Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

TreasonousBastard

(43,049 posts)
Mon Jan 2, 2017, 08:26 AM Jan 2017

Every day in this place I see several posts bemoaning the death of journalism "as it used to be"...

Does anyone remember how it actually "used to be"?

During WWII the most popular and influential voice in print and on radio was not Ed Murrow, but Walter Winchell. Father Caughlin was around in those days, too, along with other fun characters. Caughlin was destroyed by the government for getting in the way of the war, but Winchell hurt himself by leaving his sometime leftist roots and becoming a McCarthyite.

In NYC we had several hundred daily and weekly newspapers serving ethnic, political and neighborhood groups. Some may still be around, like the Irish Echo or Jewish Daily Forward, but none of them was ever expected to be neutral in all things, as you can often gather by their names. And politics ranged from outright Communist and Stalinist sympathy to rightwing thought that would put some of our modern cons to shame. But, cooking up that amazing, and messy, brew of thought is the entire purpose of press freedom. No one has to worry about going to jail for speech.

Does the name Hearst mean nothing except vague memories of a young woman involved in some crazy bank heist? Pulitzer is just a prize for some lucky reporter? The Hearst-Pulitzer circulation battle in NYC is largely credited for both the Spanish-American War and the beginnings of Yellow Journalism as a style instead of an aberration. Hearst was the Murdoch of his day, but far more effective at it.

Do we really want to go back to that? Many of us were spoiled growing up with "news" as three broadcast networks who were basically shit scared to start trouble and played everything middle of the road until they were forced to take a stand.

Today the problem is consolidation, but there are always alternatives. An ancient truth of newsies has been that if Mrs. Smith bakes a pie it is not news-- until she whacks it over the head of Mr. Smith. But, there will always be outlets to mention the baking along with the whacking. As bad as it may get, this is still the genius of our system.

The responsibility for decent news is ultimately not on the providers, but on us to seek it out.



5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Every day in this place I see several posts bemoaning the death of journalism "as it used to be"... (Original Post) TreasonousBastard Jan 2017 OP
Most of the posters I am assuming are going back to their own days of 60's- 70's. Dustlawyer Jan 2017 #1
Good points. mountain grammy Jan 2017 #2
Could NOT DISAGREE with you more when you said ... 66 dmhlt Jan 2017 #3
∆ This Pacifist Patriot Jan 2017 #5
mainstream media has always bent a knee to the prevailing powers. never was a war they weren't KG Jan 2017 #4

Dustlawyer

(10,493 posts)
1. Most of the posters I am assuming are going back to their own days of 60's- 70's.
Mon Jan 2, 2017, 09:53 AM
Jan 2017

When I refer back it's usually to Walter Cronkite. He had a lot of power at the network and very few people watched the other two channels. Three TV channels made it easier to notice what was going on in TV media. Print media was probably a different story, I didn't read the paper much growing up.

There were discussions back then about how the news room was kept separate from the rest of the network. For the most part I believe they did a pretty good job. I base that a lot on Cronkite's own writings, though they did have their moments. If Walter didn't have the clout he did the merger would have happened sooner.

mountain grammy

(26,571 posts)
2. Good points.
Mon Jan 2, 2017, 10:36 AM
Jan 2017

Ed Murrow brought down Joe McCarthy, but not before many lives were ruined. The CIA collusion with Nazis after WWII was widely known by not widely reported. The Nuremberg trials got several, but just as many, if not more, got away. Over 50 thousand American soldiers and countless civilians were dead before journalists finally turned against the Vietnam fiasco. And for a hundred years, Jim Crow laws, thousands of lynchings, racial violence and terrorism were largely ignored by America's press,
Our press has always been free, enshrined our our "glorious" constitution, so why wouldn't policies that defy it be called out for what they are? Just where is this great freedom of the press we keep hearing about? America doesn't run on a free press or in accordance with it's constitution. America runs on profit and greed; always the bottom line. It's made us the richest country in the world, and, if that how we measure success, then the most successful too. but it was accomplished with slavery and the exploitation of workers on the grandest of scales. The American press has under reported, and even encouraged division in America, for ratings, for money, for profit, for greed, leaving citizens to fend for themselves in what is far too often a hostile America. A complete disconnect from the lofty words of the constitution and reality. But, for immigrants like my family, coming to America was escaping a tyranny much greater, and, as America grew, it was a vast land of opportunity for many, while excluding many American born citizens from the same opportunities.
What we have is a void in responsible journalism. It's out there, for sure. The New Yorker, The Guardian, and many more; truthful, thoughtful, insightful reporting, but the mainstream media is a colossal failure and people are turning to false news sites and their preachers for guidance. In my opinion, we're right where the powers that be and the 1972 Powell Memo wanted us to be.

I'm a silly old woman, I don't know how to read, and I say stupid things. I've been told all of that right here on DU and have learned to expect it whenever I say more than a few words. But this is how I see this "free press" issue and I think your OP is dead on.

66 dmhlt

(1,941 posts)
3. Could NOT DISAGREE with you more when you said ...
Mon Jan 2, 2017, 10:49 AM
Jan 2017

"The responsibility for decent news is ultimately not on the providers, but on us to seek it out."


Directly from the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics:

Ethical journalism should be accurate and fair. Journalists should be honest and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

Journalists should:
– Take responsibility for the accuracy of their work. Verify information before releasing it. Use original sources whenever possible.

– Remember that neither speed nor format excuses inaccuracy.

– Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.

– Gather, update and correct information throughout the life of a news story.


And it goes on and on ...
http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

Clearly the responsibility for decent news IS on the providers

KG

(28,749 posts)
4. mainstream media has always bent a knee to the prevailing powers. never was a war they weren't
Mon Jan 2, 2017, 10:54 AM
Jan 2017

willing to cheer-lead for, at least initially...

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Every day in this place I...