Posted on 01/27/2017 6:54:17 AM PST by ProgressingAmerica
There's a lot of talk about "fake news" these days, but lost in the 'here we are' is the 'how did we get here'. Some websites have proclaimed Dan Rather the founder of fake news, others have crowned Brian Williams as such. Understanding fake news is impossible without a full-scale structural analysis of "objective journalism" itself, because "objective journalism" was designed to facilitate fake news. The name to know is Walter Lippmann.
Walter Lippmann is generally regarded as the father of modern journalism, and as most of us know, modern journalism is what it is today because of the concept of objectivity. It is because of Lippmann and the work he did that journalists decided to go the "objective" route in the first place, instead of their prior mode which was openly partisan and in some cases, yellow.
The problem is Lippmann's writings. On the one hand, Lippmann perched himself up on a lofty elite tower and scolded other journalists of his day for their mis-reporting deeds in some of his writings - most notably, "A Test of the News". But then on the other hand, Lippmann is the inventor of the phrase "Manufacture of Consent" in his book "Public Opinion". As a journalist, Lippmann really only had one way to "manufacture" said consent, and that was through journals, magazines, editorials, and news reports. This alone should be enough to pique the curiosity of people interested in fake news, to take a look into this "manufacture of consent" and see what it is all about. What is "the manufacture of consent" about anyways?
Being published prior to 1923, his book "Public Opinion" is 100% free and in the public domain. It also has its due as a challenging read. And its not like Lippmann outright states in the simplest terms "I want to use news reporting to manipulate people".
Instead, Lippmann will use two or three pages (358 and 359) to enunciate his point that 1) News and truth are not the same thing, 2) there is only a small body of actual truth in the large body of information, and 3) the rest is in the journalist's own discretion.
In other words, a journalist has a gold card to lie all they want.
Lippmann spends nearly 20% of his book on the concept of "stereotypes". He was obsessed with stereotypes because he believed that was where his greatest moment of opportunity was at for effectively leveraging these stereotypes against the reader. Page 355 is quite possibly the most important page in the book, from the standpoint of understanding manipulative journalism and fake news:
It is a problem of provoking feeling in the reader, of inducing him to feel a sense of personal identification with the stories he is reading. News which does not offer this opportunity to introduce oneself into the struggle which it depicts cannot appeal to a wide audience. The audience must participate in the news, much as it participates in the drama, by personal identification. Just as everyone holds his breath when the heroine is in danger, as he helps Babe Ruth swing his bat, so in subtler form the reader enters into the news. In order that he shall enter he must find a familiar foothold in the story, and this is supplied to him by the use of stereotypes. They tell him that if an association of plumbers is called a "combine" it is appropriate to develop his hostility; if it is called a "group of leading business men" the cue is for a favorable reaction.It is in a combination of these elements that the power to create opinion resides. Editorials reinforce.
The key to Lippmann's book though is the culture, not one or two or a handful pull quotes. The culture of the book is the indictment. The culture of the book is 400+ pages of media manipulation, in one way or another, especially that 20% that is devoted to stereotypes. That's what the stereotypes are for. It's all about manipulation.
For those who prefer audiobooks over printed text, Public Opinion is also downloadable in MP3 format. That will give you preference options in learning more about the roots of fake news.
Being able to discuss in detail the history of fake news in its entirety, not just starting in the year 2004 - now that's a powerful thing indeed.
“You furnish the pictures. I’ll furnish the war.” — William Randolph Hearst, 1897
....and he wasn’t the first.
LBJ was a b*stard and a terrible President in many ways, but he was probably the last Democrat President who wasn’t somehow in thrall to the media narrative.
But really isn’t all news fake news, in that it carries the intentional and unintentional bias of the reporter?
Walter Durante received numerous Pultzer prizes back in the 1920s for the NYTimes by being a soviet appologist. Famously ignored millions starving in Ukraine along with the purges. A favorite quip was you cannotmake an omelette without breaking a few eggs.
LBJ was a b*stard and a terrible President in many ways, but he was probably the last Democrat President who wasn’t somehow in thrall to the media narrative.And the media destroyed him.
Oh, that's a tough one. My initial answer was "Walter Cronkeit", but then I remembered "Walter Duranty." Then I remember the Hearst Newspaper chains "Yellow Journalism" and how they "Fake Newsed" us into a war with Spain.
They were probably creating "fake news" even before this, (Harriet Beecher Stowe?) but such incidents are less well known, so I will have to say my final answer is whatever creepazoids happened to be working for William Randolph Hearst at the time.
That they did. Reduced Foghorn Leghorn to a quivering bowl of jelly by the time they got through with him.
That’s easy, it would be the Devil, the father of all lies.
Came to my mind too.
Good image and commentary below the picture.
Thanks.
I recall long ago in school being taught that there is no such thing as objective journalism. The first thing where bias occurs is in what to cover. What you report is already a non objective thing and shows bias. This idea of objectivity is designed to make the consumer of news think he is getting the truth.
With LBJ’s record on voting and ballot box integrity, it is no wonder that reporter’s inquiries were rebuffed.
“Gobbling up” is a function of rumor mongering. The MSM satisfy the public’s insatiable desire for the lascivioous, the bloody, and the crooked. The MSM also, however, is a political entity, typically favoring leftist demagoguery.
President Trump is uniquely aware of the proclivity of the press to focus on slander and innuendo rather than meat and potatoes. He will consistently put a red herring - something flashy that maybe smells bad - out just before acting on a major issue. He tangles them up with words while he engages in action. They are left flat-footed and embarrassed because they have chased a rabbit down a hole and missed the major story.
Bannon’s advice to the MSM to shut up and listen was not a slander. It is excellent advice. If they stop acting stupid, witless, and panicked, they stand a chance of getting the right story right. Until then, keep chasing those rabbits MSM.
Not only a “good” answer, but the undisputed “correct” answer.
Exactly. That's why I keep bringing it back to Lippmann. He kick started the objectivity movement within the journalistic world.
It was a fraud from the get-go.
Good analysis.
However, fake news has been around for much longer than that. It’s called propaganda and it’s been used effectively by ruling powers since ... well ... forever. The Roman used it very effectively.
In more pre-Revolutionary times the earliest pamphleteers and newspapers arose as a counter to the official British propaganda that the colonists came to distrust. It as illegal to counter the official “news” put out by the Crown.
The most famous of these was the New-England Courant founded by James Franklin (Ben’s older brother) which was the first “alternate news” in our country. He even went to jail for countering the official “news” of the Crown.
In time even the Courant resorted to “fake news” and tittle-tattle because they soon discovered that it sold more papers. Benjamin Franklin himself developed a fake persona (Silence Dogood) to publish in his brother’s paper.
So it’s been around a long time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New-England_Courant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silence_Dogood
Cronkite may not be the father of fake news but he is the one who called it to my attention with his false Vietnam reporting.
Well written, and the book opened in Kindle. Thanks so much!
I think he was the master at successful mass propaganda, which is in fact, fake news.
Good point
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.