The Collapse of Big Media: Starting Over

The Wilson Quarterly ^ | Spring 2005 | Terry Eastland

[quidnunc]

It’s premature to write an obituary, but there’s no question that America’s news media — the newspapers, newsmagazines, and television networks that people once turned to for all their news — are experiencing what psychologists might call a major life passage. They’ve seen their audiences shrink, they’ve had to worry about vigorous new competitors, and they’ve suffered more than a few self-inflicted wounds — scandals of their own making. They know that more and more people have lost confidence in what they do. To many Americans, today’s newspaper is irrelevant, and network news is as compelling as whatever is being offered over on the Home Shopping Network. Maybe less.

The First Amendment protects against government abridgment of the freedom of the press. But it doesn’t guarantee that today’s news media — some would already say yesterday’s — will be tomorrow’s. Though most existing news organizations will probably survive, few if any are likely to enjoy the prestige and clout they once did. So it’s time to write, if not an obituary, then an account of their rise and decline and delicate prospects amid the “new media” of cable television, talk radio, and the blogosphere.

The “new media” carry the adjective because they began to emerge only in the 1980s, when the media of newspapers, newsmagazines, and network and local television news had long been firmly in place. Most newspapers had been around since the first decades of the 20th century, and though rising costs and competition caused some to be shuttered in the decades after World War II, there were still more than 1,700 papers published daily in the 1970s. Time and Newsweek were established, respectively, in 1923 and 1933. Network television newscasts were reaching most parts of the country by the 1950s, and local stations eventually provided their own news programs at various points in the day.

The most important old news organizations were the outlets that covered stories in the nation’s capital and abroad. They included The New York Times  and The Washington Post; Time and Newsweek; NBC News, CBS News, and ABC News; National Public Radio and public television’s various iterations of what is now called The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. When people talked about the “mainstream” or “establishment” media, these were the organizations they had in mind. They were leaders among the media generally, and shaped how regional and local outlets practiced journalism.

They were also part of America’s first sizable national elite, which emerged after World War II in response to the needs of a nation whose central government was larger and more invasive, costly, and ambitious than ever  before. Political leaders, lawyers, academics, businesspeople, and certain practitioners of that once-disreputable trade, journalism, populated this elite. As in the other elites, members of the media elite held degrees from many of the same (elite) universities. They believed that they had a responsibility to improve society, and they thought of themselves — as no ink-stained wretch had before — as professionals.

-snip-

[Tribune7]

ping

[LS]

Actually, I don't think so---I mean, they certainly don't help---but this is the subject of a book I've been working on, and we're doing a rather large study of the 1960s. It appears that reporters have ALWAYS been libs (since the early 1900s), but that journalistic ethics, the way "news" was written (fact-heavy, little on "feelings"), and, above all, a commitment to balance and fairness---even when you didn't agree with it---dominated until JFK. Then something happened. We're working on proving what, and I won't give away our preliminary findings, but our data set is pretty darn big.

Among other things, though, the style of reporting changed from the "inverted pyramid" of who, what, when, where, why to an "engaging" personal style that always began with an anecdote or story (see any stupid column on any of last night's basketball games, and see how long it takes you to find out what the score was!!)

All the J-schools did was confirm and reinforce what had already happened.

Oh, and all this happened BEFORE Vietnam and Watergate, contrary to popular opinion.

There are some teasers about this, here:

[bgsugar]

The arenas of media, journalism and education are in DESPERATE need of reform.

1) Conservative students have little chance of surviving in most major schools of journalism.

2) Intellectual idealogues have gained control of most major public news sources.

3) MSM sources have shown exponentially blatant favoritism to liberal candidates and an increasing willingness to ignore negatives on their favorite political allies while either under investigating facts or, in some cases ("Rathergate" and "NY Timesgate"), actually fabricating negative stories about those they dislike. The Houston Chronicle actually messed up and posted an internal email a couple of years ago about how they were going to "get" Tom DeLay and they still try on an almost daily basis.

The result of all this is . . .

1)Intelligent conservatives are ceasing to pay any attention to MSM in any capacity

2) Alternative news sources like FOX and the bloggers are seeing increases in viewers and participants

3) There is a pent up demand for legitimate (not necessarily just conservative) journalism where good research is conducted and facts are reported, not skewed or manufactured. Some conservative entrepreneurs might take note.

[alrea]

A TV cult of transfer of wealth not unlike Marxism, infested with Democrats, liberal politicians and many of the legal profession.

The common denominator is putting a face in a camera to transfer income. Finally the internet is providing enough mass education to keep people from voting for their income.

[Paige]

Remember, the media isn't accountable unless someone is truly barking at their heels. What made me aware of this possible phenomena taking place, I was glancing through the New York Times last year during the presidential election of 2004 and every one of their sources were "unnamed' sources. Afterwords I thought, how credible would Conservative Media outlets be if they reported news like the New York Times reports news? They have never been called on their lies about many issues but yet the MSM uses them as if they are the only place they can acquire news along with the AP. Without a doubt, the MSM is totally corrupt and without any scruples whatsoever.

Thanks

[FastCoyote]

"I suspect the left-wing professors at the journalism schools "

Why should there even be journalism schools? If I, as an engineer, can write a clear Who What Why When and Where story, AND know something about the subject, then shouldn't I be prefer as a journalist? Same with the rest of you with real life skills.

In fact, this goes for the teaching "profession" as well.

[FastCoyote]

AND if I can proofread my own copy, prefer=preferred

[LS]

Yep, all true. It goes back to the quesiton about the universities: can they be saved?

Not in their present state, and I don't know what will save them . . . but no one knew that Rush Limbaugh and the internet would overturn the MSM, either. So something will happen. I just don't see how it works out right now.

[bgsugar]

The University of Texas has one of the most liberal (socialist, anti-American, propagandist) journalism teaching ETHICS classes.

Way to go Texas.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10711

High Noon in Texas for Leftist Academics

. . . . . Robert Jensen, who teaches "Critical Issues in Journalism." According to the Professor Watch List, Jensen introduces the "unsuspecting" student to a crash course in "socialism, white privilege, the truth about the Persian Gulf War and the role of America as the world's prominent sponsor of terrorism.

"Jensen half-heartedly attempts to tie his rants to 'critical issues' in journalism, insisting his lessons are valid under the guise of teaching potential journalists to 'think' about the world around them. Jensen is also renowned for using class time when he teaches Media Law and Ethics to 'come out' and analogize gay rights with the civil rights movement," the list entry for Jensen reads. . . . . . . .

[Luke21]

We are going to see Hillary sanctified and deified. The lies that will be broadcast defy the imagination. And 48 percent of the voters agree with that false worldview before the election starts.
.

[sarasotarepublican]

I'm afraid you are 100 percent correct!

[jwh_Denver]

MSM

What does that stand for?

[LS]

Sorry, "MainStreamMedia." ABCNBCCBSCNNTIMENEWSWEEKNYTIMESWASHINGTONPOST.

[hinckley buzzard]

Back in 1969 or so, CBS with Dan Rather did a special called "Hunger in America" in which it was claimed that there were children in America starving to death, complete with fraudulent videotapes of very sick(not starving) children.

It was all false and eventually exposed, but at that time the MSM monopoly was going strong and it was never suitable discredited. The story added great impetus to the Great Society pimping with such tools as Food Stamps, AFDC("welfare") and WIC.

I'd say it changed history some, yes. .

[an amused spectator]

I'm on tenterhooks.

[an amused spectator]

Among other things, though, the style of reporting changed from the "inverted pyramid" of who, what, when, where, why to an "engaging" personal style that always began with an anecdote or story (see any stupid column on any of last night's basketball games, and see how long it takes you to find out what the score was!!)

LOL! I made an extremely sarcastic comment about that very thing last night (it was a Social Security thread).

I've been noticing something in two of my primary focuses on FR: federal judges and taxes. The MSM always presents "a ruling by a federal judge" as though it was handed down from the Mount. I've also noticed that the MSM is completely incurious about taxation. They present taxes as "a done deal", and rarely, if ever, attempt to foment questions about the legitimacy of ANY taxation scheme. Along similar lines, educational institutions could easily cast a harsh light on the subject of taxation, but occupy themselves with more important issues, like "creative writing" and the like.

[bgsugar]

Having dealt with the media on a local level, I think the following is true:

1) Very few true journalists exist that have either the ability or the will to legitimately investigate the facts of stories and often depend on hand fed info from their favorite sources which, given the political leaning of most of those in journalism, is slanted to the liberal side.

2) There is a lack of professionalism in much of the management level in journalism that views media either as a propaganda opportunity to slant the stories that reporters turn in or entertainment and so focuses on titillation.

3) Conservatives gripe about the status of journalism but do very little about creating competition to the MSM in the current arena. Thank goodness for FOX News and blogs.

4) The tax regulations at ALL levels are so convoluted and so difficult to understand and most taxpayers don't take the time or have the ability to understand the systems so either fall for "simple fixes" from whoever is running for office or just pay and gripe. Given that most government bureaucracies are more liberal, the MSM is never going to challenge them even if they do actually take the time to investigate and report on the topics. As far as educational institutions and teaching about taxes, I've given classes on taxes in public schools, and very few of the teachers have a clue. The public education system is in itself one of the most inefficient spending entities for taxes and the four most dangerous words in the system are "It's for the kids." They justify any lack of accountability with those words.

[LS]

Agree. The new media, by its very nature, is more likely to be accurate, if only because things can be instantly corroborated or challenged.

[LS]

Heheh. Well, it will be a while. We've just collected 12 years' worth of NY Times, WaPo, Atlanta Constitution, Cleveland Plain Dealer, and LA Times. Now we're running "word bias" analysis and other tests that journalist scholars usually use to detect bias on two editorials each, per month. That's hundreds of samples.