I’m not that old, relatively speaking, but I can’t ever remember a time when journalists did not pursue their agenda in their reports. I can’t ever remember a time when media were “politically neutral.”
They’ve never been politically neutral.
True to a large extent. But there used to be a few paragraphs in most stories with "A GOP spokesman disagreed and said..." or "A supporter stood outside the headquarters and said he still was in favor...." These would be relegated to minor coverage but there was actual coverage, usually. And very few ever pushed their personally biased viewpoint editorial statements at the beginning of a "news" story. On page twenty, maybe, but not on the "news" pages. Now they say "In another unsupported by facts tweet, President Trump again misstated the...."
True, Walter Cronkite (blatant Dem/socialist supporter as he later reminisced) had a puff piece, upbeat, adulatory interview of Jimmy Carter in his CBS convention booth and another of Andrew Young comparing Carter to eminent Civil Rights leaders. Just like today: cutesy questions to make Chelsea laugh and interview with Ivanka to jab and prod her into getting angry about the slanders they demanded she admit to about her father. Disgraceful.
I'm semi-old, 70, and I only barely remember it. The Cuban Missile Crisis was and is portrayed as a great victory led by great Democrat President John F. Kennedy. As I've grown older I realize that Russian Nikita Khrushchev actually got EXACTLY what he wanted.
The "Cuban Missile Crisis" consisted of 4 events: 1) US puts missiles in Turkey; 2) the USSR puts missiles in Cuba; 3) The USSR withdraws missiles from Cuba; 4) the US withdraws missiles from Turkey. The press calls events 2 and 3 "The Cuban Missile Crisis", ignoring events 1 and 4. But at least they were pro-American in those days.
Since the communist Tet Offensive of 1968, we've had a very much anti-American press.
Maybe not neutral, but there is a major difference between your newspaper from 1977 and the ones today that are just Buzzfeed/Gawker clones.
Lou,
Even more than that. Journalists took it as a matter of pride that they could write stories in such a way that no one could figure out their party ID.
I had a socialist, yes, socialist friend and colleague at the University who was exactly that way. He used to boast, rightly that “my students do not know how I vote.”
Now, around 1913, the American Society of Editors and Reporters (may have the exact title wrong) developed guidelines for a professional press. I later spoke with a beat reporter for the Chicago Tribune in the 50s and 60s. Some of the things that were DRILLED into them were
*No unsourced info or quotations. ALL key comments and statistics must be sourced
*Two or more sources for all sourced quotations.
*Always tell the “other side of the story.” At the time, he noted, this did NOT mean that if you are CNN talking about a Trump policy you go find a “republican” like Jenny the Ugly Lyin’ Red Rubin to talk about Trump. You get one of his most trusted people to give his side of the story. My reporter friend said that it was essential that you told the “other side of the story” with the same conviction, weight of evidence, and number of sources you did the first side.