;^)
Posted on 07/20/2005 4:28:34 AM PDT by SFC MAC
--- 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
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.
even the Times in from about 1880 to the 1960s was primarily fact-based.
This of course is exactly what men like Bernays, -- and those who own the Times, want you to believe.
I suggest you devote a little time to study Ed Bernays. He was arguably the greatest propagandist of the 20th century.
It would appear from your comments you've already been there so why don't you share your conclusions with the audience. In particular, would you mind applying a sampling of your wisdom to the questions/thoughts expressed here?
I'm more interested in the codes that his editors were using; what the journalists themselves were writing in journalism pubications, etc. It's much different than what one guys says, no matter how "influential" he is supposed to be.
2) I agree that the change started before JFK became president, and include a lof of that research in the book; but I really think the key came during his three years, and because the media either a) buried so much of his activities or b) knew about them and did not investigate others (such as the Castro assassination business) played a key role in the news media NOT covering the assassination properly, not asking the right questions, not gathering evidence. I submit that even though the answers to these questions would STILL show Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, the media did NOT know that at the time, and should have had every reason to investigate his sexual liasons (a jealous husband? even an enraged Jackie?), his connections with Cuba (pro- or anti-Castro groups), his known mob connections, and so on. The failure to do this job led to the rise of a conspiracy cottage industry that, in fact, turned up a significant amount of information that the journalists themselves should have discovered and/or revealed. From that point on, part of the media's leftward/activist turn was an attempt to "reclaim their virginity."
In your opinion, would they have been what we consider "mainstream media" today?
Regarding JFK, WHY did the MSM give him a pass? Daddy Joe had some "interesting" friends in hight places. Were the media types a little cowed by his possible retribution if they didn't treat son properly? Other possibilities?
From that point on, part of the media's leftward/activist turn was an attempt to "reclaim their virginity."
Could be, but they were "kissed" by Dims, so why would they take it out on Pubbies later??? Doesn't wash IMHO, but trying to decipher the MSM's proclivities is something I've spent a lot of time on, without satisfactory results. I'm hoping your efforts will shed some light on what to me is the most vexing questions; that is, how and why.
FGS
WHY they gave JFK a pass is more difficult to determine, and requires not only research but a lot of speculation. Based on what I've found, it has to do with "projection." The mostly-male reporters wanted to BE JFK, and projected themselves into his libertinism, his wealth, and his power. He was, after all, the epitome of a good liberal: he didn't have to play by the rules that he made everyone else play by. I go into a lot of this in the book, so it's not a quick argument; but JFK was a "journalist," in that he had done some war reporting, so he was "one of them" in yet another way. Further, "Camelot" provided them with the Washington social scene that they loved. He also made important changes in how he handled the press that I discuss.
JFK made me do it???
FGS
Um, that's why a book's thesis can't be captured in a 25-word post. Sorry I bothered you. Don't read it, by all means.
Then by all means, bust out. This is what JR's bandwith is for; exposing the left and their means and methods of corrupting our culture. The how and why of the socialist bent of the media could be critical to our understanding. We can learn from the its history so we won't be destined to relive it?
Sorry I bothered you. Don't read it, by all means.
Few have even taken a stab at trying to answer the question of how and why the limp wristed media came to prevail so, believe it or not, your efforts are appreciated. You'll forgive my frustration?
FGS
We are in the process of looking at five papers: NY Times, LA Times, At. Constitution, Cleveland Plain Dealer, WaPo, for 12 years---two editorials per month, randomly chosen, but one each on foreign and domestic affairs. That will give us something like 700 observations. Kuypers, who specializes in "word slanting" and "loaded language," will provide a model for analyzing the editorials; and Lott will help with the econometric regressions. We expect to see a change in the editorial coverage, not only by what subjects they supported and opposed, but in the overall lanugage and tone of the papers, and I expect (don't know, cause I haven't gotten this far) to find the major change coming before 1968, not after. Probably 1965.
Best regards,
You're satisfied the lurch to the left by the media didn't occur til the 60's? Fair enough.
To me it seems the media has always been a little off. But I didn't really start paying much attention to the "news" until around the early 70's. I found the evening news broadcasts were sprinkled with oddities that I couldn't explain; counter-intuititive little trinkets that made me scratch my head in wonderment. It became worse. But I digress.
In any case, would you mind pinging me to any future discussion(s) regarding your work.
Regards,
FGS
;^)
Yep. I'll post anything I get here on FR. But this is way down the line.
Thanks.
Me too!
bump
I love that I can one day tell my grandkids about 2000 and how I remember the DAY that "Sore Loserman" was made.
I love our impact. We don't back down! What was that frequency again, Dan? Can't wait to see what we will achieve next.
By the way:
Small businessman Gene McDonald lives in Nevada today and sells Freeper-oriented goods through his 0cents.com website.
I have purchased Free Republic t-shirts from Gene. They are good quality and fun to wear to the beach, parent-teacher conferences, and rock concerts.
From: The 50-year fraud of Alger Hiss
"I am not and have never been a member of the Communist Party," Alger Hiss said under oath on Aug. 5, 1948, and calmly refuted the accusation of former Soviet agent Whittaker Chambers. The House Un-American Activities Committee had subpoenaed Chambers two days before. Then a senior editor at Time magazine, Chambers had testified reluctantly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.