Tabloid sensationalism and the dumbing down of culture

Analyse and discuss to what extent tabloid journalism is ‘sensationalist’ in news coverage and whether it is responsible for ‘dumbing down’ culture.

Tabloid journalism has long been considered in popular culture as a medium for sensationalist reporting. But what is sensationalism in this context? And to what extent is tabloid journalism perpetuating this ideal? Sensationalism can be defined as a manner of being loud or attention grabbing. Essentially, it is to make a sensation out of something and, in the case of news coverage, to give a story more of an appeal and to make it more eye catching for the audience. Tabloid newspapers are often accused of carrying sensationalist stories or headlines - it is one of the defining stereotypes of this brand of publication. And with tabloid papers receiving daily nation-wide coverage, there remains a lingering fear that national culture is becoming ‘dumbed down’ as a result.

Perhaps tabloid journalism requires proper definition in order for it to be fully understood in this instance. Extremely popular in the UK, tabloid newspapers are synonymous with ‘junk food news’ - stories that tend to exaggerate and emphasise sensational stories, often regarding crime, and articles depicting the personal lives of celebrities, sports stars and those in the public eye. At the other end of the spectrum are broadsheet newspapers who tend to look down on the tabloid for the ‘down-market’ nature of their reporting. There is an element of sleaze when it comes to tabloid reporting - so much so that in order to avoid the potential stigma associated with smaller format papers, broadsheets (a typically larger scale size of paper) that released smaller versions of their papers labelled them as ‘compact’ to ensure that their reputation as purveyors of high standard journalism remained.

It seems there is certainly a down-market connotation when it comes to tabloid journalism. Referred to in certain circles as the ‘gutter press’, tabloid allegations about the drug use or sexual practise of certain people is always likely to be a touch defamatory. And in many cases, defamation charges brought against the papers have been successful, resulting in large cash windfalls for the aggrieved. Perhaps this is why many view tabloid reporting as sensationalist. The act of naming and shaming celebrities is hardly one of the defining principles of journalism and, whilst it can be argued that tabloids do more than simply that, it is with this brush that many newspapers are tainted.

But is sensationalism all that bad? Writer Mitchell Stephens puts forward the case that sensationalism opens the door to a new audience. In his book, The History of News, he states that sensationalism is aimed towards the lower class, as they have less need to understand heavy news stories, concerning politics, for example. Through this method the audience is encouraged to take more of an interested in the news and become further enlightened. A common ideal is that tabloid papers appeal to the lower class and that the more news-heavy broadsheet papers appeal to a higher social class. Using this theory it is easy to assume sensationalism is a tool used by tabloid writers in order to speak to their audience better and in order to convey a more interesting message.

If sensational stories pull in a greater audience then what is the problem with it? Tabloid editors will argue that the increased circulation that comes as a result outweighs the accusations that it just isn’t proper journalism. But at what cost does the increase in audience come? Is mass culture becoming dumbed down as a result?

The Metro newspaper, a free London daily, published the views of their audience on the subject of sensationalism and others areas such as celebrity culture trust in tabloids. The responses painted a vivid picture as to public opinion:

(on the subject of sensationalism)

- ‘I think they are overly sensationalistic, and are increasingly focusing on mundane trivial issues, and sensationalising every event.'

- 'I think they are overly sensationalist and very manipulative of the public opinion'

- ‘They forget how much influence they have over the public - at times they are guilty of spreading irrational fears over us e.g. the MMR virus, because of them we could have a measles epidemic - this style of reporting (in all newspapers) was irrational and irresponsible.’

- 'Don’t trust tabloids at all and broadsheets are getting worse. Cannot believe a word that is written in most papers as it's all spun for sensationalism. Papers are actually creating stories rather than reporting them.’

These rather scathing replies are indicative of the opinion that tabloid papers are too heavily focused on selling papers rather than providing good, hard news. Public distrust of newspapers is generally bad enough but the sensationalistic ideals being promoted in tabloid papers appears to be both influencing one set of readers and appalling another. When it came to the subject of dumbing down culture, the audience replies were just as critical:

- 'I'm annoyed by what I see as the increasing 'dumbed-down-ness' of newspapers, their using of slang and inappropriate language, and their sensationalist stories to gain attention.’

- 'British media falsely shapes the mindsets of the masses in way that often reflects fiction and their own political agenda opposed to actual fact. This often hinders rather than develops society as a whole.'

- ‘I'm appalled at the drivel the national tabloids spout on topics such as immigration and asylum, it amounts to thinly-veiled racism. They take glee in forming (bigoted) opinion amongst their readership and the masses whilst claiming to merely "reflect public opinion". They should stick to Page 3 and celebrity gossip and leave serious issues to the broadsheets!'

- ‘Getting my "grumpy young man" hat on, newspaper journalism is losing it's way ALMOST as badly as broadcast media. Too many column inches squandered on dumbed-down rubbish, sensationalised reporting with no factual context and the media continuing to indulge in openly narcissistic self-hype.’

So there appears to be a clear common perception that the majority of tabloid newspapers, with The Sun usually coming in for the heaviest criticism, are there simply to make newsworthy stories appear more glamorous. In essence, tabloid papers publish ‘vacuous’ news - stories that lack proper intelligence or any kind of real, investigative journalistic skill. And when tabloids do attempt to cover a issue actually deemed newsworthy, there is a definitive slant towards the sensational. When broadsheet and tabloid news stories are compared head to head, it is obvious there is a more sensationalist style of reporting in the tabloids.

In analysing stories published in both The Sun and The Times on November 21st 2009, both regarding a video released by two British hostages taken prisoner by Somalian pirates, there are unmistakable differences in the coverage between both publications. In examining the language used in the tabloid paper, it is clear that the writer is attempting to engender a sensationalist style.

In the opening paragraph of The Sun’s article, words such as ‘distraught’ and ‘hostage’ are used alongside the actual fee demanded by the captors for the couple’s safe return. The Times’ opening sentences are simple by contrast with no emotive language used and a calm statement of the bare facts. As the stories continue, The Sun dials up the emotion by employing phrases such as ‘harrowing footage’, ‘bounty’ and ‘…machine guns trained at their heads and rocket launchers.’ When put next to the broadsheet effort, The Sun’s use of language is clearly designed to have a big impact. The Times makes no attempt to scare the reader by describing the kidnappers pointing guns at the British couple’s heads as the tabloid story did. Whilst it could be argued that such facts are necessary for the story to be told, a read of The Times’ article shows that you don’t have to go for sensationalism in order to convey the facts.

Another interesting example of tabloid reporting in it’s sensationalist entirety is The Sun’s coverage of the Hillsborough football stadium tragedy. 96 people were crushed to death as overcrowded stands and police mismanagement of the crowd caused a mass stampede and one of the greatest footballing tragedies ever seen. It was commonly assumed that the failure of the police forces to properly control the crowd was the main reason for the incident and many of the national dailies ran with that as it’s angle. But The Sun, headed by the maverick Kelvin MacKenzie as editor, chose to follow up on unsubstantiated allegations that Liverpool F.C. fans were responsible for the disaster and that they had displayed appalling and grotesque behaviour during the unfolding of the tragedy.

Under the imposing headline ‘The Truth’, The Sun ran the full extent of the allegations, stating that a selection of drunken Liverpool fans violently attacked rescue workers as they tried to rescue people and that police officers and other helpers were attacked and even urinated upon. Whether the allegation were valid or not, The Sun came under intense criticism from both the city of Liverpool and the country as a whole. To this day, The Sun’s relationship with the people of Liverpool is at an all time low.

Respected journalist Roy Greenslade made light of the incident and highlighted the eccentric nature of MacKenzie the editor in an informative blog posting for The Guardian.

“The decision to publish unattributed allegations as if they were fact was made by the editor, Kelvin MacKenzie. He ignored the remonstrations of several members of staff, including the reporter who had written the story, Harry Arnold. They pointed out that there was no supporting proof of the police's claims.

The result was an immediate boycott of the Sun by the people of Merseyside. Several newsagents in Liverpool refused to stock the paper and thousands of readers cancelled their orders. That boycott continues to this day, despite MacKenzie having departed and despite subsequent editors having offered apologies. On 7 July 2004, The Sun admitted committing "the most terrible mistake in its history". It has made hardly any difference. Sun sales on Merseyside remain very low.

One of his (MacKenzie’s) prejudices was certainly a deep dislike of Liverpool, believing it to be largely populated by law-breaking, work-shy, socialist scroungers descended from the Irish (another prejudice). So the Hillsborough allegations confirmed what he always suspected about Liverpudlians. It fitted his own preconception perfectly.

The late 1980s were something of a "wild west" period for the tabloids, led by the Sun, and were the reason for the creation of the Press Complaints Commission and the drawing up of a code of ethics.”

Interestingly, Greenslade lays the creation of the Press Complaints Commission at the feet of tabloid newspapers. With the PCC being a vehicle for disgruntled readers to voice their concerns and complaints about published material that may be offensive or insensitive, it comes as no surprise that tabloid papers are held most liable to it’s rules and regulations.

MacKenzie’s insistence that the story be published is a clear result of his own prejudice and his determination to get a circulation boosting story out there. The fact that no other paper followed the same angle is satisfactory evidence that MacKenzie was acting out against the best wishes of both his staff and the evidence in front of him. It is this cavalier, brash attitude that many categorise tabloid reporters and editors in and why sensationalism remains a massive part of tabloid news coverage.

Whilst it is difficult to argue against the fact that tabloids are inherently sensationalist, there remains the issue as to whether how much this is responsible for dumbing down culture. The issue could be viewed as to the definition of whether tabloid journalism popularises or trivialises important news issues such as politics and world affairs. The example used earlier in this paper regarding differences in language of two articles covering the British couple being held hostage by Somalian pirates is a clear indication that whilst tabloid papers are prepared to tackle the hard news stories, there remains the ideal that they are perhaps ‘playing with the truth’ in a limited way. However, it is all well and good for broadsheet journalists to be believing in upmarket reporting and high standards; it means precious little in terms of circulation if the opposition are getting better audience figures.

One must consider the volume of readership for both types of paper: a study by the National Readership Survey found that between October 2008 and September 2009, there was a significantly higher number of readers for tabloid papers than there was for broadsheets. If tabloid papers are enjoying a greater spread of the readership population then it is logical to assume that they are conveying their message to a greater number than broadsheets are. Therefore, tabloid journalism has a direct affect on the opinions and beliefs of the public. Since public belief is central to the idea of culture, it can be deduced that there is a strong link between newspapers and mass culture. Also, the greater audience numbers for tabloid papers mean that when they do cover the more serious news stories, they are still being read by a vast number of people. Therefore, it would seem that tabloids are popularising hard news rather than trivialising it.

Perhaps the issue is best crystallised when analysing content in both forms of newspaper. In 2004, Peter Cole, a Journalism professor, wrote a piece in The Independent regarding the ‘skewed priorities’ of both tabloids and broadsheets.

“The saga continues. As with the war in Iraq a year ago, the Daily Mirror labels each day. In the Mirror calendar, today is "Becks sex scandal day 14". There are two universes out there, the one peopled by factions trying to drive the coalition out of Iraq and win the battle for power in the mess that would be left behind, the other occupied by the sleazy, the chancers, the manipulators, the fantasisers and the footballer. To those of us, the overwhelming majority, who have never been to Iraq, the White House or Number 10, and have never played football for Real Madrid, topped the pops or retained Max Clifford, it seems like serious unreal versus ludicrous unreal. One is serious because people get killed; one is ludicrous because its central character, the footballer, says it is.

Is it a simple either/or, a question of which sort of newspaper gives more emphasis to which story? During this past week, on my rough count, the Mirror and Sun have given about five times as much space to Becks as they have to Iraq, typically five pages a day of sleaze to a little under one page of Iraq chaos. The quality newspapers have given about six times as much space to Iraq as they have to Becks, typically three pages a day (tabloid or equivalent) of Iraq to half a page of Becks. And of course the content has been qualitatively different in the case of the Becks story, with alleged lovers kissing and telling in the red-tops while the so-called quality papers restricted themselves to such anodyne items as Posh and Becks consulting lawyers or Sky buying the TV interview with Ms Loos. The Iraq story covered the same ground in both market sectors.”

Cole’s honest and forthright assessment of the tabloid obsession with David Beckham’s love life and disregarding of the Iraq crisis paints a vivid picture as to the priorities of the ‘red-tops’ (tabloids). Whilst the broadsheet focused on the human interest stories occurring out in Iraq at the time, the tabloids chose to zero in on the private life of a sports star and dedicated many more column inches to this subject. Perhaps they knew it is what their readers wanted? After all, it would place tabloid readers in a better position knowledge-wise. Tabloid readers would be familiar inside out with the Beckham story and would have a reasonable grasp on the Iraq crisis whereas broadsheet readers, although knowledgeable over affairs in the Middle East, would remain clueless as to the ongoing scandal over England’s then football captain. But we are then forced to revisit an ongoing theme: would it really have been in the best interest of the public to be aware of every aspect of the Beckham story? Or was it just another case of tabloids dumbing down culture?

It is palpably clear that newspapers have a strong link to culture and that the opinions and angles portrayed in those column inches will more often than not directly shape the opinions of the public. If the masses are reading sensationalistic stories about general sleaze and celebrity, then they will come to view this as the norm for news coverage. And whilst tabloids may attempt to cover more serious news, there remains the feeling that they are still taking liberties with the facts and that any chance to exaggerate will be pounced upon.

In spite of this, it is harsh to assume that tabloids are the only outlet of sensationalism and are, as a result, directly responsible for the dumbing down of culture. Other reasons lie deeper in other forms of media such as reality television. Tabloid papers have obviously thought a great deal about their readership and are aware that sensationalism sells stories. And in the world of print journalism, extra circulation is never a bad thing, regardless of how it comes about.

The bottom line? Sensationalism is intrinsically linked to tabloid reporting and this isn’t likely to change anytime soon. Still, it is clear that tabloid journalism will forever carry a stigma among modern journalists and the attitude towards it is neatly summed up by Colin Sparks in the introduction to his book Tabloid Tales: Global Debates Over Media Standards: ‘The consensus among U.S. and British journalists is that tabloids and tabloidisation are a jolly bad thing.’

(University essay on Journalism, Media Communications and Culture, 2009)