Is sensationalism in its nature morally reprehensible? Is it unethical? Should it be illegal?

Are you suggesting we can get away from sensationalism? Nay.

Actually no he isn't according to Schenck v. U.S.

If we really put our heads together we can probably think of something.

Well, to answer that question we would have to consider what would be left without sensationalism, facts and truth.

What would the world be with facts and truth? People would be smarter, more sensible,and we as a civillization would grow more rapidly towards scientific advances to make life better and more comfortable, with less governmental corruption.

That last point is he issue, advertising agencies keep the government's pocket full. Monsanto and pharmaceutical companies don't spend millions or billions on parking passes.

The world, humanity over-all would be better as a whole without sensationalism. So in a way, yes I think it is repulsive to muddy the truth. Anyways, people who get paid to do such a thing are producing nothing of value and corroding the intellect of society, so I would not consider them noble individuals.

You don't think there can be big government without sensationalist values in the culture?

Today on Facebook someone posted a video of a moon pie in its wrapper having little worms in it. I don't know why people do stuff like that. It's like they want to bend buzz feed or think that more sensationalism is what the world needs. I mean, come on, that happens to literally everything in a 1 in 1 million chance. Just throw it away.

listen, i feel you man.

sensationalism is the reason why i had to create something to filter the news and sensational journalism for myself.

but then look at this. isn't it all just sensational?

there's nothing i can do about it even if i wanted to.

god bless you man.

and what have i done!!!?

most of the largest and most crowded theaters i have been in have been publicly owned.

It's sensationalism if it doesn't conform to a centralised idea that if it doesn't take place in our country, then there is nothing we can do about it. Those headlines are things politicians should hear, not the every day working man.

Also, you made something to filter the news for you? I'm a programmer myself. Do tell.

Knowingly sensationalizing something is unethical, but I don't think it should be illegal because who decides what's sensationalist?

Sensationalism in its nature is a primal thing, driven by passion, fear, rage, etc. There is no logical rational for these. Like many of the other things driven by passion, fear, rage, etc they can and often become morally reprehensible. Just because its a natural human behavior doesn't mean its a moral or an ethical one.

>should it be illegal
No. Its part of human behavior. Making it illegal simply criminalizes all the humans because all humans become sensational at one point in their life. It shouldn't be promoted if thats what you're going for. It shouldn't be rewarded. It should be punished just like being angry/throwing angry tantrum at people should be punished as a developmental phase.

I mean, sensationalism is a pretty clear cut term. It basically means "don't lie for more views."

My impression was that it also included exaggerating the importance of something or presenting it with a strong bias. Neither of those necessarily mean outright lying.

Like for example, say a guy murdered a dude in some drunk bar fight, and that dude happened to be gay (and that the guy who killed him had no clue). Then the media picks up something like "GAY MAN RUTHLESSLY MURDERED" "ANOTHER GAY MAN SLAIN AT BAR" obviously pushing an angle of homophobia and shit, that's sensationalist even without necessarily being false. It's inventing controversy to get more attention/push an agenda and it's a real shitty thing to do, but where the line is drawn is a bit nebulous.

You would have to prove that he was both gay and ruthlessly murdered. Otherwise I see no issue.

It's still sensationalism, sensationalism doesn't outright mean providing literal false information, we just use the word "lying" for that. You can technically tell the truth and still make it sensationalist garbage by trying to drum up drama / push a basically invented angle with a story.

If Shylock and Abraham Goldstein quietly agree to cooperate on something and you publish "CONSPIRACY!! JEWISH PLOT UNRAVELLED! MORE ON PAGE 11" that's sensationalist even if it is, technically, a Jewish plot. You're basically publishing banking on assumptions of what "Jewish plot" implies and the emotional impact you expect it to have, because it sounds a lot more exciting and eye-catching than saying something like "Mr Goldstein arranges trade deal." It's """"true"""" but very misleading and potentially harmful.

Again, the problem is it's not clear cut where you define what is sensational. It isn't as simple as "did they lie outright?"

To be sensationalism it has to be "at the expense of accuracy." It would be better to describe it as "deceptive" than "incorrect." If something is exciting at the expense of accuracy, it's "deceptive." Kind of like if you found fools gold and thought it was gold.