Sensationalism just isn’t what it used to be
Published 1:09 pm Saturday, May 23, 2009
In my travels through the East Oregonian’s bound volumes, as I am searching for interesting news stories for Days Gone By, it has struck me that reporters 100 years ago, and even 50 years ago, were much less likely to spare their readers the details of accidents, deaths, civil disputes and court cases as newspapers are wont to do today. “Political correctness,” as we know it, did not exist in newspaper reporting of old, I have found.
Many times I have read the gruesome details of someone who was unfortunate enough to fall under the wheels of a train, or be thrown from a car during an accident, or even the man who committed suicide in front of his family because his wife couldn’t stop nagging him – and told him he wasn’t man enough to do it. In order to avoid offending readers of the 21st century, I sometimes have to “soften” a story a little bit, and even pass up a good story if there is no way to take out the potentially offensive material and still keep the story intact.
Trending
Racial slurs are another issue that must be dealt with carefully. A hundred years ago it was commonplace to use racial epithets and derogatory names and descriptions that are absolutely taboo nowadays. I leave them out completely if they are not necessary to the story; otherwise, I try to find a more “PC” term that is a suitable substitute.
We hear a lot about sensational journalism these days, but modern reporters don’t even come close to what the journalists of old would put into print. In reality though, it probably wasn’t considered sensationalistic a hundred years ago – it was “just the facts, ma’am.”
– Renee Struthers-Hogge
Weekenders are lighthearted comments on recent events provided by East Oregonian reporters and editors. They represent the views of the authors and are not necessarily those of the East Oregonian or its editorial board.