"Government by Journalism"
But neither Stead nor Hearst claimed "objectivity", not that I'm aware of.
In grade school I heard about how Yellow Journalism helped the Spanish-American War to erupt. I consider that the first instance of fake news.
From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_Spanish%E2%80%93American_War
Men such as William Hearst, the owner of The New York Journal was involved in a circulation war with Joseph Pulitzer of the New York World and saw the conflict as a way to sell papers. Many newspapers ran articles of a sensationalist nature and sent correspondents to Cuba to cover the war. Correspondents had to evade Spanish Authorities; usually they were unable to get reliable news and relied heavily on informants for their stories. Many stories were derived from second or third hand accounts and were either elaborated, misrepresented or completely fabricated by journalists to enhance their dramatic effect.
Much food for thought here. Thanks.
When Americans see the bizarre responses of the mainstream media and the progressive politicians to tragedies such as the Tucson shootings — for instance, the proposal to ban rhetoric or symbols perceived to be violent — many wonder how the country has come to this strange place where elitists are moving to gain control at the expense of individual liberties. Perhaps one need not look past the Woodrow Wilson administration for the answer.
Today’s politicians and progressives seem to have taken some notes right out of the works of Edward Bernays, President Wilson’s propaganda master. The author of books such as Crystallizing Public Opinion (1923) and Propaganda (1928) — both of which were heavily utilized by Adolf Hitler’s Nazi propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels — Bernays has been credited with manipulating public opinion about such varied subjects as World War I, smoking, and even bacon. He has been dubbed the “Father of Spin” and the “Godfather of modern public relations” because of his extraordinary ability to alter public opinion.
Walter Cronkite.
I read a letter from a Confederate Soldier to his wife. This would have been around 1863.
He mentioned to her that he had read a Richmond newspaper and they were giving credit to Virginia troops for winning some unknown skirmish.
He said in fact it was the Florida companies which had won the battle.
I think Alexander the great took reporters along with him to send news back to Macedonia and Greece. Don’t know if they made stuff up tho.
Fake News was alive and well in the eighteenth century.
Walter Cronkite or the teamsters union?
The New York “there is no starvation in the Ukraine” Times?
Thomas Mast, political cartoonist of the 19th century.
Baghdad Bob proudly continued the tradition.
Algore?
The climate change hoax scientists?
Dan Blather?
Ralph Nader?
Citizens for Science in the Public Interest?
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.
Hearst promoting the Spanish American War “splendid little war” is a pretty good candidate.
”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.”
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."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.Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil . . . - Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)