Posted on 07/20/2005 4:28:34 AM PDT by 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."
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
I don't doubt there were "insurgents" marching within just about every institution in our country then and now; and they'll be peddling their snake oil in the future. If the leftist tilt in the MSM is in fact due to a makeover by commies, how did it/they stay under the radar so long(never mind; shining a light on their own malfeasance)? How were they able to drag their benefactors(advertisers) along for the ride? Without whom, they could not have endured/prevailed.
Gotta run for now, but please apply any mental resources to these questions...
FGS
Agreed. "Working on" did not/does not="control" or even "deeply influence." In some areas (Walter Lippmann, the whole business of non-coverage of the "Harvest of Sorrow,") yes it did influence. But on mostly domestic politics, I don't find it.
Dear LS:
I applaud your research and look forward most eagerly to seeing its final results.
If you'll pardon a word of unsolicited advice, you may want to keep an open mind regarding certain elements of the hypothesis you have laid out here, and not become too attached to them. In particular, I am skeptical of the claim that journalism was less "partisan" during the 1880-1960 period than it is today.
This claim presupposes that "partisan" journalism and "fact-based" or "objective" journalism are mutually exclusive (or at least fundamentally different in kind) — an assumption which may not be correct.
"News" writing is stylistically distinct from "op-ed" writing, but no less subject to editorial bias. Both genres present facts, and both present those facts selectively, in accordance with the underlying biases of writers, editors and publishers. News writers are trained to mask these biases beneath a veneer of flat and clinical-sounding language. But simply because something has been concealed does not mean it has ceased to exist.
While it may be true that the 1880-1960 period saw a growing degree of concern about getting one's facts right — which is to say, a growing concern about basic professional standards — how those facts were arranged and presented is another question.
The very act of selecting which facts to highlight and which facts to ignore imparts an unavoidable bias to every news report. I don't see how this can be avoided.
If indeed journalists of the 1880-1960 period claimed that their newly-adopted codes of ethics succeeded in cleansing their work of "rampant" political bias, one can only marvel at their hubris.
Man I remember being a newcomer to, and glued to, the Freerepublic web site when all of this was going on.
When Gonzalos and others were about to charge the Stephen Clark buiding I was watching it on Fox News, and reading on Freerepublic. I came within an inch of hopping on an airplane and heading to Florida. I was so mad at the attempt to steal a presidential election. It ended before I could go, but I was so fired up I was ready (I'd to have taken off from work).
All this reminds me why I need to get a check in the mail to Freerepublic tomorrow (today's Sunday).
Still in all, do you suspect there remained competing idealogies in the "media" during this time period? That is, the left had not gained dominance, to this point? Or at least until say, the early - mid 20th century? As an aside, what can one make of comments by Thomas Jefferson, and during a later era, Mark Twain regarding the media? Amongst others, they had a less than high regard for news types.
But simply because something has been concealed does not mean it has ceased to exist.
True enough. And something else occurs to me as I'm reading your observations, that is, if an agreement was entered into by the newsies to refrain from slanting the news, WHO would have been the first to likely break that agreement? Another question occurs to me, when did socialist idealogy merge with partisan idealogy or vice versa?
I'll have to finish up with my questioning later; need to finish up some stuff outside before dark. I'll be back.
FGS
Jim is the best! I am fortunate enough to live in his area of the world, and I can promise you he is for real!
Excellent read!
bump !
This question of mine makes NO sense, so I'll retract it:
...when did socialist idealogy merge with partisan idealogy or vice versa?
For the sake of argument: The social(ist) engineers(now Dims) and their media cheerleaders came to prevail over the conservatives(now Pubbies) and their media cheerleaders at some point(I'm assuming here the Pubbies actually HAD some media cheerleaders). When that actually occurred might be instructive. Were the Pubbies and their cheerleaders not as accomplished as their counterparts? What might be just as instructive is when, how and why the conservative message failed.
If indeed journalists of the 1880-1960 period claimed that their newly-adopted codes of ethics succeeded in cleansing their work of "rampant" political bias, one can only marvel at their hubris.
Well, giving them the benefit of the doubt, their stated goal was probably to try to eliminate "rampant" politicization in the news sections. And they may have even tried, but like you say, compromising one's beliefs by becoming purely objective is pie in the sky. Anyway, the left won the day......temporarily? So, how did they do it? Did they use the agreement to their advantage knowing that conservatives would be more inclined to abide by it? Proclaiming their objectivity, they carried on business as usual?
Regards,
FGS
Not having researched media history in anything approaching the in-depth and systematic manner that LS has done, I can only answer in terms of general impressions.
It seems to me that the most important development in US journalism during the 20th century was the emergence of a highly-centralized hierarchy, in which The New York Times and The Washington Post acquired a dominant status not unlike that of Pravda and Izvestia in the old Soviet Union.
To this day, journalists in all media tend to regard The New York Times and The Washington Post as a gauge of which stories have been approved for mass consumption and which stories are considered beyond the pale.
Thus the Times's motto, "All the News That's Fit to Print" acquired a literal meaning during the last century.
A friend of mine who is editorial page editor of a major northeastern newspaper with no organizational ties to The New York Times frequently complains that his superiors will not approve the coverage of any story that has not first been covered by The New York Times.
Thus the 20th century saw the emergence of a pyramidal hierarchy in US journalism that looked something like this:
Inasmuch as the entire pyramid took its marching orders from the two newspapers at the top, it would seem that the first two questions we need to ask are:
1. How did these two newspapers acquire such power?
2. Why do these two newspapers tend to support the Democratic Party (which is not quite the same thing as supporting the left — or at least it didn't used to be)?
. . . the first two questions we need to ask are:
Quite. Indeed, to the extent that nominally independent souces of information are in fact not independent, serious issues of what would in less significant arenas of human endeavor be prosecutable "conspiracy in restraint of trade" seem to be raised.Worse, as is becoming aparent enough to raise some comment among analysts, the Democratic Party is becoming ever less independent of this "conspiracy" - and all three branches of government is on board McCain-Feingold, which essentially codifies into law the fatuous notion that journalism defines objectivity.
But the rules which any journalist acknowledges define real commercial journalism include not only claims of "journalistic ethics and objectivity" but the deadlines which guarantee superficiality, and the "if it bleeds it leads" negativity for the sake of ratings which is perfectly analogous to the boy who cried, "Wolf!"
It is arrogant for anyone, and doubly so for anyone whose job it is to attract attention, to claim the virtue of objectivity.
The other virtue commonly claimed by journalists it courage; journalism persistently boasts of "comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable." Either journalism is powerful, or it is courageous - or it carefully chooses "comfortable" enemies who are not dangerous. In fact every "objective" journalist studiously avoids challenging one particular type of enemy - other "objective" journalists.
As noted earlier, the distinction between the Democratic Party and so-called "objective" journalism is becoming ephemeral. A Democratic politician can become an "objective" journalist at the drop of a hat; a Republican is suspect if s/he dares so much as get a gig as a lifestyle commentator. But the defining characteristic of liberalism - of journalism and Democratic politics - is that nothing matters to its practitioners except PR.
Nothing at all matters to these people but PR, and that is an elitist, antidemocratic, and essentially a cowardly POV. Because the individual practitioner of journalism is afraid of the collective, and the Democratic politician defines his politics by whatever negativity is coming from that collective.
Journalism, and the rest of liberalism, is just cheap talk and second-guessing. Socialism - the advocacy of government ownership of "the means of production" - is actually a second guess in the sense that "the means of production" themselves, and most products which are produced, have been developed by private enterprises which succeeded while other enterprises failed. Socialism wants the credit for the successes, and has no interest in taking responsibility for the failures. Yet the liberals do not already own the successes because they did not know which ones would be successes and which would be failures - only time shows that.
We the people have been subject all our lives to a massive propaganda campaign to blind us to the reality that journalism and the rest of liberalism is superficial, negative, arrogant, and cowardly. IOW, that journalism is cowardly, bullying leadership of a cowardly, bullying Democratic polical "leadership." Every four years the Democratic Party nominates a candidate for POTUS - but they do not nominate a leader. They do not want a leader. At least since x42 they have been all symbolism and no substance. They'll say anything that sounds good at the moment.
Why Broadcast Journalism is Unnecessary and Illegitimate
Conservatism IS Compassion ^ | Sept 14, 2001 | Conservatism_IS_Compassion
FreeRepublic has kept me informed ever since Matt Drudge led me to this web site. I would hate to go one day without visiting several times a day! Keep up the great work, Jim.
Media bias bump.
For all but the last 60 years of our nations histroy the media was openly and proudly partisan. For example leading up to and during the Civil war nearly every town had an anti slavery Republican paper lauding Lincoln. While the other paper in town was openly Democratic and in favor of slavery. The Democratic papers portrayed blacks as little more than animals. They portrayed Lincoln as subhuman too. The Republican papers protrayed Lincoln as a savior of the nation.The liberal papers of the 30s painted Roosevelt as the perfect leader. The conservative papers painted Roosevelt as an evil man. The Roosevelt adminstation became so fearful of radio, that in 1943 they made it illegal for radio stations to editorialize. It was Democrats who made partisanship on radio and TV illegal with the so called fairness doctrine.
Newspapers began folding in the 1950's. The surviving papers tried to get both sides to read their paper. So they put out the word that they were non partisan. But that was always a lie. Reporters for newspapers, radio and TV always put out their own veiws and called it objective. The object was to fool the viewers into supporting their positions.
The only reason for journalism is so people can get news they can not observe for themselves. With the internet and its huge bandwidth people can now get their own news. They can, with the internet, report for each other. The media monopoly on information is being removed. The media can no longer keep a secret. Everyone knew JFK has females on the payroll whose sole jobs were to provide him sex. The media hid that from us. But now with the internet the sexual escapades of a Clinton are exposed. The media and its followers hate its loss of control.
What this little girl fails to understand is that the journalists she so admires are going the way of the 45 RPM record. She can lament their passing, but her golden days of media rule are soon to be history.
People are informing each other on web sites like Free Republic. The days of the media elite fooling the public are fast comming to an end. And the spin put out by the main stream media is no longer working.
I suspect this young lady would like to be a media star. The media star days will soon be gone as well. Katie Couric and silent film stars will share a situation. They will both be long forgotten history.
It is over. There is no longer a way to control information. And this litte girl was born 50 years too late.
33 posted on 04/08/2004 11:44:07 PM EDT by Common Tator
Sorting opinions in radio airwaves doesn't foster valid discussions (FreeRepublic mentioned)
The Digital Collegian (Penn State) ^ | Monday, April 5, 2004 | Torie Bosch
So it would seem. NYT and WaPo were elected to lead the charge, and it turned out to be a charge to the left? Concensus candidates? Or maybe by default because they had the most resources? Back room deal; as in a conspiracy to move the country to the left? </tinfoil> Seems important, no?
A friend of mine who is editorial page editor of a major northeastern newspaper with no organizational ties to The New York Times frequently complains that his superiors will not approve the coverage of any story that has not first been covered by The New York Times.
I gather your friend's employer would be considered "leaning to the left"? Maybe just basic laziness is part and parcel to the problem? Let someone else do the heavy lifting; no skin off our nose?
Regarding your pyramid, I would put the wire services, particularly the AP right up there amongst the top. Why? As you're probably aware, they are a wholly owned subsidiary of a media consortium led by the big boys. Tax exempt status too. How odd is that?
Why do these two newspapers tend to support the Democratic Party (which is not quite the same thing as supporting the left — or at least it didn't used to be)?
Well, my assumption is that both parties had their own media cheerleaders(at least early on), an assumption that may be wrong approaching/during the 20th centuty as I implied in an earlier post(conservatives may not have had any). If so, the Dims and the media have essentially moved in lockstep for most of their existence. If my assumption is correct, the Dim/current MSM agenda prevailed at the expense of the Pubbie/conservative agenda. A curiousity given the country is predominantly conservative, based on numerous studies. Seems important too?
FGS
For the most part, the attack dogs used in this instance are your garden variety rabidly partisan Dims, but there have been a few attacks from the MSM themselves. FoxNews is the target of choice for the most part since Fox is percieved as a threat the "comfortable" lifestyle of the journalist country club?
Nothing at all matters to these people but PR, and that is an elitist, antidemocratic, and essentially a cowardly POV.
We the people have been subject all our lives to a massive propaganda campaign to blind us to the reality that journalism and the rest of liberalism is superficial, negative, arrogant, and cowardly.
What can I say; you nailed 'em.
But the question still remains; how did it come to this?
FGS
Newspapers began folding in the 1950's.Which ones? Liberal and conservative alike? I somehow doubt it. My simple mind is beginning to sense some chicanery afoot by the leftist press. Cooking the circulation numbers even then, sweetheart deals for advertisers, exclusive contracts, yukking it up for Dim ne'er-do-wells in exchange for juicy tidbits on Pubbies? I suspect the criminal enterprise known as the Democratic party has many a soul mate in the MSM. Birds of a feather?
Add to that the liklihood the ne'er-do-wells in the liberal media were not as constrained by the "truth of the matter" as their conservative counterparts, so their papers began to take on a more "fantastic" appearance. Jayson Blairs may have been around a long time unbeknownst to us. Are we getting closer to some answers?
FGS
Well all I know about that is that the Philadelphia Bulletin beloved of my youth went under, and the leftist Philadelphia Inquirer survives (tho it seems to be sputtering).
MOST of 'em seem to be sputtering these days, thank God! I also recall Houston's moderately conservative morning paper, the Houston Post, being "merged" into the liberal firebreathing Houston Chronicle. I didn't track much of the goings on back then, but I'd lay odds that many of the "assimilated" Post employees were soon job hunting.
I'm at a loss to understand the all but complete takeover by leftists of newspaper, periodical, then broadcast(TV) media. I'm hoping LS in his research is able to shed some light on a perplexing situation.
FGS
Sounds plausible to me, my friend.
"Back room deal; as in a conspiracy to move the country to the left? "
I know it sure looks *like* the stuff of "conspiracy", and, it probably is one of -- if not "The" -- conspiracy of all times.
Yet *they'd* never admit it in view of the fact(s), eh?
Recall when we were "kids" FGS, every few years one of the major dailies, somewhere, would be struck by the union thugs -- be it "pressmen", "drivers" in circ or whoever -- & it'd result in stopping the presses cold?
Sometimes the labor stoppage would keep that pub from printing for a fairly respectable length of time, eh?
Well lemme ask you something, a question that just *struck* me -- :o) -- the other day.
When was the last major daily you heard of having to deal with a strike?
Hmmmm??
Is there a connection with the "labor rest" at these Liberal-Socialist shit-holes & purveyors of garbage, the proverbial Faustian Deal, perhaps?
Would explain *much* in the mosaic of the unexplainable.
>"A friend of mine who is editorial page editor of a major northeastern newspaper with no organizational ties to The New York Times frequently complains that his superiors will not approve the coverage of any story that has not first been covered by The New York Times."
"I gather your friend's employer would be considered "leaning to the left"?"
BWAHAAAA!!!!!!
He'd better damned well be left-of-center, if he values his employment.
Another reason *why* I say one *facet* of the (unadmitted) "conspiracy" is what one must conform to *IF* they're to survive within these modern day Liberal-Socialist mouth-organs.
"Maybe just basic laziness is part and parcel to the problem? Let someone else do the heavy lifting; no skin off our nose?"
I'm sure that's a *component*.
But my nose smells abject cowardice, too.
Cowardice on the part of each & every individual who knows damned well "it's" wrong, yet says nothing out of fear for themselves & their own wellbeing.
Can't say I blame 'em much, either.
This ain't 1776 where a mob could grab their muskets & go routh the dogs, y'know.
Until a way to securing the means to housing & nourishment is invented, people will succumb to those in positions of power.
Just the way it is.
"Regarding your pyramid, I would put the wire services, particularly the AP right up there amongst the top. Why? As you're probably aware, they are a wholly owned subsidiary of a media consortium led by the big boys. Tax exempt status too. How odd is that?"
;^)
Uh-huh.
You got it; or, all that needs gettin'.
Bust-up the *foundation blocks* making up the Associated Quisling Network & gravity takes over & finishes the job.
~sigh~
(~dreaming on this lazy summer afternoon.)
"Why do these two newspapers tend to support the Democratic Party (which is not quite the same thing as supporting the left — or at least it didn't used to be)?"
"Democratic Party" *is* the same as "The Left", that's a silly statement.
Forget the *whys* behinds the two rags, find out WTF took over the Democratic Party, eliminate 'em & the rags will swing in whatever direction the new *head* looks.
Priorities, man. :o)
"Well, my assumption is that both parties had their own media cheerleaders(at least early on)..."
No "assuming" necessary here, they still do.
"...an assumption that may be wrong approaching/during the 20th centuty as I implied in an earlier post(conservatives may not have had any)."
Bull.
Was only relatively recently "Republicans" began calling themselves "conservative" here in the states. (~this ain't bloody England; although, what the two [main] sides supposedly represent have similarities, they're not quite the same, nonetheless.)
I clearly remember it was the "Republicans" who dominated the MSM, and I ain't that old.
Look what the leakers *did* when they had control!BR> Pissed-off a LOT of people, usually "youngsters", who although the brainstems might've been were the epitome of "Useful Idiots" then, they nonetheless grew up to fill the ranks of the Liberal-Socialists promoting the Liberal-Socialist cause(s), today.
Liberal-Socialist's *leaders* are, interestingly enough, incredibly easy to *see*,too, IF one's old enough to recall say, *35* years ago?
Their leaders just seem caught in a time warp of sorts, never changed their outside accordingly as the years passed from what they were back when to what they profess, today.
Ponytails, Birkenstocks, club ties & all.
"If so, the Dims and the media have essentially moved in lockstep for most of their existence. If my assumption is correct, the Dim/current MSM agenda prevailed at the expense of the Pubbie/conservative agenda."
Not quite, the MSM rags "played the room" and that meant pursued selling their pap to the unwashed *masses* within the overgrowing major metropolitan areas around the nation.
Listen my friend, the rags -- all of 'em -- have "Boards of Directors" like any other business.
The BoDs are made up of the creme de creme from each given market they're doing business, not a mob of wild eyed Marxists.
Whatever the rags are today is because these blue-blood milquetoast assholes gave *it* [read: direction] their personal blessing(s).
And their *stockholders* agreed, fully.
*Period*
"A curiousity given the country is predominantly conservative, based on numerous studies. Seems important too?"
Not necessarily true.
Look at the urban areas.
The political scientists sure do look, and the quisling mediots looking to make a buck do, also.
They watch like *hawks*.
"Noteworthy item, supporting my assumption about "partisan" media. They've always been with us???"
Always.
From Day #1, and before.
Printing one's POV on a sheet of paper in an effort to persuade others & thereby gain control is what the human experience has been all about here & around the world for a very long time, it seems to me.
"Newspapers began folding in the 1950's. Which ones? Liberal and conservative alike? I somehow doubt it."
Well don't.
First off the entire notion of "Liberal" v.s. "Conservative didn't exist in the 50s.
Rags sympathetic to "labor" those sympathetic to "business", big or otherwise, yes.
But "Liberal" & "conservative"?
Balderdash.
I realize my example's purely anecdotal, but in the city of Milwaukee -- where I grew up close to -- there used to be a morning daily called The Milwaukee Sentinel and an evening daily called The Milwaukee Journal, OK?
The morning a "pro-business" pub & the other "pro-labor".
One could *easily* tell what another's politics were by simply looking at which of the two they read.
Both "markets" were being served and Milwaukee is hardly the exception, it was "The Rule".
Every major city had two sides to the story, every single one of 'em with precious few exceptions.
"My simple mind is beginning to sense some chicanery afoot by the leftist press."
Well I'd agree on the chicanery, alright.
But perhaps not for the same reason(s) as yours. {g}
"Cooking the circulation numbers even then, sweetheart deals for advertisers, exclusive contracts, yukking it up for Dim ne'er-do-wells in exchange for juicy tidbits on Pubbies?"
Been that way forever, the whole magilla, *save* for the "cooking" of circ numbers in the daily newspaper's heyday.
They didn't need to do that.
Most people read one side of the story or the other.
IF one of the competitors within a given market could prove the other was fixing their numbers that'd spell *scandel* & that'd in turn would be the end of the perp pub.
Advertisers would make a wholesale exodus & for fast it'd make the publisher's collective heads spin, so the rag woul go down the tubes.
Too much to risk back then & not nearly enough to gain with such a risky scheme; but, today that's not true anymore as we know all too well.
Even so the suspect scoundrels are still publishing, eh?
"I suspect the criminal enterprise known as the Democratic party has many a soul mate in the MSM. Birds of a feather?"
Yea probably, but the bastards also have strong interests in "Law", "Academia", "Labor", "Law Enforcement" et al ad infinitum ad nauseum.
Wondering *why* the Liberal-Socialist quislings in the media play to a room filled with that ilk kind sheds light on the whole shittin' caboodle to me.
In America circa 2005, FGS?
It's called "Business" and you'd best watch your step 'round here if you're going to go on the offensive against "business" -- for whatever reason(s), "patriotism" notwithstanding -- y'know?
I mean when in Rome & all that. :o)
"Add to that the liklihood the ne'er-do-wells in the liberal media were not as constrained by the "truth of the matter" as their conservative counterparts, so their papers began to take on a more "fantastic" appearance."
Not "bull" this time, bullshit.
The "conservative" rags are as corrupt as the other side, only differentiating aspect is how far in each direction they've moved.
But to say one has a "lock" of the trutrh as opposed to the other is simply ludicrous (~& I ain't talkin' 'bout some numbskull rapper moron, either).
The same power auger will be used to screw the raskels at the head of the nation's disgraceful rags into the ground, when they die.
Fact.
"Jayson Blairs may have been around a long time unbeknownst to us."
Jayson Blairs -- like bad weather -- will always be with us.
Now whether or not we take our heads outa the dark recesses of our posterior long enough to see 'em for what they are?
That's another matter, altogether.
"Are we getting closer to some answers?"
Depends.
Hearing what you want to hear, yet? {g}
Well, it's back to the garden with my raggedy butt & the relative sanity.
...of *weeds*. ;^)
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.