October 12th, 2009 
joel If the readers of Press and Tower use local media, it’s not because a contest drove them to do it.
Nearly two-thirds of poll respondents said that they had no interest in media contests, and none said that they participated often.
It is often interesting what perspectives Average “Joe” Citizen have about the local media. During one conversation last week, a friend chimed in, “Yeah, the (insert media outlet here) is really hurting for money, that’s why they are really sensationalizing their coverage.”
Do you think that’s true? Has the ad depression in Erie garnered a new age of sensationalized “yellow journalism“?
On a scale from 1 to 3, do Erie broadcast, online, and print outlets sensationalize stories more to generate circulation and ratings due to the ad revenue downturn?
- 3: Absolutely, the media is sensationalizing stories because they are dying for readers and viewers. (67%, 14 Votes)
- 2: There have always been sensational stories; it's no different today (24%, 5 Votes)
- 1: No, there are actually less sensational stories than before (9%, 2 Votes)
Total Voters: 21
Loading ...
Posted in 
Tags: 
The Weindorf hatchet job is a perfect example. The new DiVecchio budget proposal now contains a recommendation for five more tele-communicators. And Flowers didn’t win a reporting award.
It’s a double edged sword. When local media outlets don’t run “Sensational” stories, particulary in regards to public officials ,they are often criticized for being too connected and chummy with them, and neglecting to do investigative reporting because of it. But now when they do cover a story like that, if a good portion of the readership likes the person covered in the story (like Weindorf), it’s labeled as “Yellow Journalism.” There’s no winning. It’s as if the public will tolerate that kind of journalism, but only if it’s someone we don’t like.
“Yellow journalism” accusations get made when only parts of a story that support a preconceived notion are reported, as was the case with the Weindorf story. Flowers, and the paper, received literally pages of information they chose not to present to the public, presumably because it supported Weindorf’s position. Many people who should have been contacted were not, while malcontents were “in the loop”. When these types of performances are tolerated, there should be no winning, of awards or anything else. All the public should expect is the whole story, and they are not getting it, a lot of the time.