Replies

I'm still trying to explain that change. Part of it was a general "religiosity" that still clung to assuptions about a higher truth, so all reporting must be tempered with that in mind. For ex., there were some subjects that even Scripps or Pulitzer would not cover, as they thought it encouraged more immoral behavior (and Scripps was NOT a Christian, and hated religion).

I think, most of all, that this shows the "atheist's dilemma," which is that absent God, there is nothing to keep the train on the tracks, for eventually all logic says "you have your view of what is right and I have mine. Who's to say which is better?" and then you have chaos. That is where the MSM is today---no contraints, no view of basic good or of evil. Just the "story." In the book I'm working on about this, I quote an ad you might remember from the 1980s by ABC, where Peter Jennings ends by saying, "There is no truth, only news." Huh? If that is true, then that sentence is irrelevant---why should anyone believe that statement?

In the book I'm working on about this, I quote an ad you might remember from the 1980s by ABC, where Peter Jennings ends by saying, "There is no truth, only news."

Seems like I would remember that - if I had heard it.
How, you might ask, could I have avoided hearing it? By then I had learned from Reed Irvine's "Accuracy in Media" newsletter that "the media" were "biased," and I no longer believed that the public-spirited citizen naturally followed broadcast journalism. In fact, I had begun treating broadcast news as an ad for a product I wouldn't buy. For example, I have a clock radio set to come on at the start of Rush's show - not at 12:00 but 12:06, after "the news."
I confess the TV is on a lot during the evening, but unless I'm tuning in a football game I virtually forget that the broadcast bands even exist.