I just wanted some milk for my coffee. I wanted to sit at my table and enjoy the peace and quiet before the day started. I wanted to watch my dog snooze on the couch and eat my pain au chocolat without a care in the world. Instead, before I could even get to the shop counter, I saw the front page of the Sunday Express.
Needless to say there would be no peace for me this morning. As I read the article the last few paragraphs sent my head fizzing.
“Eight out of 10 people fear a Third World War will break out within the next five years, according to an exclusive Sunday Express poll today. It shows most Britons agree that our defences are ill-equipped to fight in a global conflict. Nearly half of them want a return of some form of national service to combat the military recruitment crisis.”
This “Shock Report” was conducted by the Daily Express which means we’re already off to a shaky start (a recent YouGov poll revealed that the company was voted as one of the least trustworthy news outlets in the UK). The language is ambiguous and jarring. We’re told 8 out of 10 “people” believe there will be conflict and in the same breath they proclaim “Most Britons” agree and that “Nearly half of them want a return of…national service” Hold on. Hold on. Nearly half of who? Half of 8 out of 10 people which is 4? Or half of Britons which is 33.5 million? Actually, “nearly half” could mean literally anything if we’re not able to see the figures of this shock report. Who are these Britons that want a return to national service? I’d need to see the numbers, but I doubt very much they exist let alone would be willing to fight for the King and Crown. This latest act of scare-mongering has seemingly sprung up without warning. We’re all very aware of the tensions between world superpowers but when did that suddenly mean that I’d be drafted out to the front lines along with 18 year old TikTokers and xenophobic pintmen from middle England? Something’s fishy and it’s not just the Daily Express that are involved.
We’re quick to believe everything we see on the news. You could call it being gullible or you could call it years of media brainwashing. But what is the actual reason, how has it gotten to this point and can we stop it from happening in the future? This is where I want to introduce the study of Semiotics. Semiotics is the exploration of signs and symbols and their meanings within various contexts and the study of how society interprets and communicates through them. Two core principals of Semiotics are the ‘Signifier/Sign’ and the ‘Signified’. The signifier being the physical form or the sign (e.g., a word, an image, a sound) and the signified is the meaning behind the sign. Semiotics is not limited to linguistic signs but covers all forms of communications. The best example being a road sign. When you reach a red circle with a white line through it, you don’t need the words, ‘No Entry’, to accompany it to understand that you can’t drive any further. Another sign or signifier can be found in our attire, with our clothing serving as a provider of specific socio-economic information. If I have a mohawk and Doc Marten boots I am signifying to you that I am a punk. Or if I’m wearing a peace symbol on my T-Shirt I might want to signify to you that I am committed to certain social causes. The scope of semiotics is huge and the study of it never ending. One such semiotician is Roland Barthes, a french philosopher who wrote a collection of essays called “Mythologies” (1957). A collection wherein he explores seemingly banal cultural phenomena with titles such as "The World of Wrestling", "The New Citroën", "Soap-powders and Detergents" and "Operation Margarine". The latter being a reflection on the political and cultural implications of a margarine advertisement. Barthes explains that the thing we see is very rarely the reality. Products, commodities, entertainment, news programmes, all of these things disguise a more complex underbelly. Down to the font used in your favourite newspaper, nothing is accidental. To view the world in this way would mean taking part in something called ‘Defamiliarisation’. A process of reinterpreting the familiar to reveal its true intention. It’s true form. Facing the constant bombardment of daily life, this critical form of thinking has become almost impossible. We continually mistake sign for signified, believing that the sign is the meaning, that there is nothing else behind it. We do this because it feels easier than trying to come to terms with how the world actually works. So why are we seeing an uptick in WWIII scare-mongering? To answer that we need to talk about yellow journalism and the rise of sensationalism.
Sensationalism
/s(ɛ)nˈseɪʃənəlɪz(ə)m/
noun
1.
(especially in journalism) the presentation of stories in a way that is intended to provoke public interest or excitement, at the expense of accuracy.
One of the first instances of sensationalism was in the late 19th Century when two prominent New York newspapers, ‘The New York World’ and ‘The New York Journal,’ engaged in fierce competition for readership by printing exaggerated headlines and articles that were often untrue. The New York World also created the very first comic strip named “Hogan’s Alley” set in the fictional McFadden’s Flats with the famous character Mickey Dugan or “The Yellow Kid”. The name “Yellow Kid” came from the comic being printed in the Sunday edition on yellow paper, a decision made by the publisher to boost visibility on newspaper stands. This sensationalist competition led to the term “yellow journalism” being widely used to describe exaggerated or false reporting. In this competition for readership yellow journalism ended up playing a significant role in the Spanish-American war of 1898. A conflict fuelled by American intervention in Cuba's fight for independence.
Spanish occupied Cuba was used in the newspapers as clickbait. The papers would portray the Spanish-Cuban conflict in emotionally charged terms, depicting atrocities and hardships suffered by the Cuban population that may not have actually happened. Anti-Spanish sentiment was at it’s height when a U.S. battleship, the Maine, sank in Havana harbour. On February 15th 1898 an explosion ripped through the ship’s hull, sinking it within minutes. It was thought that the explosion happened on board but the sensationalist newspapers back in New York spread rumours of Spanish plots to sink the ship. After a U.S naval investigation stated that the explosion came from a mine on the harbour, proponents of yellow journalism called for all out war. Within three months they had gotten their wish.
That is our sign, but what does it signify? Why did the U.S care so much for Cuba that it would go to war on it’s behalf? Why did the government allow these Newspapers to print such outlandish claims and propaganda? Like most countries that the U.S pretends to care about, there is more than likely an ulterior motive. The Cuban War of Independence (1895–1898) against the Spanish threatened America’s economic interests on the island. They were heavily invested in the sugar industry and in Cuba’s geopolitical position in the Caribbean; seeing the potential for naval and commercial access as a huge asset for American influence in the region. On top of these economic reasons, American intervention can be linked to a belief in ‘Manifest Destiny’. A divine mission, or God given right, that would see them expand their territories and bring their institutions, culture and values as far as they could travel. With God on their side America would kill roughly 100,000 Native Indians alone, while destroying millions of acres of natural beauty for oil extraction and the expansion of cities. This belief still very much exists in the U.S. today but might be more appropriately labeled as American Exceptionalism. After lifting the top layer of the Cuban War of Independence we’re able to get to the signified. We see that America’s lust for economic expansion came at a great cost. Masters of misdirection, they learned that if they smiled politely and pointed to a bald eagle, the unassuming nation would welcome them with open arms.
If you look back at the picture of The Yellow Kid you’ll see that on his shirt there are the words, “Dis book is de story of me sweet young life”. If you connect the vernacular and the name Mickey Dugan with his place of residence, McFadden’s flats, you’ll soon realise that the character partly responsible for sensationalism was an Irish immigrant. His baldness apparently linked to the lice infestations within the poorer communities of the time. The Irish immigrants of late 19th Century New York would have constituted a large part of the population. Their numbers exploding in the previous 50 years due to the British induced Great Famine (1840) and general lack of opportunities at home. In creating a character that portrayed the every day life and struggles of immigrants, The New York World and The New York Journal could ensure large numbers of readership and with that readership came control of public opinion. If America wanted something but needed mass approval, they could just draw up a cartoon, make it dance and say funny things that made the people think they were the good guys.
Coincidentally, the yellow paper that Hogan’s Alley was printed on would become part of the wider puzzle in the international affairs of the 20th century. Along with it’s striking look, yellow paper was much cheaper to produce than it’s white counterpart. Scientists and researchers of the time (mainly German) discovered they were able to move away from expensive natural dyes by synthetically creating their own for a fraction of the price. Not only did these dyes revolutionise the print industry but they became instrumental in textile and military advancements during WW1. Items such as camouflage, coloured flares and gas masks all relied on the creation and proliferation of these synthetic dyes. Countries quickly realised the importance of having their own domestic production facilities for synthetic dyes. Without having to rely on suppliers in Germany, it became a broader effort by many nations to achieve greater economic self-sufficiency. As the new century approached and Globalisation took hold the world seemed incapable of keeping up. War was imminent.
In America the Irish population grew but dwindled back home in Ireland. Britain squeezed harder and left Ireland no choice but to fight back. This time in History bares an eery resemblance to the present as conscription for WW1 was the spark that lit the fuse for the Easter Rising in 1916; with the ICA (Irish Civilian Army) proclaiming that “We serve neither King nor Kaiser, but Ireland!”
“BRITAIN’S NOT EQUIPPED FOR ‘ALL OUT WAR’” says the Sunday Express. Like it’s our fault. We’re too busy watching the modern day yellow kid dance and lip sync to have realised what’s happened. Yet here we are, still to blame. Our Newspapers and Media outlets persist in sensationalism. In fact it’s worse because it’s a 24/7 broadcast. Our collective attention is so battered and bruised that unless there is constant threat of war, murder, coup d’etat, conscription and nuclear winter the media wouldn’t stand a chance at getting our clicks. What can be done? Will it change? I hate to say it but there isn’t anything you can do to change the way media is presented. It will always be corrupt and good journalism is a dime a dozen. What you can do is become media literate. You can change how you perceive what’s thrust into your eyeballs. Learn to think critically and take a step back when you see headlines in the Daily Express exclaiming that your husbands and sons will be fighting Putin tomorrow before dinner. Think about what these companies stand to gain from your fear, or more importantly what they stand to lose from your lack of interest. These people want to make money, they want to make lots of it and they want to make it even on a Sunday. Your governments are no different. There’s always an election around the corner, there’s always oil to be extracted, there’s always territory to be grabbed. The landscape isn’t set to change anytime soon, so in order to see the good parts we have to put our phones down, pluck the lice out of our hair and determine the signified.