What William Randolph Hearst Taught Us About Media Empires (and Why It Feels Familiar)

William Randolph Hearst. He was the guy who basically said, “What if I didn’t just own the news… but also your opinions?” And then he did it. He built a media empire so big it could probably run for president and win. Hearst wasn’t just any newspaper owner; he was the Michael Jordan of printing presses—except his endgame wasn’t scoring points, it was controlling the narrative.

Hearst: he didn’t really care about facts. He cared about feelings. He didn’t just want to tell you what happened; he wanted you to feel what happened—or at least what he wanted you to think happened. He was like, “What if I put out the wildest, most dramatic story you’ve ever read?” And then he called it news.

This style got a name: yellow journalism. It’s like if every newspaper headline was clickbait but with fewer cats and more wars. Hearst’s papers once pushed so hard for sensationalism that people say he basically helped start the Spanish-American War. Imagine having that level of influence! Meanwhile, I can’t even convince my wife to let me buy a new grill.

Hearst Didn’t Just Report the News—He Made It

Here’s where it gets wild: Hearst didn’t just cover the stories; he was the story. He used his newspapers to push his personal agenda, attack his critics, and promote his friends. If you crossed him, you weren’t just out of the news—you were buried in it.

He wasn’t just a publisher; he was a one-man PR firm. And you better believe the press was always glowing when it came to him. It’s like if Yelp only had five-star reviews, and they were all written by the restaurant owner’s mom.

The Public Square Became His Private Theater

At his peak, Hearst controlled newspapers, magazines, and radio stations. If you wanted to know what was going on in the world, you had to go through him. His papers weren’t just a part of the media—they were the media.

This created a weird dynamic. People loved his papers because they were entertaining and everywhere, but they also started relying on them a little too much. It was like the first version of “doomscrolling,” except instead of Twitter, it was a broadsheet yelling about scandals and conspiracies.

And let’s not forget: local newspapers couldn’t compete. He either bought them out or crushed them under the weight of his empire. Pretty soon, it wasn’t just Hearst’s voice dominating the conversation—it was the only voice left.

What If Hearst Had an Algorithm?

Now, here’s where things get spooky. Imagine if Hearst wasn’t just deciding what went on the front page. Imagine if he had an algorithm that figured out exactly what would keep you glued to his headlines. Imagine if his empire wasn’t just newspapers, but a place where you were also a participant, creating content, sharing opinions, and competing for attention.

That’s the world we’re living in now. Back then, Hearst used yellow journalism to push wars and scandals. Today, we’ve got algorithms pushing outrage and conspiracies. The platforms may have changed, but the playbook hasn’t.

The Echoes of Hearst Today

Hearst’s empire might have been built on paper, but his legacy feels alive in the digital age. He taught us what happens when one person—or one company—controls too much of the conversation. It’s not just about what’s said; it’s about what gets left out.

When you concentrate that much power in one place, it’s easy to drown out smaller, independent voices. Local newspapers shut down. Nuanced discussions disappear. What’s left is sensationalism and polarization because that’s what grabs attention.

We’re still addicted to it. Just like Hearst’s readers couldn’t resist those outrageous headlines, we can’t seem to resist the drama on our screens today.

So, What Do We Do?

The story of William Randolph Hearst isn’t just history—it’s a warning. Media empires, whether built on ink or algorithms, need accountability. They need competition. And most of all, they need to remember that their job is to inform, not inflame.

Hearst’s papers were like the wild west of news. Today’s media landscape? Same energy, just with less paper and way more “likes.” The question is, how do we avoid repeating the mistakes of the past while navigating this new reality?

If nothing else, we can all agree on one thing: William Randolph Hearst would’ve loved trending hashtags