In the early days of the United States, it took so long to obtain information from afar that people lived their lives more in its absence than its presence. On average it took 22 days for news to travel between New York City and Charleston . . .We knew there were cultural differences between the North and the South, but - WOW! The South was a backwater - and that's the way the powers-that-be liked it! It's truly amazing how close the South came to winning the Civil War. Unless you read about people like General McClellan designing a blitzkrieg strategy and then implementing it as a sitzkrieg . . .The result of such physical dspersion was economic and cultural diversity. Distance encouraged differences. . . . The government [the framers] created enshrined the opportunity for many of these regional differences (including slavery) to continue . . .
During the second third of the 19th Century, technology began to chew away at the geographic buffer that had allowed those differences to flourish . . .
For a brief period the longest rail line in the nation emanated from Charleston, South Carolina. Responding to the threat of contamination of local customs and states rights by such high-speed intercourse, however, Southern state legislators enacted laws prohibiting rail lines from crossing state borders.
. . . One of the principal opponents of [a proposed telegraph line to New Orleans to expedite news from the Mexican-American War] was states rights champion John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, who challenged the constitutionality of the the federal government extending such communications through the South.
. . . the Census Report of 1850 featured . . . a map of all the existing telegraph lines. North of the Mason-Dixon Line it looked like a spider's web. South of that demarcation, however, were only two threads, one running down the east coast and the other down the Mississippi Valley.
The history of journalism and the First Amendment has long been a particular interest of mine. This article is excellent for its summary of the legislation and the court findings relevant to the "Fairness Doctrine."Apparently journalism was provincial and openly partisan until the advent of the telegraph. The telegraph was revolutionary in its ability to disseminate information across the continent and around the world. Indeed, the conservative American South saw the revolutionary implications of the telegraph - and actually prevented the propagation of long-distance telegraphy and rail lines in the South (and that obviously had a major effect on the ability of the South to wage war against the heavily wired and rail-interconnected North).
But in comparison with the modern broadband Internet connection, telegraphy was unimaginably expensive. Hence, the advent of the Associated Press as a way of sharing the expense of news gathering and dissemination. I take it that it was the homogenizing effect of AP which unified the perspective of journalism. In any case, journalism now is just as partisan as ever but, being unified in its perspective and claiming "objectivity" for its output, much more arrogant. There are many outlets, but they are competitive only in the way that the Yankees and the Red Sox are competitive. The big picture is that, when it comes to promoting their games and their league, they are in league with each other.
Essentially, "liberal" and "progressive" are simply code words for people who agree that the public interest, and the interest of journalism - which is to interest and impress the public - coincide. Just as "objective journalist" is a code for a person with same opinion as a "liberal," who happen to be employed as a reporter. The "liberal" and the "objective journalist" are in agreement that NOTHING actually matters except PR. And the "liberal" and the "objective journalist" accordingly agree that "objective journalists" should define what is "fair" for their opponents - whom they label "conservatives" or "right wingers" - to be able say on the radio. They also agree that "objective journalists" should be able to exercise free speech during election season - but that others should simply shut up.
The First Amendment looks better - and the Fairness Doctrine looks worse - as technology progresses.