or possible refutation of the previous source? Have you stated the opposing views in a balanced, "fair" way?

Do you have a minimum of three sources, none of which cite the others as their "source", stating the same information as true and factual?

Is your information presented consisely - without inflammatory language or hyberbole?

If so, then your information could be considered "factual" or "truthful", to the best of the information available.

It seems, in my opinion, that a great number of blogs, here and otherwise, that may be read by potentially anyone on the planet who can access the internet (therefore an audience of well over a BILLION people conservatively), represent themselves as factual sources, when they could not reasonably pass the above tests - tests expected to be passed by a high school sophomore to report to a newspaper read by only a few hundred students.

Therefore, I will take such "reporting" as I would take the reporting on those "newspapers" that sit in the register area of my grocery store (you know the ones I mean.. the ones with pictures of the President meeting with Elvis or the aliens) - great entertainment, but nothing on which to base on my life or my choices. And fit only for lining the litter box once my fit of giggles has subsided.

[auroragold]

Aug. 28, 2009 at 2:54 PM

***standing up applauding*****

YES!  What SHE said!