For the past several months, America has been entranced by the antics of Donald Trump.

Surprisingly, however, this article will not be about Trump.

This article is written in response to the popularity of his method of communication. People, by the hundreds, have become enamored by it. The popularity of the man is merely a reflection of the effectiveness of his method. It is a full recognition of the changes that have been caused by the new types of both social and informative media. It is a modern form of Yellow Journalism, but one that has been born out of necessity. Before I elaborate further, the origin of this communicative phenomenon should be explained.

"Yellow Journalism" has its roots in the rapid increase in newspaper circulation from the 1880’s to 1900, during which point over a thousand new newspapers companies entered circulation. Back in those days, subscription services did not exist. Like the modern newspapers, the individuals who advertised in their newspapers paid them for the amount of papers sold per day. The newspapers literally survived off of the amount of readers they could generate through their paperboys. As such, each news organization would publish multiple issues a day. In an age without instant information, the newspaper was often the only way the common man heard the news. As such, newspaper readers often numbered in the hundreds of thousands. As such, competition between major news agencies often became quite heated.

The term “Yellow Journalism” refers to the excessive use of sensationalism, capital-letter news articles, and questionable evidence, in an attempt to build reader circulation. Of the most famous practitioners of their era were Randolph Hearst of the "San Francisco Examiner" and "New York Journal" and Joseph Pulitzer’s "New York World." Both of them designed their newspapers to grab as much attention as possible, including crime stories, games, and other tidbits. Their version of the newspaper was constructed far more like a piece of entertainment than an actual newspaper. Their credibility was called into question years later, when it developed that their news piece about the USS Maine falsely indicted Spain as the culprit, resulting in the Spanish-American War.

These questionable practices have now become part of modern news media. Due to the countless ways news can be disseminated, and the massive variety of alternative media sources, both traditional and new media have adapted various methodologies of "yellow journalism." The first is the increasing validity of opinion without evidence, especially on twitter or other mass media platforms.

Old media is still very credible in its use of evidence, but new media has a tendency not to be this way. Any person attempting to refute another’s claim gets caught in a hopeless war in the comments section of the article or on a forum. Even when presented with evidence, it is so easy for the facts to be twisted to serve an individual’s purpose. That is a huge reason why I always give background before getting to my main point, so you can decide for yourself if my news is credible enough to read.

The second is the incorporation of tweets into T.V. news. These tweets are meant to give the viewers the sensation that their views matter. Or, they feature celebrity news, because of its ability to change public opinion on an issue. While the use of celebrity or the common man’s opinion is valid, the use of tweets is not. It is yet another attempt by a slowly dying old media to incorporate new media in an attempt to attract a younger generation of viewers, like the use of online newspapers. It is not as effective as one would like to believe.

The final questionable method is the use of material that can easily be edited by programs such as Photoshop. While it is necessary, the blatant falsification or sensationalism of stories in an attempt to gain readership, especially those of national interest, is downright unethical. We hold journalists to a higher standard, put them on a pedestal even, for good reason. Because in them still lies the public trust.

What can you, the reader, do about this?

To be honest, not much. There is so much noise in the air these days that it is hard for anything to get through. One can hardly embark on a Twitter war, or a commenting war, or a series of long Facebook posts.

The message should be blunt, to the point, and any fat should be eradicated entirely. (And yes, I do recognize the irony.)

And, finally, be critical.

Don’t let any piece of news slide by without examining it from every possible angle. While I realize that both reading this and following that advice is both time consuming, I assure you, it is well worth the effort.