Lauren Burrows

8 December 2015
Major Issues Essay- Draft 4
Sensationalism and its Effects in Todays Media
Sensationalism is one of the most prominent news values presented through our media
today. However, some in the journalism world argue that although prominent, it should not be
respected. The question has been brought up for years whether the field of journalism should
really respect this bias of storytelling as a news value when placed beside its alternatives. It has
been argued that there are ethics in journalism that are being sacrificed each time more people
read from a news source simply because pointless information being given to them is bizarre,
thus interesting, but still rather irrelevant. If we only cover crazy stories or stupid things related
to famous celebrities because theyre good click bait, we are missing the real news that affects
how our society operates. A journalists job is to relay valuable information to the public, but
sensationalism seems to aim solely to get as many clicks to a respective web pages as it is able.
In this essay, we will uncover the effects of sensationalism in todays media, both good and bad,
and translate what those effects mean for journalists and how sensationalism can be combatted
without losing influence in the media.
We will begin by dissecting sensationalism. But before we do that, we must look at what
a news value is. A news value is a value that makes a reader want to read something, makes
something worthy of being reported. Some of the biggest news values have to do with when a
story comes out (timeliness), who is involved (prominence), where it takes place (proximity),
and blood and guts, because thats always interesting (conflict). However, amongst others still

lies sensationalism. Sensationalism, or oddity, bizarreness, as some may identify it, is the
claim that crazy or wierd news is what is going to get the readers attention for that story.
Sensationalism is also defined as the style of reporting news to the public which involves use of
fear, anger, excitement and crude thrill undertaken by the media to increase the viewership,
ratings and lastly profits (Effects of). From both of these ways of viewing sensationalism in
the media, it is obvious that there are both positive and negative ways of seeing its role in our
society. In most instances, it is conceived as a negative by-product of market-driven journalism
(Nuijten). The reason for this is because many believe that the use of this type of attention
gathering is unethical for journalists to utilize. In this paper, we will be delving into more of the
ins and outs concerning sensationalism in the media, how it can be beneficial, and how it can be
harmful.
There are studies that argue that sensational news have a moral dimension, and
sometimes sensation is necessary to keep informed of a community, but other times it is
carelessly used, thus showing a side of more irresponsible journalism that only caters to itself
and not the public (Slattery). So with this, what are the good things concerning sensationalism?
There have been arguments made that sensationalism actually may be able to contribute to
society as a viable sect of journalism.
First, sensationalism helps people to be involved with whats going on. As much as
respected journalists may not want to admit it, sensationalism is the click bait that draws people
into reading a news source. It promotes reading news in general, which is what helps a society to
function better, even if at first people are reading about things that might not make any difference
in a community. Secondly, sensationalism causes people to pay attention to figureheads and
know who they are, even if the necessary news combined with the majority of it is irrelevant.

Lastly, it is argued that sensationalism is a good way to include the less literate in news and to
bring a community together because everyone is involved in reading the news, where they can
typically understand all vocabulary and literary devices because stories are simply being told.
"While there is plenty of silliness in our various tales of wantonness and crime, they do manage
to serve various important societal/cultural functions: in establishing or questioning, for example,
norms and boundaries," Stephens said (Rogers).
Sensationalism makes marketing practices easier for a news organization, so that when
important news actually comes around, it is seen more often. Emotional arousal is thought
through studies to elicit response from readers, so this is one of the main reasons sensationalism
is chosen- to directly affect the pathos of the respective audience. Appealing to a persons pathos
gets viewers emotionally invested, which means they are more personally interested in what the
journalist is writing, regardless of if its really necessary to know. (Vettehen). However, using
sensationalism does not appeal to all of the modes of rhetoric. Neither ethos nor logos are
represented very positively through sensationalism. Ethos is not displayed often because of the
lack of importance, thus typically accuracy from unfactual sources. How do you get proven and
trustworthy information for a story about a dog who dressed as Donald Trump for Halloween?
With this, logos is often misplaced because there is little factual information to present in a
sensationalist story. This makes it so that sensational news can negatively affect and discredit a
news source as irrelevant, irresponsible and untrustworthy.
Sensationalism seems to work against ethics in journalism by bypassing the normal
standards of journalism in order to gain attention. Even though most news sources both double as
a sensational as well as important news source, channels such as VICE Magazine, Elite Daily
and Buzzfeed all work to both promote helpful but also unhelpful, pointless journalism. One day

VICE can be talking about the government practices in China compared to Taiwan, and the next
about what sex positions are utilized by people with different GPAs. Why would anyone want to
read important news when all theyve seen on Facebook from that news source is sensationalist
junk? Later, when viewers go to read real news of important things going on around the world,
the sensationalism they have viewed on the same news channel before suddenly takes away the
realisticness and maturity from what is now being shown, which is supposed to be of grave
importance (Effects of). Some see sensationalism as only reporting that is merely done to
up their [news organizations] sales and grab attention (Effects of). And here lies the
problem: news is not meant to be entertaining, theatrical or based on popularity. It is meant to be
news. And this is perhaps the biggest problem people have with sensationalism in journalism.
Sensationalism is not a new topic at all. In fact, it has been around for a long time, and
some people argue that it has been around since the beginning of human communication. "I have
never found a time when there wasn't a form for the exchange of news that included
sensationalism - and this goes back to anthropological accounts of preliterate societies, when
news raced up and down the beach that a man had fallen into a rain barrel while trying to visit his
lover," claimed NYU Journalism Professor Mitchell Stephens (Rogers). But studies have also
shown us that over time, sensationalism in the media has become more and more common, and
with the expense to covering important issues in an area such as local government and education
(Hakanen & Slattery). In fact, research has shown that between 1976 and 1992, media coverage
devoted a significantly higher amount of its subject to sensationalism (Slattery). It has been
questioned whether journalism over time has become more about relevance through site views
and clicks rather than prestige and status. It seems as if over the years, people have become more

interested in seeing their page counts go up and their names in the most viewed Google list,
instead of meeting all standards and holding themselves as relevant and responsible journalism.
Since the media has become better at using sensationalism to grab viewers attentions, it
has been argued that there are other ways it influences the public agenda. Now we will take a
look at the wider societal effects of sensationalism. Some people think that sensationalism can
cause people to become separated more and more from reality. Because sensationalism has
quickly become so embedded in our news sources, it is argued that at some points it is difficult
for viewers to be able to tell factual news from inaccurate news, leaving the audience helpless for
what is really true. The public are now so used to the distorted picture that they don't know
which information is true (Effects of). People only want to care about what keeps them
entertained, but they dont want to be subjected to reading about the real problems the world is
facing. This can cause entire communities to crumble because necessities and duties are
disregarded in turn for stories about the crazy 20-year old who drank too much alcohol and went
out and stole a baseball mascots costume for the night.
Obviously, as has been discovered, sensationalism is not all negative and has a certain
role to play in todays media. One way to combat the over-sensationalized present-day media,
however, may be to simply tone down its exposure. As we saw from Hakanen and Slattery, it
may be beneficial to only cover sensational news when it means that community members will
be gaining valuable information from it. Ethics must also be applied to pay attention to how a
story is getting its attention and what this means for the society, rather than just the paychecks of
the news sources.
However, and luckily because of its few advantages in society we have discussed, it is
foreseen that sensationalism will never truly die, because humans are attracted to telling and

reading stories concerning strange, fun plots. Sensationalism is unavoidable in news - because
we humans are wired, probably for reasons of natural selection, to be alert to sensations,
particularly those involving sex and violence," Stephens said (Rogers). It looks like whatever
side one leans on in their opinion of sensationalism and its effects in todays media, journalism
must learn to look at sensationalism in a more positive view and respect it as a valid news value.
It would most likely also help the field, as well, to continue the effort of keeping it as toneddown as possible as to not reap the consequences of its harmful qualities and to keep the field of
journalism as streamline in reporting as possible.

Works Cited

"Effects of Media Sensationalism." Buzzle. Buzzle.com, 27 July 2011. Web. 16 Nov. 2015.
Nuijten, Koos & Peeters, Allerd & Hendrix Vettehen, Paul. Explaining Effects of
Sensationalism on Liking of Television News Stories: The Role of Emotional Arousal
Journal Title 5.3 (2001): 56-99.
Rogers, Tony. "Jon Stewart Blasts Sensationalism in the News Media, but Is It Really So Bad?"
About.com News & Issues. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Nov. 2015.
Slattery, Karen L., and Ernest A. Hakanen. "Trend: Sensationalism versus Public Affairs Content
of Local TV News: Pennsylvania Revisited."Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic
Media 38.2 (1994): 205-16. Web. 16 Nov. 2015.
Slattery, Karen L. Sensationalism Versus News of the Moral Life: Making the Distinction.
Vettehen, Paul Hendriks, Koos Nuijten, and Johannes Beentjes. "News in an Age of
Competition: The Case of Sensationalism in Dutch Television News, 19952001."
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 49.3 (2005): 282-95. Web. 16 Nov. 2015.