Bobby, it is more a case of HOW those stories are reported, not that they ARE reported. Both of the cases you mention were reported in a VERY sensationalist manner.

I repeat my statement. ALL news reporting is 'yellow journalism' now, and it has been for quite some time. How? Simple.

1. 'News' is ratings driven, and has been for decades. 'If it bleeds, it leads.' Sensationalism.
2. Editorial bias. All 'news media' organizations exhibit editorial bias. Many people here seem to have no trouble believing that some 'news media' (Fox, etc.) is biased. But they have trouble believing that other 'news media' outlets (CNN, BBC, etc.) are as well. People tend to select 'news media' outlets where the bias matches their personal biases and then poo-poo the others that do not. Sorry, but ALL are biased.
3. Passing off 'Op-Ed' material as 'news'. They ALL do this. Some may be worse at it than others, but they ALL do this.
4. Closely related to 3, 2, and 1... The 'news media' outlets try to influence public opinion and even events to further their own interests.

The first really *famous* case of yellow journalism was back in the late 1890's. Hearst (a famous and powerful newspaper publisher then, sort of the equivalent of Murdoch today) is quoted as saying to one of his reporter/photographers in Cuba "You provide the Pictures, I'll provide the War". When the USS Maine exploded in the harbor, Hearst's newspapers were VERY quick to blame it on a Spanish 'infernal machine', thus setting the stage for the Spanish-American War... A War that set the stage for American imperialism during the 20th Century.

Later investigations by the US Navy put the blame on out-gassing from the type of coal used, which was stored right next to the 'magazine'. The 'firedamp' gas accumulated. It ignited. It set off the explosives in the magazine. Kaboom!

Things have not changed in the News Media to this day.

The people would be better served by the news media if the news media just presented things in as fair and impartial a manner as possible, left out the sensationalism, stuck to the facts and kept out opinion, and let the People make up their own minds on the subjects.

But as long as the 'news media' of today persists in its biased sensationalism, trots out their 'talking heads' to give opinion, and tries to influence public opinion, I am going to call them 'yellow' and correctly so.

How does one portray the execution of 1/5 of the population without meeting your criteria of "sensationalist".

Not sure how you are able to establish that the Mirror's reporting was sensationalist, it's not available online. Maybe you're thinking of the TV show Pilger did for ATV, though as that has yet to be broadcast in the US, perhaps not. Is it simply that, as it was published it must have been sensationalist? Doesn't that strike you as a little prejudicial?

As for the Globe's coverage, is there anything in particular in the linked article that you found sensationalist? Is it the use of the word "horrific" in the first paragraph when describing childhood memories of abuse at the hands of a priest? Do you believe such a description to be inaccurate?

To address your points:

1. Just because the lead item is sensationalist, does not make all items sensationalist.

2. Of course media has bias, to the best of my knowledge, all people have bias and a news organization is staffed by people. Bias is not the same thing as sensationalism.

3. As 1, just because some items contain editorial material, does not mean it all does. Editorial material does not have to be sensationalist, thus those items are not necessarily rendered sensationalist for having included it.

4. Of course news media outlets influence public opinion, what would be the point of publishing misdeeds if public opinion were not changed?

For the record, I am not a journalist, nor, to the best of my knowledge, am I related to any. I understand that there is bad journalism, you appear to rule out the possibility of there being any good.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Can reporting, that try's to be unbiased, actually be biased?

Take "Climate Warming", there are two sides to the argument, so a news outlet interviews an "expert" from each side. The result based basically on the personalities of the two contestants goes to the one who rejects "Climate Warming".

Was this a balanced argument or should there have been more people interviewed to reflect the numbers of "experts" that there were on each side at that time. Common belief said 93% of scientists believed in "Climate Warming" at that time. So should there have been 13 for the motion and one against interviewed?

One side is wrong. One side is correct.

Come on now, you know better than that. In most arguments there are many shades of grey.
It usually comes down to, do you believe the light grey side or the dark side.

Its not a cover-up. Revealing the personal info of these people is a crime in in some cases in some jurisdictions. For instance, doxing a US Government employee is a Federal Offense. Regardless of this, it opens up the probability of a mess of civil lawsuits. Publishing this personal information on these people, most of which have NOT been charged with a crime is a Bad Thing. The 'consortium' is correct to shield the 'personal information' of these people. Sorry, but 'name and shame' is NOT civilized. Wait until they have been charged with a crime, tried before a court of LAW, and found guilty. Then you can name and shame all you want to.

Thats true Major Kong.
It's about 6970 US persons and companies mentioned in the papers.
The Panama Papers reveal at least 36 Americans are accused of financial crimes.
Thats less then 0.5 % of the american customers in Panama.
But even publishing personal information on those people before trial is not acceptable.

Does that mean as an editor you would have spiked the articles about the Khmer Rouge and RC priests? Do you think the public would have been served better as a result of these actions?

Khmer Rouge?
The Panama Papers reveal 27 individual names from Cambodia in the papers.
"Do you think the public would have been served better as a result of these actions?" is a very strange question.

Jann, you said that "publishing personal information on those people before trial is not acceptable". Information on priests in Boston was similarly released prior to people being tried, my question to you, as a hypothetical editor of the Boston Globe is, do you believe spiking (i.e. stopping its publication) that story would have served the people of Boston better than publishing the article? Do you believe the priests concerned would have been tried without publication of information by the Globe?

It's a big leap from financial crimes to mass murder and sexual abuse...
Did Boston Globe publish phone numbers and home adresses as well?

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/panama-papers-feature-dozens-americans-accused-financial-crimes/story?id=39007304

Jann, you said that "publishing personal information on those people before trial is not acceptable". Information on priests in Boston was similarly released prior to people being tried, my question to you, as a hypothetical editor of the Boston Globe is, do you believe spiking (i.e. stopping its publication) that story would have served the people of Boston better than publishing the article? Do you believe the priests concerned would have been tried without publication of information by the Globe?

It's a big leap from financial crimes to mass murder and sexual abuse...
Did Boston Globe publish phone numbers and home adresses as well?

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/panama-papers-feature-dozens-americans-accused-financial-crimes/story?id=39007304

Is a person's name "personal information"? Have home addresses and phone numbers been released as part of the Panama Papers coverage, and, if so, by whom?

The Globe didn't need to publish phone numbers, priests are generally in the phone book. Likewise home addresses.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Is a person's name "personal information"? Have home addresses and phone numbers been released as part of the Panama Papers coverage, and, if so, by whom?

No.
The ICIJ has said it will hold back some information.
"What we won't get is personal data or records of bank accounts and financial transactions, emails and other correspondence, passports and telephone numbers."

London's Trafalgar Square has become a tax haven for a day, complete with sand, palm trees and beach balls:)
https://youtu.be/K0kQHvg6boI

WinterKnight...

Any thoughts regarding:

Perhaps we should have another '1860 Oxford Evolution Debate'

It happened in 1860 so you still live in the past

Yours sincerely the Troll

Fool me once shame on me fool me twice shame on you after that you fill the blanks

Fool me 3 times and you ... . ..... .. ... .... ......

---

WinterKnight...

Any thoughts regarding:

Perhaps we should have another '1860 Oxford Evolution Debate'.

Let both sides present their Scientific Evidence, Charts, etc. With The World watching.

Should be very interesting and informative.

That would be Biology, and due to an agreement between, on one side my youngest and I, and on the other three members of the opposite sex. We on our side have agreed not to discuss biology, in any shape or form, if they will desist from even thinking about discussing maths or physics.

Oh, a bit more explanation, the other group consists of a doctor, MD type, a dentist and a zoologist.

Perhaps we should have another '1860 Oxford Evolution Debate'.

Says the genius mmmmm what has a talk fest got to do with wikileaks or snowden both are about leaking and whistle blowers .

I can see it now the Doctor , physicist , biologist the mathematician, all sitting down to talk , of course not one off them would know anything about whistle blowers or leaking and what would come out of such a talk fest .

probably more ways to not protect whistle blowers so they can lie to get there grants and noble prises after all they would have a vested interest of stopping whistle blowers from exposing them as frauds.

Some mite need to Keep on subject in stead of high jacking it to talk about something other than what the thread says .

---

Very surprised that the Yanks haven't kicked up a stink about this...

50 biggest US companies stashing $1.3 trilion offshore

..for every $ they paid in federal taxes, they received $27 in federal aid, totalling $11.2 trillion...

...boy oh boy, these guys can teach the Mafia a thing or two about skimming. :-)

Some interesting Panama Papers stories

My favourite one being...

Brilliant comedian but shoddy PM

"The judges' decision is likely to reignite criticism of the complexity of the UK tax system, if HMRC itself can be caught off guard. It will also expose alternative financing arrangements to more scrutiny from tax campaigners."

Panama Papers 2?

HMRC loses £50 million Tax appeal

Hmm, it sees that National & Local Government are no longer interested in taking care of the country but in creating large scale ATM's.

Schools in the hands of offshore firms

With £6 billion up for grabs, nice ATM :-(

Australia says no worries, hmmm...

DCNS 22,000 page data leak