Who is the grandfather of fake news?

PGA Weblog ^

[ProgressingAmerica]

I recently wrote an entry about Walter Lippmann, in which I made the case that his book "Public Opinion" makes him the founding father of fake news. It's important to understand, "fake news" does not end with "journalistic objectivity", fake news begins with "journalistic objectivity". It has to, because if "fake news" doesn't begin with "We are objective, you can trust us" then you'll get lost in the quagmire of thousands of years of people who, while they did report things inaccurately, did not do so because it was their ideological drive. They either lied because they were told to do so by the king, or they lied because they wanted to sell more papers.(which doesn't make it right, but neither helps us understand journalistic ideology)

With that very important fact laid out, there is another critical name to understand when it comes to using news as a source of manipulation. That's William Thomas Stead, he is the grandfather, or godfather if you will, of fake news. Now, Stead was a tabloid man. He didn't proclaim objectivity, he was honest that he was manipulating people. That's a hugely important distinction to enunciate and understand. Manipulating people through the news was his deeply held ideological belief. Still, Stead authored a piece called "Government by Journalism", which, unlike "Public Opinion", it's not a 400 page book. It's only an essay,(22 pages long) which means that its easy to read, and also quick to listen to.

Now, Stead's work "Government by Journalism" is full of mind-blowing quotes, such as this one:

They decide what their readers shall know, or what they shall not know.

Yes, he means journalists. Journalists decide what their readers shall know, or what they shall not know. I told you he was honest about his ideology.

But why would I care about a tabloid man, the sensationalist? He's not proclaiming objectivity! The tabloid man is only important, because of who his protege was. William Thomas Stead's protege was William Randolph Hearst, and Stead was very proud of this. Stead wrote that: (alt)

I have been long on the look out for a man to appear who will carry out my ideal of government by journalism I am certain that such a man will come to the front some day, and I wonder if you are to be that man.

Stead writes that after his discussions with Hearst:

It was almost immediately after that midnight talk that Mr. Hearst began to realise the ideal of a journalism that does things. He took up the question of municipal ownership. He engaged Arthur Brisbane, the son of Brisbane the Fourierist, to write editorials. He began the battle against the Trusts; he made the Spanish-American war. For weal or for woe Mr. Hearst had found his soul; for weal or for woe he had discovered his chart and engaged his pilot, and from that day to this he has steered a straight course, with no more tackings than were necessary to avoid the fury of the storm.

The final crucial point to understand, is that "Objective journalism" was a reaction to Hearstism, which really didn't exist. Hearst was merely implementing Steadism, and Hearst spread Steadism around the globe. But if you read Walter Lippmann, here's the one thing you won't read:

"We realize that Hearst is manipulating, and we want the manipulation to stop".

Instead, Lippmann spends 400 pages obsessing over stereotypes, and obsessing over how to manipulate people without them realizing that they're being manipulated, how to employ those stereotypes to profound effect.

The "why" is important. That, I believe, is a reasonable and fact-based reason as to why "fake news" begins with "journalistic objectivity". Or else, if we do not nail down journalistic ideology, we'll be chasing our tails and discussing John Norvell or any others who, while again, they got plenty of things wrong, they didn't set out to manipulate people and they certainly didn't claim to be objective in the process. And that's the point.

When it comes to today's "objective journalists", we need to nail these S.O.B.s down and use their own history against them. As you can see, they are very adept at using their institutions to spread lies and propaganda. Notice how they omit "objective journalism"? The ideology must be protected at all costs.

[buckalfa]

Thomas Mast, political cartoonist of the 19th century.

[yarddog]

You are thinking of Isaac and Esau tho Cain and Abel were also part of attempted deception by Cain.

BTW, does anyone know what the “Mark of Cain” is?

[21twelve]

“You are thinking of Isaac and Esau...”

Thanks! And I have no idea what the mark of Cain is. I seem to recall some people saying it was dark skin (Blacks), but I don't know. Didn't muhammad make up that part in the Koran about how the muslims are ancestors of Cain?

[Theodore R.]

Muslims are supposedly ancestors of Moses’ firstborn, Ishmael.

[yarddog]

I think Arabs are thought to be descended from Ishmael who was Abraham’s first Son by Hagar.

[Theodore R.]

Abraham’s firstborn, Ishmael. Abraham was not a Jew. Jews hadn’t appeared yet.

[Theodore R.]

Yea, Arabs; Muslims come some what six centuries later.

[Theodore R.]

I just read that Jews do consider Abraham the first Jew.

[1066AD]

Baghdad Bob proudly continued the tradition.

[21twelve]

Thanks. Boy- I’m all confused. I guess I need to read my Bible more often. I do like that story with Noah and the whale though. ;)

http://www.jewfaq.org/origins.htm

The above is some info on Abraham based on Jewish sources. I’ve only read the Bible, so some of this is news to me with more details. Abram was the son of a guy that sold idols!

[laplata]

Nast

[Secret Agent Man]

Algore?

The climate change hoax scientists?

Dan Blather?

Ralph Nader?

Citizens for Science in the Public Interest?

[Read Write Repeat]

Patriarch. Those who convert (officially) take Abraham and Sarah as the names of their “parents” in their Hebrew name.

[publius911]

Not sure how all this helps, other than reserving lampposts for the day of reckoning for these arrogant presumptuous traitors.

[MadMax, the Grinning Reaper]

Old time reporters used to say that Lippmann was the only writer they knew who got famous for being wrong all the time.

Now I have to read his book again.

Out of braggadocio I have to say that I knew at least 4 Pulitzer Prize winner writers from a time when it meant something:
*Isaac Don Levine - covered the rise of the Soviet Union and Communism. Brought Whitaker Chambers to the White House.
* Frank Kluckholn - believe his specialty was foreign affairs, possibly specializing in Latin America
* Clark Mollenhoff - “The Pentagon” among other books
* Jim Lucas - Wars, Vietnam, etc. An Ernie Pyle type guy

Those were real writers, not the leftist snowflakes of today.

[Jimmy Valentine]

Hearst promoting the Spanish American War “splendid little war” is a pretty good candidate.

[semantic]

The concept of manipulating 'facts' - in essence, creating alternatives to support designed narratives, is as old as government itself.

Today we call it propaganda, but the Roman term (at least for managing history) was damnatio memoriae. There are surviving Egyptian examples as well predating Rome by thousands of years.

The issue isn't one of objectivity, but rather competition. Opinion & ideas need to compete in the public square. That's what the net brought to the table, and which the Don has executed to his advantage.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

”fake news” does not end with "journalistic objectivity", fake news begins with "journalistic objectivity". It has to, because if "fake news" doesn't begin with "We are objective, you can trust us" then you'll get lost in the quagmire of thousands of years of people who, while they did report things inaccurately . . . either lied because they were told to do so by the king, or . . . because they wanted to sell more papers.

The other crucial aspect of lying is having a critical mass of support. A “Big Lie” can hardly be effective if there are independent propaganda organs contending. The Big Lie of American journalism (a.k.a. “the media”) is not only that journalism is objective but that there is ideological diversity in American journalism. There is none. Even when the editorial page of a newspaper is conservative, the other 90+% of the paper derives from wire service material. So all our propaganda organs are fed from the same source - the AP and other similarly homogenizing wire services. And crucially, all are in favor of - surprise, surprise - their own interests.

The interest of journalism is interesting the public - selling papers - and that is emphatically not the same as the public interest. Journalists interest the public via the cynicism of being negative towards society (and the people and institutions which make it work) - and calling that negativity “objectivity.”

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Stead: “my ideal of government by journalism”

The conceit that journalism controls the government inherently biases the journalist in favor of the government, at the same time that journalism is “objectively” negative towards 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.

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil . . . - Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)

"Naïveté towards government and cynicism towards society” is IMHO the very definition of “socialism.” Any “liberal" you meet will very happily "so confound . . . society with government, as to leave . . . no distinction between them” because doing so slanders society and flatters government.

[Reily]

Father of fake news - Phillip Freneau at the behest of Thomas Jefferson.