Talk:Yellow journalism

Absurd statements by "historians" being cited uncritically
This article states that historians, not mentioned by name, say in sources not listed that the newspapers at the time largely had no effect on public opinion in regards to the war. What percentage of historians exactly have this opinion? 100%? 99%? 50% 20%? It is not mentioned if there are any historians who feel otherwise. And none mentioned by name who do think so.

But let's just say for argument that 100% say so. Is it possible for a human to know whether someone living 100 years ago has his opinion influenced by what he read in a newspaper? No. But common sense says that since it is a scientific fact that today, human beings are indeed influenced by what they read and their minds do change based on what they read, that the same was true back then, even all the way back to cave paintings.

Then this article amazingly says that it was not the newspapers that swayed the opinions of the American people into war, it was the Cubans getting killed by the Spanish" that did it. How did Americans learn about the "killings?" NEWSPAPERS.

This whole article is gas lighting us to believe that media has no power to sway opinion and yellow journalism never motivated a single person to support a war, and if that is true it must be true today that no media has ever swayed the American people into war. All our wars were perfectly righteous and noble and definitely not Imperialism. Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent is apparently just a lie and it's all in our heads. Classic gas lighting. Nothing to see here.

Then the most ridiculous thing of all is that this article refers to "historians" who say yellow journalism only existed within the city limits of New York City. So I guess there is a magic Wizzard that put a spiritual protective dome over New York City so that none of the yellow journalism ever got out and so much as crossed the Hudson River into Jersey City let alone the rest of the world. This is absurd and it doesn't matter if God himself says it, yellow journalism at it's core really just means "bad journalism with impure motives." They exaggerate and choose stories that may even be true, but they pick the stories to push the narrative and agenda they want. EVERY NEWSPAPER EVER HAS DONE AND DOES DO THIS. Period. It really has a lot to do with bias. And every human is biased, even me. Journalists and historians are notoriously biased and political.

Then a study is reported on 41 newspapers papers, 36 of which eventually supported the war. But the person who did the study twisted the explanation so much that it is offered as proof that yellow journalism only existed in New York and the American people had absolutely no contact or knowledge of pro war propaganda. Yet they somehow knew about the mass killings. But according to the actual numbers, 36 out of 41 newspapers eventually were pro war. This proves the opposite of what the Wiki contributors are trying to say.

Finally, just because "historians" say something doesn't mean you turn off your critical thinking skills and just numbly accept what they say.

Now queue the rabid badgers. Zengalileo (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * the key Yellow Journalism newspapers of Hearst and Pulitzer were based in New York City and appealed to a working class audience. Policy makers (like president McKinley) did not read them or mention them in their extensive correspondence. Historians know this because they read the private letters of politicians (who are the ones who vote on wars). Historians do read a wide selection of newspapers from across the country, looking especially at editorials that discuss what national policy should be. The nation's newspapers did cover the Spanish rule in Cuba--they did not reprint the greatly exaggerated claims of Hearst and Pulitzer especially about the battleship Maine.  Rjensen (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Origin of term
I've added an explanation from the State Department's Office of the Historian to the page because it appears a much more convincing explanation than what is there. I haven't removed the paragraph about Wardman because that may well be the proximate explanation and I haven't read Campbell's somewhat older book. The Outcault story is of course repeated much further down the article.Chris55 (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * the anonymous unsourced simplified statements posted on the State Department website do not meet scholarly standards that are applied to articles in history journals. The question of Yellow Journalism has been studied in depth by historians and scholars of Journalism--Google Scholar giver 189,000 citations to scholarly journals and books to "Yellow Journalism". But it is not studied by the State Department, so we can't recommend it  as a "reliable source" regarding public opinion.  (Furthermore they never publish comments that are hostile to State Department policy).  In any case when dealing with 1898, the final decisions were made in the White House and Congress, and not in the small State Department.  Rjensen (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I almost put the word "official" in quotes in my edit comment, and it might have been more appropriate. WP doesn't require academic (i.e. peer-reviewed) standards, only a "reliable source" and I hope that you would agree at least with that. I doubt that there's any need for political correctness in regard to this historical understanding. Chris55 (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The State Department office in question handles only official communications to and from the State Department. It does not deal with the history of US newspapers--it is not official and the short passage in question  was not prepared by an expert in US journalism.  It appears to be the sort of item written by a summer intern. I do NOT consider it a "reliable" source on Yellow Journalism.  Google Scholar and other guides to scholarship do not include it for non-diplomatic issues. We have thousands of reliable sources listed at Google Scholar for "yellow journalism Spanish American war" -- see this useful list of reliable sources Rjensen (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * A better source discusses Outcault's comic, him being hired away by Hearst, Pulitzer finding a different artist to continue Hogan's Alley (the Yellow Kid comic), then says in the same paragraph: Now both newspapers had their splash of yellow, and the new style of journalism with which both of the papers were associated became known as "yellow journalism". But that's rather indirect to claim the term was because of the comic character. Schazjmd   (talk)  19:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I provided a major recent scholarly study by David M. Ball -- see summary  Rjensen (talk) 07:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC).

Further Reading cleanup
Hi @DuncanHill, have you had a chance to review WP:Further Reading? It recommends keeping these sections short and recent and in reverse chronological order. Is there a reason I'm missing why maybe we should treat this article differently or maybe wait a little bit before doing the cleanup? Superb Owl (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You removed sources that references in the article use, causing reference errors. I restored them and have now separated these out into a Sources section. Clean up all you like, but be more careful about sources. DuncanHill (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying - did not know sources could be used in Further Reading - will keep an eye out for those reference errors going forward Superb Owl (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Rjensen - heads-up that I'd like to clean-up Further Reading again (reverse chronological order, making sure all sources are notable, seeing if any can be used in the article instead) and wanted to give you a heads-up Superb Owl (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In history articles like these the old studies (pre 2010) are important--unlike scientists, historians do not prioritize recent publications. Instead we assume that classic studies get read and reread by current students. That is also the reason historians never order their bibliographies chronologically. Rjensen (talk) 01:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I see your point and still think it is more relevant to the reader to have the most recent works at the top so they can quickly find which sources can speak to the specific relevancy of the topic to the present day. Superb Owl (talk) 02:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


 * relevance to 2024 is not a criteria. And the wp:Further reading states that it is "NOT one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." Rjensen (talk) 02:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point but we still find ourselves agreeing to disagree on how to best organize these sections once again. I just do not find that a compelling reason to change the format for historical articles Superb Owl (talk) 03:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We follow the reliable published secondary sources. Those in history do not sort bibliographies by date. They sort by author. In science you have multiple authors--five ten, fifty authors.  THe "first author" means very little. The newest publication really matters in science, but not in history. (In history it takes several years to get a book published, and several years to write one.  In science the timeline is in days not years.)  In history you have usually one author and so "first author" is basic and it's best  to group by author.  Bottom line: please follow the reliable published secondary sources.  Rjensen (talk) 03:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Rjensen - it would be helpful to me if you could cite something concrete (other than the edits you just made on WP:Further reading) - I get this is your preference but, like you said, it's not policy. So I will wait to see if anyone else finds this section overwhelming (as I do) and would prefer to shorten it to between 3-5 sources that are most relevant to the subject (ie not too niche) Superb Owl (talk) 03:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ok-- try taking the student's perspective. Google scholar indexes the published secondary scholarly literature (books, articles, academic reports etc) on "Yellow Journalism." It currently [lists 14,300 books and articles here]. what we have now is a VERY small selection about one per 1000. Are you recommending one per 3000??? The point about further reading is that all across the globe university students (and advanced secondary students) use our wikipedia bibliographies to select topics to write their class reports. They do not read all the articles but pick the topic that interests them most and acquire and read the 1 or 2 or 3 appropriate articles. (They have school librarians who can help them acquire copies.)  If they start with google's 14,300 they will be hopelessly swamped. Rjensen (talk) 04:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I hadn't seen anywhere that the audience for Further reading was different than that of other sections on Wikipedia - still agree to disagree but appreciate your attempt to explain and elevate the discussion to the WP:Further reading page by making edits there Superb Owl (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * lots of academics complain about students using Wikipedia for facts, but they approve of their using bibliographies. Rjensen (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm still not sure how this is relevant - open to the idea, just not yet understanding why we are prioritizing students over the average user Superb Owl (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * here's some research suggesting Academics generally believe Wikipedia should only be used as a starting point for research, not as a primary source to cite in academic work. Let me quote one study of academics at Indiana University using wikipedia [online at https://gnovisjournal.georgetown.edu/journal/academics-views-and-uses-wikipedia/   "All the interviewees, except Jack, indicated that they use and encourage their students to use Wikipedia as a starting point in research."...  "Mark is an assistant professor of early childhood education....he thinks that Wikipedia is a great tool for students when they use it as a starting point for their research. He believes that students should refer to more traditional resources when they are writing papers. However he finds it reasonable for students to start their research in Wikipedia, since Wikipedia articles provide links to academically reputable resources....Susan uses Wikipedia as a starting point for research. She thinks that Wikipedia stimulates further questions on the subject she is reading about and provides additional resources. However she thinks that Wikipedia should not be cited in a research article....Jerry is a professor emeritus of psychology....he sometimes refers to Wikipedia and follows the links to further resources provided at the end of the article. "  Rjensen (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I am looking for discussions within this community that specifically highlight the importance of further reading being longer than usual for the purpose of helping students find sources. I much prefer to incorporate these topics into an article and let students cited from the references list instead of Further reading Superb Owl (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know why we're having this conversation here - am only going to engage on this topic on the WP:Further reading page from now on Superb Owl (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

W. Joseph Campbell
Currently, the Definitions section starts with “W. Joseph Campbell described yellow press newspapers as [...]”, which reads like Campbell is commonly known. In that case, could the name become a hyperlink to a Wikipedia article about Campbell? (Looks like that article would need to be written first, or it could be a stub). However, if Campbell isn’t well-known enough to warrant an article, perhaps the paragraph should be changed. In its current form, the section is a little confusing. —Sascha (talk) 06:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Campbell is a well-known journalism historian see http://fs2.american.edu/wjc/www/ Rjensen (talk) 07:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

new lead
I wrote a fresh lead that covers key points in the main text abou who, when, how, and why important. The old lead was pretty thin -- and had an irrelevant section of Checkbook journalism of the 21st century. That's is a different story entirely (and was not used by Pulitzer or Hearst and is not covered in the main text). Rjensen (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)