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.
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
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
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