Did William Randolph Hearst Help or Hurt Journalism?

      William Randolph Hearst undeniably practiced journalism in a corrupt and dishonest way. But, did it help journalism progress beyond its impactful yellow stages?
      While yellow journalism will always be around, that does not mean it will always pack as hard of a punch as Hearst's examples. I believe that while Hearst's practices were wrong and immoral, he helped journalism move past the stage where yellow journalism could impact the public and country the way it once did. After people realized what happened with Hearst, and how they were basically fooled, they were more careful in their interpretations of the truth within the media. 
      Nowadays, we probably have more yellow journalism than back then. With the rise of online journalism, it has become much more easy for fake stories or misleading headlines to be put out just to receive clicks. But, since Hearst made a fool out of everyone in the early 1900's, people have become much more cautious. No company today could have the bizarre impact that Hearst's did back then. The New York Times could not put out an article containing false information and cause the United States to go to war, the way Hearst did. With the internet and millions of fact-checkers, it is virtually impossible for the fictitious story to last more than a day.
      Therefore, while Hearst was not a good person and was an unethical journalist, I believe his ways of producing fictitious news helped journalism move past this and create a smarter and more aware audience for the future.