Excellent article about Jim Robinson - Showdown: The left vs. the Web

World Net Daily ^ | July 20, 2005 | Richard Poe

[SFC MAC]

FreeRepublic – an online community

"I had not been all that politically active prior to President Clinton's election," Robinson recalls. "Yes, I complained about government and politics just like everyone else … but politics was not particularly high on my list of priorities – until Slick came along."

Robinson saw that the Clintons had brought a new and dangerous level of corruption to American politics. He could no longer remain aloof. "I knew that the newspapers and news media were lying and I knew that government had been encroaching on our individual rights and that our politicians were as corrupt as the day is long. I also knew that nothing would be done about it unless we the people somehow joined together to exercise our political free-speech rights."

[ForGod'sSake]

I already have FR in my (yet-to-be accepted) history of journalism. But it's only a matter of time. I've never had a book not reach publication.

I just happened across this article and your post on it and I was struck by your journalism comment. Maybe it was fateful encounter. I should pose a question to you that I've asked others without getting what I feel is a plausible/complete answer:

That is, since the early days of the Republic(maybe earlier), there were competing idealogies in the "media". Starting as the Federalist vs anti-Federalist groups? By the middle of the 20th century(maybe earlier?), the liberal/progressive/socialistic group(s) had the dominant hand. By the end of the century, they had virtual control of the "media". So, how and why is it the leftists came to their position of dominance in the media. As an aside, you've probably noticed it's not peculiar to America either. It IS the 800 pound gorilla.

FGS

[potlatch]

Thanks for the ping Tonkin, I enjoyed reading this so much!

[snuffy smiff]

SFC MAC-thanks for the post

Tonk-thanks for the ping

JimRob-thanks for being an American Patriot, and my hero...

[Humidston]

I still remember the day I first heard of "FreeRepublic.com" and the excitment I felt when I logged on for the first time. THOUSANDS of freedom-loving patriots were already waiting for me when I registered and learned that I wasn't alone!

Jim and John, I loved you then and I love you now. I may be getting old and out of wind, but I'll be there - right beside you - if and when we need to make another stand against the Clinton machine.

I thank you for the honor of being allowed to stand beside you both. And I won't ever let you down. You've proven worthy of my trust.

God bless you!

[Tax-chick]

I was a Reagan worker, as a student. During the Clinton years, things were so depressing that I stopped reading news or watching TV!

[LS]

Well, it's not a quick answer. Of course, there have always been "political" papers. But the earliest papers were "BROADSIDES" in which they published mostly local news and where they were posted in an inn or restaurant and a literate person read the news aloud at night and people (like on FR) edited, commented, or challenged the reporter's take on things.

In the 1820s, this all changed when the Democratic Party was formed, and "partisan" papers were established for one reason only: get your guy elected. They had no connection with "news" whatsoever. They were also tied into the postal system. Papers were subsidized by the parties (none made $$) and were sent cheap via the franking privilege.

This began to change in the Civil War, where people in N. and S. wanted real facts and news, not propaganda. This is where the "who, what, when, where, why" questions started to emerge. The telegraph helped force this change with its economy of words. For a lot of reasons, by the 1880s, MOST papers were no longer "partisan" but were "fact-based" and tried to keep "editorial" and "news" separate. Codes of ethics were drawn up that prohibited rampant politicization of news.

There were exceptions (the "Yellow Press") but this was the norm until about 1960 when it started to change again. That is the crux of my book: the press became MUCH more political BEFORE Vietnam, and I think it's associated with the Kennedy administration, not Vietnam. I'm currently working on a vast body of editorial research to prove it, and have some excellent colleagues helping me. If we can prove this, it will be a major breakthrough.

Either way, by 1968, the press was back to the "partisan" model, with a new twist, a "progressive" impulse to "reform" society/government in whatever image it determined best.

Hope this helps.

[AmericanMade1776]

Thank you for posting this article about Free Republic, and our Fearless Leader Jim Robinson. At times it sent chills to me, recalling the treacherous times, of dealing with the Clintons. I remember myself being censored at the CNN Message board, but still so angry with what the Clinton's were doing, needing a place to post. I posted in Yahoo Groups , and being manager to a few political yahoo groups. Yahoo Groups , were hard to manage, because somehow, by keeping the Groups an open forum, the rift raft would float in. I now no longer post in Yahoo Groups.

It was only in 2002, I joined Free Republic, still feeling the need to voice my political opinions. Thank you, Jim Robinson, for letting me have a place to post my political thoughts and to discuss the news.

God Bless Jim Robinson!

[Miss Behave]

"They'll have to pry my keyboard from my cold dead fingers," Jim Robinson famously told Washington Weekly in April 1998. The battle lines were drawn.

I love it!
God bless Jim Robinson
God bless Free Republic

What you said, lunarbicep!

[Miss Behave]

"...until Slick came along."

I love it. And I heart JimRob.

[firewalk]

please take me off your ping list-thanks

[Milhous]

Interesting data. FWIW, about a decade ago a large institution sent me to a mandatory pluralism class, where the instructors introduced us to a game named Star Power. In the game, they arbitrarily divided the class into a upper, middle, and lower class to illustrate how class status influences behavior.

Among other things, Star Power illustrated upper class patronization. After boredom set in, the students in the upper class got preoccupied with making things fair down there in the lower and middle class. Of course, an upper class would always exist to enable its own members to feel exclusive/important. But, things seemed much fairer from an upper class perspective if the two lower classes would simply merge into one great big equal entity where workers (i.e. you and me) get the same pay as slackers, who do nothing.

[La Enchiladita]

Jim Robinson for SCOTUS!!

Not only am I printing out the article but the entire thread!

[Citizen Soldier]

If you reference the "Get out of Cheney's House" shout rally, do you mention Dora, Dubya's sister in a wig I think, was out there too? In Barbara Bush's book she wrote about that. I thought it was so cool of his sister! She was as stirred up as the freepers.

[LS]

No, I didn't get that specific about FR. It's more the history of FR---about 2 pp compared to Drudge's 3-4 pp.

[ConservativeStLouisGuy]

Thanks so much for the full posting....now the FULL article is available for future FReeepers to read! :-)

[Valin]

HOORAY FOR ME!! :-)

[ForGod'sSake]

Codes of ethics were drawn up that prohibited rampant politicization of news.

An agreement I presume amongst the major papers/players?

There were exceptions (the "Yellow Press") but this was the norm until about 1960 when it started to change again. That is the crux of my book: the press became MUCH more political BEFORE Vietnam, and I think it's associated with the Kennedy administration, not Vietnam.

So you believe our period of Camelot contributed in some way to the media's(now including broadcast) move to propagandize us with their Utopian dreams? I'm not so sure it didn't preceed JFK. After all, by the time JFK ran for POTUS he was already the darling of the media, no? In fact, wasn't FDR treated like visiting royalty, and Joe McCarthy and Dwight Eisenhower treated more like lepers by the media?

I'm currently working on a vast body of editorial research to prove it, and have some excellent colleagues helping me. If we can prove this, it will be a major breakthrough.

I'm not altogether clear on what you're attempting to prove, but if you're shooting for exposure of the how's and why's of the rise of liberal media from, say, the 40's(?) on, you'll make me a happy camper.

Some additional thoughts/questions:

Media lives on advertising. How is/was it tied to the rise of liberal media? Conservatives have $'s also.

The different mindsets of liberals and conservatives, that is, (IMO)utopians vs realists, and how it might affect each's drive to propagandize?

In more recent years, the notion of target demographics.

Carry on   ;^)

FGS

[MinuteGal]

bttt

[musanon]

LS wrote:

--- by the 1880s, MOST papers were no longer "partisan" but were "fact-based" and tried to keep "editorial" and "news" separate. Codes of ethics were drawn up that prohibited rampant politicization of news.
There were exceptions (the "Yellow Press") but this was the norm until about 1960 when it started to change again.

---

BIG exception ----


- The New York Times - January 6, 1929

How Propoganda Works

PROPOGANDA
By Edward L. Bernays

The modern evolution in significance of the term that forms the title of Mr. Bernays's book are an example of how chameleon-like are words.

Originally applied to an institution of the Catholic Church, this term came down through the years in derived meaning, and finally, eight or ten years ago, stood for methods that had won public disapproval and contempt. And now, with the methods it implies being hauled out of the muck, scrubbed and varnished and classified in scientific bundles, it is taking on a modern, spruce, respectable and scientific significance.
Mr. Bernays, an outstanding student and practitioner of this newest branch of the social sciences, subjects it to a keen, far-seeing, cold-blooded inspection in this volume, and from this inspection he deduces some conclusions concerning its importance in present-day life and its many values. He even concludes the impossibility of carrying on without it the affairs of the modern world -- which make conservative people squirm a little.
But they, as well as others more up to date, ought to read through to the finish. For the author is wholly right in his insistence on the thoroughness with which propoganda methods have interwoven themselves into the fabric of our life, and it will be good for components of the mass mind to understand how they are being manipulated, while those who engage in the processes of manipulation will learn how to be successful in this new profession.

Mr. Bernays has a mind that is keen and quick in analysis, that delves and probes and classifies, and is equally vigorous and clear-sighted in practical application. He has had both theoretical and practical training in individual and mass psychology, and he has studied his subjects on all its sides and endeavored to visualize its possibilities. He discusses the new form that propoganda has taken, the form, substance and purpose that have made a branch of social science out of it, and the methods used by its practitioners. He also analyzes the principles of psychology that rule its methods. What propoganda does and what it can be made to do in business, politics, women's activities, social service and for the advancement of education, art and science are set forth in half a dozen or more chapters that are well worth the reading of anyone who wants to get a glimpse of what is going on behind the scenes.

Mr. Bernays believes that propoganda, rightly used, is not only an honorable, but a highly essential instrument in the organization of modern life. "Intelligent men," he concludes, "must realize that propoganda is the modern instrument by which they can fight for productive ends.

[LS]

even the Times in from about 1880 to the 1960s was primarily fact-based.