Towards a pragma-linguistic framework for the study of sensationalism in news headlines
Abstract
This article sets out a framework for a language-oriented analysis of sensationalism in news media. Sensationalism is understood here as a discourse strategy of ‘packaging’ information in news headlines in such a way that news items are presented as more interesting, extraordinary and relevant than might be the case. Unlike previous content analyses of sensational coverage, this study demonstrates how sensationalism is instantiated through specific illocutions, semantic macrostructures, narrative formulas, evaluation parameters, and interpersonal and textual devices. Examples are drawn from a corpus of headlines of the ‘most read’ articles in the online outlet of the British mid-market tabloid Daily Mail compiled in early 2012. Sensationalized instances are identified through surveys and focus group discussions and subsequently analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. The study is located within the context of media scholarship on news values and current trends in journalism.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Sensationalism in journalism is associated with dramatic presentation, emotional appeals, moral polarization, and prioritization of shock or curiosity over proportionality.
“It has long been associated with dramatic presentation, emotional appeals, moral polarization, and the prioritization of shock or curiosity over proportionality (Molek-Kozakowska, 2013;Vettehen et al., 2008).”
From Sensational Headlines, Engagement, and Credibility in Nepal’s Online News (2025) · cites this paper as Molek-Kozakowska, 2013
Cites
Searle, J. R. (1969) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139173438 · Cited by 11,718 · see citing works
Galtung, J., & Ruge, M. H. (1965) · Journal of Peace Research · doi:10.1177/002234336500200104 · Cited by 3,428 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Click bait: Forward-reference as lure in online news headlines
Blom, J. N., & Hansen, K. R. (2015) · Journal of Pragmatics · doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2014.11.010 · Cited by 412 · see citing works
Sensational Headlines, Engagement, and Credibility in Nepal’s Online News
Dahal, S. (2025) · Nepalese Journal of Development and Rural Studies · doi:10.3126/njdrs.v22i1.99390
- Authors
- Molek-Kozakowska, K.
- Affiliations
- Opole University, Poland
- Venue
- Discourse & Communication
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2013-04-22
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 173-197
- ISSN
- 1750-4813 (ISSN-L)
- 1750-4821
- OpenAlex
- W2046592476
- Cited by
- 221
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 22 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 43.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Discourse & Communication (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Linguistics and Discourse Analysis
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Discourse and Social Analysis
- Keywords
- sensationalism, news headlines, illocution, semantic macrostructures, narrative formula, evaluation, textual devices, news values, Daily Mail, tabloid journalism, online news
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review