[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.

[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.

[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

[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.