The Birth of Yellow Journalism

The Spanish–American War (April–August 1898) is considered to be both a turning point in the history of propaganda and the beginning of the practice of yellow journalism.

It was the first conflict in which military action was precipitated by media involvement. The war grew out of U.S. interest in a fight for revolution between the Spanish military and citizens of their Cuban colony. American newspapers fanned the flames of interest in the war by fabricating atrocities which justified intervention in a number of Spanish colonies worldwide.

Several forces within the United States were pushing for a war with Spain. Their tactics were wide-ranging and their goal was to engage the opinion of the American people in any way possible. Men such as William Hearst, the owner of The New York Journal was involved in a circulation war with Joseph Pulitzer of the New York World and saw the conflict as a way to sell papers. Many newspapers ran articles of a sensationalist nature and sent correspondents to Cuba to cover the war. Correspondents had to evade Spanish Authorities; usually they were unable to get reliable news and relied heavily on informants for their stories. Many stories were derived from second or third hand accounts and were either elaborated, misrepresented or completely fabricated by journalists to enhance their dramatic effect.

Both Hearst and Pulitzer published images of Spanish troops placing Cubans into concentration camps where they were suffered and died from disease and hunger. The term “Yellow Journalism,” which was derived from the name of "The Yellow Kid" comic strip in the Journal, was used to refer to this style of sensationalized newspaper articles. The American public purchased more newspapers because of this form of writing, and this strongly encouraged Hearst and Pulitzer’s newspapers to write more sensationalized stories.  Some of the most sensationalized articles concerned “Butcher Weyler” and his reconcentration policies, and the Cuban Insurrection. Circulation continued to soar as the Journal reported that an American civilian was imprisoned without a trial and stating that no American was safe in Cuba as long as Weyler was in charge. Another major  article that enraged the American public was written by one of Hearst's reporters,  Richard Harding Davis,  who came upon the story while on his way back from Cuba.  The reporter learned of the story of Senorita Clemencia Arango.  Arango was forced out of Cuba for helping the rebels, and was supposedly strip-searched by Spanish detectives.  This angered the Victorian ideals of the American public even though the story was found to be in error

Hearst played a huge part in arousing the public’s intention to go to war with Spain. This activity reached its zenith after several years of articles concerning the situation in Cuba, Hearst ran a series of articles blaming the Spanish for the sinking of the MAINE with a mine. Hearst’s powerful articles pushed many Americans towards war with Spain. Because of his leading role in inciting the war, Hearst was nicknamed the “Father of Yellow Journalism.”

Why do I give you the history of yellow journalism? It is now the mainstay of news reporting. News outlets chasing advertising dollar have almost forgot the meaning of fair and even reporting. Fair and even reporting does not sell advertising. Sensationalism does. News outlets fan the flames of controversy in an attempt to boost readership. Ad rates are based on readership rates. Readers read, dollars come in. They really don't care about the overall affect on society. They rationalize that in a free press era the reader will get a fair and even story by reading multiple accounts from multiple sources. Except that people don't do that. They are sound bite addicts. We spend very little time checking the facts.

All you have to do it read the comments section of any article and you see that many of the readers didn't even comprehend the article they just read, more or less research it further. The media says that's our problem not theirs.

Folks, yellow journalism is alive and well. Do not believe what you read. Do not react to sensationalism. Small niches of society have managed to make great gains by using the media to project themselves as main stream. We need to seek the truth before we react. We no longer can rely on the media to present anything even close to resembling the truth.

How do We Help the Less Fortunate?

I am always concerned about the right way to help those less fortunate. The conundrum centers around the old adage of giving fish verse teaching to fish. First of all, there is the perception of wealthy. A couple of interesting data points on that issue:

Wealth is not liquid. It is generally determined by the markets desire to own verses scarcity. I diamond has little intrinsic value outside of its ability as a tool. The real value is determined by the disposable income of the buyer and the scarcity of the object. The same is true of stocks and bonds, or art. You cannot redistribute this type of wealth because it loses its value once you eliminate the buyers ability to buy. The same might be true of a large ocean transport. They can cost tens to hundreds of millions to build. But if we assume no one has the cash to buy it (we are redistributing wealth and cash is wealth) then the wealth value drops to almost nothing. Wealth isn't so much redistributed as evaporated.

What is wealth (top 1%) and who are they? The top 1% includes anyone with net assets of $800,000 or more.(a) There are about 47 million people in the world who meet this classification. There are eighteen million in the United State. Switzerland has the highest density. There are a couple of things to take under consideration. First, it is assets, not income. Young professionals may have a household income of over $200,000 per year, but very few assets. Older people, especially those who have saved wisely for retirement, may have little income, but a lot of assets. For retirement planning it takes about two million dollars in assets to generate $80,000 a year in income. The second considerations is cost of living. A  millionaire in Cape town will live much better than a millionaire in Paris.... By the way, to classify in the top 10%, your assets only have to be greater than $77,000.

So we can conclude that redistribution of wealth would be both hard to identify and hard to implement.

Let's say we find a way to redistribute some wealth without demotivating innovation. We find that fine balance that takes cash from the rich who have excess, but not from the middle class that just needs it to assure their futures. Also, we can't take too much via businesses, because businesses don't print cash, they get it from their customers. Taking too much from businesses will only cause inflation of prices as the business passes it on. Once we have the money, what do we do with it?

Second there is the methodology for helping. Well the "give a man a fish" approach won't work. We all know that. We have seen it over and over. Our entitlement system is living proof. A small per cent will learn to fish while they eat their first fish, but most will procrastinate as long as there is another fish. I have thought and written about the impact of advanced technology on the lower class. It's a train wreck waiting to happen. Most technology advancements displace low level jobs because those jobs are simple and repetitive. They are the exact jobs that the lower class is prepared to work.

Here, I think, is the hard lesson. It is a not so quick an answer. We have to elevate the lower class to have both a positive attitude toward and training in technology jobs. How do you elevate someone's attitude? Our attitude is more positive toward something that we are more comfortable with and understand. By increasing our exposure to different aspects of technology at a very young age, it loses its mystic.   The UK has made it mandatory to teach children to code as early as age five. The idea is to get them comfortable with technology early enough to stimulate interest. They make a game out of it so it doesn't seem all techy and scientific. By the time they graduate it will be as common to them and reading and writing.I think the key is mandatory, because people will not do it of their own volition. I mean if they would, they would already be doing it, right.

Zack Simms is a Columbia School drop out that now teaches programming to over 26 million students at a time. Seriously, he really does. He found that most of his peers didn't have the fundamental computer skills to effectively work in industry, himself included. He first got a friend to help write a program to help him learn programming. This was so successful that other people wanted to use it. CodeAcademy  now has 26 million students from over 100 countries, learning six different program languages. CodeAcademy is only three years old.

At the Davos Conference they talked about 8.4 million jobs left unfilled in technology because of a lack of skills. Technology jobs run the gamut of aptitude. Some are creative like digital art. Some are more hands on like hardware maintenance. Others require planning, programming, installing. Maybe it requires only an high level of technology understanding as in customer service or sales. You don't have to be a geek or a nerd. You can be yourself.

The way to redistribute wealth is to find a way for the lower class to create their own wealth. We might have to give them fish for a while, but I would suggest that we simultaneously nurture them into fishing for themselves. Life is much more enjoyable when a person feels independent and self reliant. Waiting for the government to determine your fish allocation, knowing your life depends on it, is a form of slavery. But knowing you have the skills to catch fish in any pond is freedom.

As more and more simple jobs like lawn care, cleaning, ground transportation, Fast Food Restaurants give way to technology, the lower class has to find a new way of making a living. Building and maintaining the very machines that took these jobs is the best answer. Start them young and when the time is right they will forge their own path.

(a) Wealth report by the charity Oxfam

Everyone needs a miracle from time to time.

Jeremiah 29:11 “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”

We all face times of desperate need. All of us at one time or another in our lives “need” a miracle. It might be saving our job/business depends on closing a business deal. It might be that we have a loved one with a medical emergency. But at some point we recognize that we can’t do it alone and “need” intervention. Most of us look for a “parting-the-Red Sea” type of miracle. We’re looking for that big, immediate, in-your-face solution to our problem. I know some of us can point to big “parting-the-Red Sea” miracles and I believe they exist, but for the most part I think if we critically looked at even those they would follow this process. It is just that we obeyed so naturally that we don’t see our involvement. What is the real pragmatic expectation to answered prayer? There are six points I’d like to make:

1. God knew the need before we asked for help 
2. God could have solved the problem immediately without the help of other
3. God expects us to do what we can, he expects obedience 
4. God uses resource that we have 
5.  God does what we can’t
6.  Here is the hard part, the final solution always takes longer then we want, requires obedience even when we don’t understand the required task and is more painful than we would like.

I have listed five Biblical miracles at the end to use as examples. They are just five of many, but they demonstrate the principles well. They all share the six points above. 

God knew the need before we asked for help

We are not going to surprise God with our need. Psalms 139:4 “Even before the words are on my tongue, you know it all together.” We are not bringing Him a perplexing problem that He needs to contemplate. Our problems are unique and immediate to us. Because we do not see the future, our need is for a quick solution. When we don’t get it we believe either God doesn’t know, doesn’t care or can’t help. The timing is a well thought out decision by God based on his plans for us.

God could have solved the problem immediately without the help of others

In Genesis 1 we learned that God created the heavens and the earth. There is nothing He cannot do without our intervention. Genesis 22:18 says "And through your descendants all the nations of the earth will be blessed—all because you have obeyed me." He wants to bless us by getting us involved. The first part of the blessing is that He wants us to work together. He wants a relationship with us. He wants us to trust and obey. He could have simply made the five thousand full. Or made the bridal party happy with what they had, or wiped out the debt of the widow. He wants us to experience the joy of working with him.

God expects us to do what we can, he expects obedience

You can’t steer a stationary ship, it requires movement. Obedience is movement. Many times we pray for a solution and wait for the answer. God will send us “nudges” as a call to action. He will not always show us an immediate result when we obey. The size of the blessing can be determined by our actions. In both the Water to Wine miracle and the Widow’s Olive Jar miracle, the size of the blessing was determined by the number of vessels the people gathered. Peter could have never walked on water if he hadn’t first gotten out of the boat. The cripple went to great effort to have his friends carry him to Jesus, lift him to the roof and dig a hole into which they could lower him. The first step is obedience. Obedience requires movement.

God uses resource that we have

This is the first miracle, we have everything we need. Generally we expect that the solution of the problem centers on the fact that we can’t get what we need, which presupposes that we don’t already have it. The cripple had friends that were willing to help. The widow had olive oil, the wedding guests had water jugs, and the 5,000 had five fish. It seldom seems like we have enough, so we overlook what we have. Whether it is money, friends, intelligence, energy, or experience, we have resources that God will use. We need to take the time to understand the resources available to us and we need to be willing to apply them even when they seem lacking.

God does what we can’t

He is where the magic happens. As the servants ladled out the water it turned to wine. As the widow poured out olive oil from her jar it kept filling jars until she was out of jars. As the five thousand took pieces of fish and bread, there kept being more fish and bread. The cripple picked up his mat and walked. You don’t really think Peter could walk on water without God’s help. This is the part of the miracle we see and expect. The blessing is a result of our obedience; we kind of forget that part. 

The Hard Part

The final solution always takes longer then we want, requires obedience even when we don’t understand the required task and is more painful than we would like. Sorry I wish I could say more, but this is it. We have expectations that if we do what God wants, he will do what we want. Sorry, it’s not a trade. He knows so much more than we do. He knows what we want and need. He can see the future implications to all actions. We have a vision of our future based on limited knowledge. He has perfect knowledge. 

“For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”

Test this theory by reading about these five miracles in the bible:

1. Walking on Water (Mathew 14: 22 – 33)
2. Water to Wine (John 2: 1 – 11)
3. Widow trying to save her children from indenture (2 Kings 4:1 – 7) 
4.   Feeding the five thousand (Matthew 14: 13 – 21)
5. Cripple who is passed through the roof (Luke 5: 17 – 21) “get your hands dirty digging through the roof kind of faith”