10 Striking Examples of Yellow Journalism Today and Their Impact on Public Opinion

Yellow journalism has been around for a long time, but it still pops up in different ways today. Basically, it’s when news outlets use wild headlines, exaggerate facts, or even make things up just to grab your attention and boost their sales or clicks. From the old days of New York newspapers battling it out, to modern fake news on social media, these examples of yellow journalism today show how the media can shape what people think—sometimes for the worse. Let’s look at some of the most striking examples and how they’ve influenced public opinion.

Key Takeaways

• Yellow journalism uses eye-catching headlines and often exaggerates or distorts facts to attract readers.
• This style of reporting started with newspapers like the New York World and the New York Journal in the late 1800s.
• Modern examples include fake news, clickbait articles, and sensational tabloid stories.
• Yellow journalism can mislead the public and influence opinions, especially during major events or elections.
• Even though it’s easy to spot sometimes, many people still fall for these tactics, making it important to check sources and question what you read.

1. The New York World

Back in the late 19th century, you couldn’t miss the impact of the New York World under Joseph Pulitzer. Pulitzer changed American newspapers by mixing up captivating headlines, illustrations, and big coverage of crime and scandal. But it wasn’t always just for entertainment—he believed papers had a responsibility to society too. And yet, the World is famous for being a major player in the rise of yellow journalism, a style known for eye-catching headlines and dramatic storytelling that sometimes stretched the facts.

Here’s what set the New York World apart from its rivals:

• Innovative use of pictures, games, and even contests to keep readers engaged
• Detailed crime stories with shocking headlines that pulled people in
• Lower price (two cents, later cut to one) with more pages than others at that price, increasing reach
• Pushed for social reform with stories that aimed to expose problems in the city

Competition heated up hard when William Randolph Hearst’s New York Journal arrived. Pulitzer slashed prices to compete, which ended up hurting the World’s finances more than helping. Rival papers and critics—and there were a lot—complained the World was trading in sensationalism and neglecting serious news. Still, it captured public attention and steered opinions on key national events.

When you think about how newspapers shaped what people believed back then, the New York World is a prime example of media power—and its risks. Pulitzer’s methods inspired imitators and critics alike, leaving a mark you can still see in headline-driven news today.

2. The New York Journal

If you ask anyone about yellow journalism, The New York Journal comes up almost right away. When William Randolph Hearst took over the Journal in 1895, he seriously shook up New York’s newspaper scene. He sold his paper for just a penny, undercutting rivals and making news more available to regular folks. The idea was simple: bigger circulation, more advertising—basically the modern tabloid formula, but a century early.

That price war was only the beginning. Hearst didn’t just copy Pulitzer’s ideas from the New York World, he ramped them up. He even hired away some of Pulitzer’s best staff, mostly by promising more money and a better work environment. The Journal focused on big headlines, dramatic stories, and plenty of images that grabbed people’s attention. Serious news was mixed with sensational stories about crime, disasters, or people caught in wild situations. Suddenly, news wasn’t just dry facts—it was something you wanted to talk about it at breakfast or on the street.

People often judge the impact of The New York Journal by looking at several trends:

• Circulation skyrocketed as more folks bought into the drama and excitement on the front page.
• The coverage became a mix of real investigations and stories that sometimes stretched the truth.
• The Journal influenced not only what people talked about, but sometimes how they acted or voted—proving just how much a newspaper could shape opinion.

For all its reputation for scandal and wild headlines, the Journal did do one thing—it made the news feel urgent and important to everyone, not just the elite. It’s a bit like when you see a sign and quarters on a New York pay phone and suddenly find people making calls they otherwise wouldn’t—sometimes a little nudge changes what we see, think, and do.

3. The Yellow Kid

If you’ve ever wondered where the phrase "yellow journalism" comes from, it’s actually got roots in a comic strip, not a serious news scandal. The Yellow Kid, a cartoon character created by Richard F. Outcault, first showed up in Pulitzer’s New York World and pretty quickly became the face of fierce newspaper competition in the 1890s. This grinning kid in a baggy yellow nightshirt didn’t just entertain people – he stirred up a media war.

Here’s what happened:

• Outcault draws The Yellow Kid in New York World, making it a hit with readers.
• William Randolph Hearst, wanting to outdo Pulitzer, hires Outcault (and the Yellow Kid) away to his own New York Journal.
• Pulitzer, not one to back down, gets another artist to keep publishing the Yellow Kid in the World, so now you’ve got two Yellow Kids headlining rival papers.

This back-and-forth is actually what sparked the term “yellow journalism.” It started out poking fun at how both papers went wild for eye-catching content like The Yellow Kid, and over time, it grew into a label for sensationalized news in general. Coverage became bolder, more colorful, and often stretched the truth to snag readers—which cranked up sales on both sides. The whole thing wasn’t just about comics; it changed how news was reported and consumed, and that ripple effect is still felt today in clickbait stories and competitive reporting. You can see how that hunger to grab attention is described in technology journalism perspectives, where standing out is key.

In the end, The Yellow Kid is a funny little character with a pretty outsized impact: he’s become a lasting symbol of how press rivalry and over-the-top stories could end up shaping the entire media landscape.

4. Hearst’s ‘Furnish the War’ Telegram

If you’ve heard the phrase "You furnish the pictures, and I’ll furnish the war," you’re not alone. This quote supposedly came from William Randolph Hearst, the publisher behind the New York Journal, in a telegram sent to artist Frederic Remington in 1897. The story goes that Remington, in Cuba covering the ongoing rebellion against Spain, told Hearst there wasn’t much action. Hearst’s bold reply was that his paper would invent the war if needed.

But this story has some serious problems—and most historians today consider it a myth. Here’s why people believed it for so long and why it’s still talked about:

• The original telegrams between Remington and Hearst have never been found.
• Spanish officials controlled all telegraph communications from Cuba at that time, and a message like Hearst’s would almost certainly have been noticed or leaked.
• The main source of the anecdote was a memoir written years after the fact, by a writer who was known for exaggeration.
• Hearst himself denied ever sending such a telegram, even calling the story “clotted nonsense.”

So, why does the legend persist?

• It fits the picture of Hearst as a power-hungry publisher, which people love to retell.
• The quote is catchy, easy to remember, and often gets passed along as fact in textbooks and films like "Citizen Kane."
• It helps critics blame yellow journalism for swaying public opinion and leading to the Spanish-American War.

Whether true or not, the "furnish the war" tale has shaped how many people view the media’s ability to stir up events. The impact? It’s a reminder—still relevant today—not to take sensational headlines at face value and to ask if we’re getting the whole story or just a juicy myth.

5. The 1895–1898 Spanish–American War Coverage

This period is often pointed to as the absolute peak of yellow journalism’s influence, especially with the stories coming out of New York. Newspapers run by William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer saturated their front pages with wild stories of Spanish cruelty in Cuba. Sensational headlines, dramatic illustrations, and often unsubstantiated claims became the norm when reporting on Cuba’s struggle for independence. Some folks today still debate whether the press really pushed the United States into war with Spain, but it’s true their stories caught the public’s attention in a way nothing else had.

Here’s how yellow journalism shaped coverage of this war:

• Newspapers published exaggerated stories of Spanish atrocities, sometimes using images of torture and starvation that couldn’t be verified.
• Events like the explosion of the USS Maine were covered with bold claims of Spanish sabotage, despite little direct evidence.
• Both Pulitzer’s World and Hearst’s Journal competed for ever-more shocking angles, offering rewards for information or dramatic stories from readers.

But let’s not forget: a lot of Americans outside New York were reading much more subdued papers that didn’t focus as much on sensationalism. Historians actually doubt whether yellow journalism alone could really steer the country into war. Other factors, like the actual suffering in Cuba and the Spanish government’s brutal policies, played a part too.

Still, the impact on public opinion was big. People felt angry and even scared after reading these stories, and support for the war rose. The public pressure put politicians in a tough spot, even if they relied on more measured reporting behind the scenes. The era cemented the idea that media could shape people’s views—and maybe, just maybe, history itself.

6. The William McKinley Assassination Reaction

After President William McKinley was assassinated in 1901, newspapers across the United States wasted no time in cranking out stories. Some headlines were so alarming and exaggerated that they whipped up public panic and outrage almost overnight. At the center of all this frenzy were the champions of yellow journalism, who sensationalized even the smallest new detail.

If you looked at the papers from that time, you’d see:

• Dramatic portrayals of the assassin’s motives, usually with little evidence
• Unfounded speculation linking anarchist groups to broader political plots
• Huge front-page illustrations, bold fonts, and emotional language

It wasn’t so much about telling the facts — it was about selling more papers by playing up fear and suspicion. The ripple effect was pretty major:

• Some readers demanded harsher laws against immigrants and radicals
• Fear-mongering shifted public focus away from thoughtful discussion to immediate revenge and crackdown
• Personal reputations and careers were torn apart simply by being mentioned in these stories

Interestingly, readers now have more ways to react to news, much like how you can choose different reaction emojis on Facebook posts today (new reaction emojis). But back then, there really wasn’t much room for a measured response — it was outrage or nothing.

The William McKinley assassination showed how yellow journalism could shape, even distort, public opinion in the heat of a national crisis.

7. Macedonian Fake News Factories

A lot of people first heard about Macedonian fake news factories during the 2016 US presidential election, but the story’s impact reaches well beyond a single vote. In small towns across Macedonia, young people saw an opportunity to make quick money by running websites filled with sensational, totally made-up stories. These sites would pump out content designed to go viral on social media—often targeting readers in the United States—to rack up ad revenue based on clicks and shares.

Here’s how the whole operation worked:

• Teens and young adults copy-pasted or rewrote existing fake stories, making up quotes, statistics, or sources when it suited them.
• The articles were engineered to confirm what certain groups already believed, making them more likely to share or believe the information.
• Headlines were designed as clickbait: wild, emotional, and often entirely false, drawing people in regardless of the truth (see how fake news is intentionally structured).

Researchers who looked into these factories noticed just how widespread the tactic had become. Here’s a table summarizing some figures from investigations around 2016:

The influence on public opinion was pretty clear. False headlines shaped beliefs about major political candidates or world events—sometimes even after being debunked. Many regular people clicked out of curiosity, but some believed these news stories were from real sources. And because viral content travels fast, the lies often out-paced the truth.

Looking back, the Macedonian fake news operation is a modern version of yellow journalism—exaggerated, emotional, and designed to mislead for profit. It’s a reminder that fake news is a real problem and one that doesn’t always come from the places you’d expect.

8. 2016 US Presidential Election Fake News

If we’re talking about modern yellow journalism, what happened during the 2016 US presidential election is just wild. Misinformation hit an all-time high, changing not just conversations, but maybe the direction of the whole election. It wasn’t about a couple bad headlines—it was a whole ecosystem of made-up stories, catchy lies, and sneaky misleading memes.

Here’s what went on:

• Totally fake news stories—think “Pope supports Trump” or “Clinton sold weapons to ISIS”—spread all over Facebook and Twitter.
• Macedonian teenagers literally started fake news websites, churning out viral clickbait just for ad revenue, with most stories targeting Americans, who shared them like crazy.
• False connections, misleading headlines, and edited or fabricated images all blurred the line between fact and fiction, especially on social media feeds.
• Even people who were otherwise skeptical would often believe or share fake stories if they matched ideas they already had. There’s something about seeing your beliefs confirmed that just feels good, even if it turns out to be bogus.

Just to give some numbers:

A few things happened because of all this:

1. People trusted news outlets less, struggling to separate real updates from fiction.
2. The balance of the election debate shifted—certain ideas dominated just because fake stories got more eyeballs.
3. There’s still a split: some folks blame fake news for the final result, while others say it was just another part of a messy campaign.

One thing’s for sure—2016 changed how everyone looks at news online, probably for good.

9. Clickbait News Stories

Clickbait news stories are everywhere online, and honestly, they’re hard to miss. You know the ones: outrageous headlines that promise to reveal some shocking detail, only for the actual content to barely deliver. These stories are designed to grab your attention and get you to click, no matter whether the news is real, exaggerated, or totally misleading.

Clickbait isn’t just annoying—it shapes how people think about issues and events. Here’s what makes them so problematic:

• Clickbait headlines often exaggerate facts or twist information.
• These stories frequently play on emotions, like fear or anger, to entice more clicks.
• They rarely offer in-depth reporting or proper context.
• Misinformation and rumors can spread quickly as people share without fully reading or understanding the content.

Let’s look at some numbers. According to data from a 2023 Pew Research Center study:

That jump in CTR is huge. It shows why news outlets are tempted to use sensational headlines, even at the risk of confusing readers or warping facts.

In the end, clickbait may keep us scrolling and clicking, but it leaves the public less informed and more skeptical about what’s actually true.

10. British Tabloid Journalism

If you’ve ever picked up a British tabloid at a train station or scrolled through their headlines on your phone, you know they have a certain style. British tabloids are famous for sensationalism, bold headlines, and a tendency to cover scandal above all else. Think of names like The Sun, The Daily Mail, or The Mirror.

Here’s what really stands out about British tabloid journalism:

• Stories often focus on celebrities, crime, or anything shocking, even if the angle is a bit stretched.
• Headlines are big, dramatic, and sometimes misleading.
• Photos play a huge role. Usually, there are lots of them—sometimes chosen just for shock value.
• It’s not uncommon to see anonymous sources or stories that blur the line between factual reporting and entertainment.
• Public reactions can be strong, whether it’s fueling outrage, spreading moral panic, or simply helping people pass the time on their commute.

The impact is more than just noise. Studies have pointed out how this kind of reporting can shape what people worry about and how they view public figures or events. Tabloids also played a role in how people talked about everything from elections to new technology over the years, just like the broadband Internet and smartphones that changed our lives.

For many, British tabloids are just part of everyday life—easy to read, often entertaining, and always up for stirring the pot. But it’s good to remember that what grabs attention can also sway opinion, sometimes way out of proportion to the facts.

Wrapping Up: Why Yellow Journalism Still Matters

Looking at these examples, it’s clear that yellow journalism is still around, just in new forms. The headlines are louder, the stories more dramatic, and the facts sometimes get lost in the rush to grab attention. Whether it’s on TV, online, or in print, this kind of reporting can really shape what people think and how they feel about big issues. Sometimes, folks don’t even realize they’re being influenced. It’s easy to get caught up in the excitement or outrage, but it’s worth taking a step back and asking, "Is this the whole story?" In the end, being a little skeptical and checking different sources can help us all see through the noise and make up our own minds.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is yellow journalism?

Yellow journalism is a style of reporting that uses loud headlines, dramatic stories, and sometimes fake facts to grab people’s attention and sell more newspapers or get more clicks online. It often cares more about being exciting than being true.

Why is it called ‘yellow’ journalism?

The name comes from a popular comic strip character called the ‘Yellow Kid’ that appeared in New York newspapers in the late 1800s. The fight between two big newspapers over this cartoon helped give the style its name.

Who were the main people behind yellow journalism?

Joseph Pulitzer, who owned the New York World, and William Randolph Hearst, who owned the New York Journal, were the two main newspaper owners known for using yellow journalism to get more readers.

How did yellow journalism affect history?

Yellow journalism sometimes made people believe things that were not true or were exaggerated. For example, it played a part in making Americans more angry at Spain before the Spanish–American War, even though many stories were not accurate.

Is yellow journalism still around today?

Yes, yellow journalism is still around, but it looks a bit different. Today, we see it in clickbait headlines, fake news on social media, and some tabloid newspapers that focus on shocking or made-up stories.

How can I spot yellow journalism?

Look out for news stories with huge, scary headlines, lots of pictures, and stories that seem too wild or shocking to be true. If the story doesn’t say where the information comes from or uses unnamed sources, it might be yellow journalism.