Episode 9 - The one about yellow journalism

meant. But I wanted to get some quasi facts at least. So I did Google it. So some of the information I'm giving you, I googled to find. But you may be wondering, what is something from back then have to do with my life today? The answer is, because it still goes on. In fact, it may be more rampant today than it has ever been in the history of journalism in the United States. Now, what you'll hear it referred to these days is fake news, which is, I think, a much nicer term. And we hear

that all the time. And we take it is Oh, you just don't want me to believe that information because it's pro this or con that. But yellow journalism to give you a quick background. It began because of a feud between William Randolph Hearst, who owned the New York journal. And Joseph Pulitzer, who owned the New York world, these growth newspaper publications at the time, and these two rich guys got into a, for lack of a better word pissing contest over who was going to have the highest

circulation. So what they started doing, were doing sensationalize versions of the news to drive up their circulation. And in addition, they would include Sunday comics, in full color, and it was pure Blitzer, who began running a comic with the little yellow kid as a kid in this odd yellow nightgown. And then Hearst stole Pulitzers cartoonist and started running

his own cartoon. And up that Pulitzer, had a new cartoonist come in and have to the yellow kids, so people started referring to it as the ones with the yellow kits. And at any rate, so there were other publications at the time that were more respected. That would be more serious business people went to to get news for their financial decisions, and that the like, and these publications both did do some serious reporting. But we'll look at those a gentleman Frank Luther

Mott, he was a journalist. He won the Pulitzer Prize for history in 1939. And he identified the five characteristics of yellow journalism. The first one was scare headlines in huge print often have a minor news. Boy, we don't see that every day doing big ol headlines in your newsfeed. Oh my God, this oh my god, that and then you read on and you find more information.

And it's not really as big of a thing as they tried to make you think it was or those misleading ones, about entertainers and other public figures where the headline is something ominous about them. And then you start reading the article and you realize that they stretched the definition of their tagline almost to the point of breaking it, the story does not at all, tie in to the headline. Or sometimes they never even get to the point of the headline, they just start yammering on about

whatever they wanted to say. So the second one is lavish use of pictures. Boy, I don't even have to talk about that one, because it's all they do now, right? They follow people around and they take with a digital camera and one click and they've got 500 photos, and then they scroll through them, scroll through them, scrub them until they find that one, where you happen to have an expression that matches the narrative that they're going

to put in the headline. And let me tell you folks, you could do this to anybody. You could be in the yard playing with your kids having a great time and if somebody snapped enough photos of you You and started freeze framing through them, they could find one, if taken out of context could be anything they want it to be. And then we read it and we believe it. The third one is use of fake interviews, misleading headlines, pseudoscience, and a parade of false learning from so

called experts. Well, if we haven't seen that in the last year and a half with COVID-19, I mean, just to be able to be part of the conversation to get clicks, to get circulation in its modern day form, which means getting advertisers on their

newsfeeds. That's all they've done, they've plucked every scientist and Professor out of every university that they can find they've pulled retired people from pharmaceutical, anything they can to be part of the conversation without regard of whether or not they were conveying new information or accurate information to us. Even in dangerous times like that, they did not care if they were giving us accurate information or just the opinion of someone who happens to be sort of

associated with the field. The fourth one use of Sunday supplements, usually with Sunday comics. I don't think I think the modern day version of that is when you're trying to read an article and ads are clipping up everywhere and popping up and you can't get rid of them. Or there's a huge separation between sections of the article where there's photo ads that they're hoping you'll click on and it'll take you away from the article is to get paid for these

clicks. Five dramatic empathy for the underdog against the system. This is another one we've seen during the riots during all the upheavals, tearing down statues and everything else. That's all we saw, were these media outlets, banging the drum, pro this pro this. So all of this was done to boost sales and excite public opinion. And that's the same reason it's being done today.

But we are dealing with it coming at us to the 100th power compared to what Mr. Hurst and Mr. Pulitzer were doing back in the late 1800s. And it does affect our mental health, it does affect our happiness. It affects our relationship, because all of these things have heavily divided our country. Divided families divided friends. People have drawn such hard lines in the more overdrive these types of news feeds get into, the more it goes on, the more it perpetuates, and the

worse it gets. And I'm going to give you a little example. That might make a bit more sense. There was in the last few weeks, someone illegally obtained tax returns of some high profile one percenter billionaires I know Jeff Bezos was one of them. I think Warren Buffett was another and I can't recall who whom else was mentioned, but with Jeff Bezos recently going on his spaceflight. It reared its ugly head again in the last few days.

But the headlines were Jeff Bezos, the billionaire makes this much money, how many billion per year and he doesn't pay tax. And Warren Buffett, the oracle of Omaha, he doesn't pay tax. It's pretty ominous sounding, isn't it? Well, first of all, that headline is wrong, because I'm not a tax authority. But I am an accountant. And I can tell you that it is called income tax. And the reason that they don't pay income tax is that they did not have earned

income. You're taxed on earnings, W to earnings, or your share of profits from a business that you're involved in. If you don't reinvest them in the company. We pay taxes on capital gains. But only when we actually for instance, in a stock when we sell that stock, and if it's increased in value from $100 to $1,000 $900 of that is taxed as a capital gain since of irmin.

The reason it's not taxed until it's sold is because Okay, I'm paying my taxes today but it tomorrow morning When the bell rings that stock can tank and then I'd have to file another return and filed cash. Lawson it would just be confusing, you have not the term is you have not realized the gain until you dispose of the asset. And that's perfectly fair and acceptable. But let's talk about that for a second. And this isn't about me defending

billionaires. This is about me defending what's right and what's wrong. These articles were written using information that was illegally obtained. That's strike one, if you think that these people don't deserve that privacy because of how rich they are. Keep in mind that that same protection applies to you that someone can't just go in and get your tax returns, and discuss them in the neighborhood. So I I'd be pro

that one if I were you. So you're taking legally obtained information, which wouldn't even be admissible in court, by the way, but at any rate, I'm not a lawyer is thought I'd mentioned that. And you're spreading lies about these people. So I'll take a brief moment explain to you exactly what it is they do. Most of their money is tied up in Jeff Bezos case, the stocks that he owns in Amazon, and how they have appreciated in value. Well, he doesn't want to sell his

stocks. And what he does, one because he doesn't want to lose his holding in the company, but to envira his account, and I would recommend the same thing, don't don't deplete your assets, they could continue to grow at a greater pace than money you could borrow. So, go take a loan against the value of those assets and live off the loan. And that's exactly what they do.

And Warren Buffett's case, most of his money is in his investments in his holdings, maybe not in companies that he actually has ownership in, but in investments, just like you or I would have in a 401k. And he does the same thing. It's the same thing I would advise you to do if you are in that position. If you can borrow at a lower interest rate than you are gaining on an investment, it only makes sense to borrow

instead. You know, years ago that used to give people the advice because mortgage interest was lower than most other loans. So people would take equity loans, and they would pay off higher interest debt. I mean, it's all the same thing. They're just doing it at a different level. And so therefore, if you took out that equity loan, you wouldn't be taxed on that 25,000 $50,000 as if it was income to you, well, Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffett are doing the

same thing. They're just borrowing 100 million 500 million against their billions and assets. And again, it's not taxed because it is earned income. It isn't earned income, I'm sorry. So here we all are wringing our hands and fretting over the fact that the big bad billionaire isn't even paying taxes. That's what the supposedly reputable news outlets are telling you. In some of them in the body of the story, they do go on and somewhat explain what I just

said. But they certainly don't make that clear at the onset. And many people don't look much beyond that headline. I've been in conversations many times with people where they bring up the story. And they just read the headline, and maybe the first couple of sentences, and that's that. So you're damaging people's names. And at their level, I'm sure they don't really much care. But what about

at a lower level? You know, something on Facebook, that you put out there, you make a comment about somebody I mean, we just need to think about these things plus the amount of stress that it adds to our lives to read nothing but this sensationalized yellow journalism. So again, my common theme thinking outside of the box when you read these things, think about what's being said to

you, assess the article. Compare the article to the headline, did they ever get to the point that they led you to believe in the headline, and I've gotten to the point now, where I won't even if I make it a paragraph or two in and you aren't getting right to the point that you told me you were going to make in this headline, I skipped the article, because I don't even want to feed into bad

practices. You know, the one they're doing it with all the time now any stories about Harry and Meg, and you'll see a headline that seemingly has nothing to do with them. He was going to England to unveil the statue in honor of his mother who's going to be there with his brother. That was the headline, and then they took advantage of 75% of the article.

To recap, the fact that he left England and he did this interview and he said these things and I'm thinking, well, how many times are you guys going to tell us what we already know. And I don't want to read an article like that again, and you obviously know it, because now you're lying in the headlines to get me to go in there and read it again. But the truth is, you don't have

anything more to say. But you know, if you mentioned their names, you will get people who immediately click on that article, and then have a likelihood to click on one of the advertisements. So if the powers that be are not going to hold these people accountable, we need to hold them accountable. Don't read articles from publications, that you know, after you think outside of the box, and do a little research to be inaccurate. I won't even read them that are

poorly written. I mean, I didn't go I didn't get a degree in journalism. But all through college in any degree, you're getting an even through high school, you're taught the structure of a paper. And these suppose it Professional Journalists don't even follow a structure. I mean, there's no opening statement or thesis statement or whatever it's called. And they just their topic, they bounce back and forth and all over the place.

And they dedicate more time, to naming the name in the entire bio of the person that they're quoting. Rather than getting to the point they're supposed to be making they make grammatical errors, obvious ones, spelling errors, and I'm thinking, Well, you know that your computer will

check some of this. So when I see that I skipped the article, I have made the decision for me that I am not going to put my time and energy into poorly written articles where you didn't even feel that you needed to take enough time to make sure that it was properly written on a basic level, grade school

level. And secondly, that are poor journalism, that our yellow journalism, what is the point in me wasting my time reading something like that, and you know how it will go away when we cease to participate in it. That's how you control all of these things. Our numbers are greater than their numbers, and their bank account may be fatter, but they depend on us, because our money put together collectively, and our purchasing power and our voices exceed

theirs. So if we make a point to say, No, I'm not going to click on an article like that, I'm not going to read an article like that. Give me a real news article. They will eventually stop doing it, because clearly they will do anything to get circulation. The circulation of 2021. You know, there was a time and I hate to constantly reach back in the past, I don't want to sound like that old lady, that only thing is to the best of times are behind us because I

don't think that at all. In fact, I did an episode that was titled the exact opposite of that. But what I'm saying is we're being underserved. We're being improperly served, we need to start railing against these things. There was a time, I can't help but say it when I remember, I wasn't actually alive. But I remember watching and i think most people have seen it. There's a news reel of Walter Cronkite telling the nation that President Kennedy had been shot and had died. And

that's ominous enough. But I remember him looking over his shoulder to look at the clock to verify the time before he turned in, made his statement. And you know, we don't even have journalists today that are willing to verify a detail that small, there's no integrity. And they're not held to accountability for any kind of

integrity. Because they're almost just salesmen, all anyone wants them to do is come up with a headline come up with something sensational, that will get people to click on our articles. And that's all we care about. We need to stop feeding into that. If you stop feeding it, it'll go away. And for our own mental health, we don't need to be bombarded constantly with this ominous dramatic bad news. There are good stories out there, there are positive

stories out there. We need to insist that if you want my valuable time to read an article, you need to take the time to verify what you're telling me to proofread it and to put it in a proper readable format. Have a point and make your point. And if you say something, verify that it's accurate. I there's another one that came up the other day in conversation with a friend. All these places that you know the debate about the

COVID-19 masks. And I can't tell you how many articles are honestly can't tell you how many articles I've read that say You do not need to wear a mask. If you've been vaccinated yet, if you go to the CDC website, which seems to be the Bible of this whole topic, it clearly states that even if you have been vaccinated, you still need to wear a mask because you can be a carrier. These are the kinds of things that I mean, that are dangerous misinformation. And in

my opinion, it's pandering. It's writing something that says one thing because you think that it appeals to a certain group. But it's not accurate. It's not honest. And you could very well be putting people's lives at risk. telling these inaccurate lies, they're just lies is what they are. So you're going to be hearing this same with me a lot about other things. The next episode is going to be about the workplace. in America today, I can only do about America

because it's where I live. And we're going to talk about some of these same topics. Thank you for joining me today. Thank you for supporting the show. Please leave any comments and please rate the show. the meantime, enjoy the rest of your day.