Posted on 05/19/2017 9:15:25 PM PDT by Olog-hai
The First Amendment intends that we should have free - and independent - presses. What we have instead is the (singular) Associated (not independent) Press.The Associated Press dates back to about 1850; the (one-pager) Sherman Anti-Trust Act dates to 1890.
The AP was found by SCOTUS to be in violation of Sherman in 1945. But in 1945 the mission of the AP - the conservation of expensive telegraphy bandwidth in the propagation of news - still made the AP “too big to fail.” In 2017, OTOH, telegraphy bandwidth is plentiful enough, and cheap enough, that FR probably uses as much of it now as the AP did in 1945.
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of NationsPeople of the trade of journalism hold a continuous virtual meeting over the AP “wire.” All wire services, especially the AP, homogenize journalism to the detriment of the public. The multiple outlets which are the individual members of the AP essentially function as fronts for the one singular journalism at its core. There is more reason to dismember the AP than there ever was to break up Ma Bell.That said, journalism is (knowingly) negative because - for commercial reasons - “If it bleeds, it leads.” Knowing that about itself, journalism claims to be objective. Thus, journalism claims that negativity is objectivity - and there can scarcely be a better definition of cynicism than that. Breaking up the AP would not magically change the fact that journalism is cynical about society (and the people who make society function) but naive about government. “Liberals” promote the idea that “government” is the same thing as “society”:
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.Thus we see that, deny it as they will, journalists will always tend to be “liberals."Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil . . . - Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)
Yep! The thing that always stuns me is how clueless your average journalist is about the world. They’ve put up on CNN’s bottom ribbon that the space shuttle travels 17 times the speed of light. Their military “expert” is always the guy that hired on when the particular desk was vacant. I’ve seen journalists who thought that there was air on the moon and I saw one of their “science experts” ask his colleague why the space shuttle has to go so fast.
A hundred years ago, reporters and ‘newspapermen’ were writers and detectives and loved the language.
Today’s journalists are preening actors, not quite good enough for Hollywood or Broadway, male and female prostitutes who fancy themselves otherwise because they command a higher price.
My first job out of college was news reporter and photographer at different small-town papers. Back in the day we were guardians of the republic and stood up for the little guy. And you had to deal with people like a boozy, chain-smoking city editor who would read a story and give it a thoughtful critique such as “What the #3!! is this $#!**? Were you on drugs when you wrote it? J**** C*****!”
Also had to take my own pictures, develop and print my own photos.
Loved it. Seems like a different world now.
Totally agree.
I’ll tell you what made a big impression on me. When I was in the Navy circa 1990 (20 years old), I had a newspaper under my arm and went to a restaurant in Hampton, VA to eat lunch. The tables all had these newspaper pages from World War II that were shellacked into the tables. I sat there and read those all through lunch, forgetting about the newspaper I had. Then it hit me like a ton of bricks: look at the difference in writing between these WWII articles and the 1990 newspapers! The new papers are written for idiots. That was 1990 and it hasn’t gotten any better.
So how did stories get past the city editor, and how long did such city editors last in their jobs?
Sweet. So we can be the new "press"? Can JimRob issue us press passes for our FReeps? Some of us were Jesse Watters before he was.
Not surprising - back when I was at university, journalism was the school’s “gut” major - the one all those who couldn’t cut it in more rigorous fields headed into to get their degrees - they’d be about at the top of the “profession” by now.....
Only 41%? I hope 100% take the Ernest Hemmingway exit, soon.
Re-write was my friend... and the city editor now works for another paper in another state. Still in the business. He quit smoking and gained 50 pounds. He seemed older than dirt to me ... pushing 40 when I was about 25.
Seems journalism was a lot more meaningful at the local level. It has sure changed a lot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.