Posted on 06/03/2002 9:54:47 PM PDT by Wolfstar
(Source of historical information mentioned below: Newspaper History.)
The purveyors of news are corporations. The product they sell is news and information. Throughout the history of news selling, sensationalism has been used as a sales tool. The first printed forerunners of the newspaper appeared in Germany in the late 1400's in the form of news pamphlets or broadsides, often highly sensationalized in content.
In order to sell their product — to grab the audience's attention away from competitors — the media have always done whatever it takes: misrepresent; lie; make up stories; assume an air of authority (a la The New York Times) which it does not, in fact, possess. The operative word is "story." The bread-and-butter product of the media is stories – tales. Today's so-called mainstream media operate under the pretense that their reporting is completely objective, non-biased, and offered with only the purist of motives. This is the biggest lie of all, for it runs counter to nearly 500 years of history of printed news and about 100 years of broadcast news.
In America the first newspaper appeared in Boston in 1690, entitled Publick Occurrences. By the Revolutionary War, some two dozen papers existed in the colonies. Articles in colonial papers, brilliantly conceived by revolutionary propagandists, were a major force that influenced public opinion in America from reconciliation with England to full political independence. Note that the colonial papers and other printed news venues of the day were openly for or against political positions; openly for or against independence, for example.
At war's end in 1783 there were 43 newspapers in print. The press played a vital role in the affairs of the new nation; many more newspapers were started, representing all shades of political opinion. The no holds barred style of early journalism, much of it libelous by modern standards, reflected the rough and tumble political life of the republic as rival factions jostled for power.
By the 1890's, the first circulation figures of a million copies per issue were recorded. At this period appeared the features of the modern newspaper, bold "banner" headlines, extensive use of illustrations, "funny pages," plus expanded coverage of organized sporting events. The rise of "yellow journalism" also marks this era. Hearst could truthfully boast that his newspapers manufactured the public clamor for war on Spain in 1898. This is also the age of media consolidation, as many independent newspapers were swallowed up into powerful "chains"; with regrettable consequences for a once fearless and incorruptible press. Many were reduced to vehicles for the distribution of the particular views of their owners, and so remained, without competing papers to challenge their viewpoints.
In our time, much of the news media's serious corruption has been documented in three superb books written by brave men willing to risk blowing the whistle on their own profession, possibly at the cost of their careers:
Coloring the News — How Crusading for Diversity Has Corrupted American Journalism, copyright 2001 by William McGowan, Encounter Books.
MOBocracy — How the Media's Obsession with Polling Twists the News, Alters Elections, and Undermines Democracy, copyright 2002 by Matthew Robinson, Forum/Prima Publishing.
Bias — A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News, copyright 2002 by Bernard Goldberg, Regnery Publishing.
I have read each of these books and recommend them highly to anyone who wants to know truth about the media. Here's a quick summary:
Bottom line: the media pretend to be doing us a favor by providing objective reports of current events, when, in fact, they are manipulating you and me into buying what they are selling. They succeed because very, very, very few people are perceptive or attentive enough to get it.
I share your concern. There is a serious lack of analytical thinking--even on our side of the political spectrum.
In a democracy, as long as government can control the use of property, those who control a democratic majority can control ALL property. It doesn't matter how many people watch, listen to, or read the product, the media can't sell the acvertising if they can't control public behavior. Thus behavior modification comes at all costs, and the truth matters not a whit.
Here's a quick summary:
The media lies through deliberate sensationalism. They don't care who they hurt or whose lives they ruin, so long as they sell their product.
A prime example of this was Kenneth Starr. An honest hard-working prosecutor who was turned overnight by the media into an evil, prudish, vindictive nerd who couldn't get enough salacious details on the president. If that wasn't enough, the reputations of several members of his staff were trashed as well. I'll bet they left out of their reports on the Clintoids FAR more than they included because it wasn't germane to the case at hand.
They lie by claiming to be strictly objective when they are the exact opposite. They are highly biased.
No examples needed of this but, if you do, just look back to Election Night 2000 and its aftermath. I didn't even TRY to stomach CBS but, on NBC, Katie Couric practically beamed with delight that Hillary Clinton had won and Tim Russert refered to the Democrats at one point as "we". Let's not forget what they did to folks in the Florida Panhandle either.
They lie accidentally through sloppy or nonexistent fact checking.
Particularly galling to me is when they give second-hand lies. They *quote* sources who lie about all matter of things without ever questioning whether what they say is true. "5,000 homeless die every day, Matt..."
They lie deliberately through omission of facts that would give a different perspective on a news item other than the one the writer/broadcaster wants to convey.
For example, the many times a Democrat is not labeled as such when he is involved in a scandal. But let a Republican get in a mess, and that party affiliation is always front and center. Even last week, CNN described Gary Condit as a "Republican" when Chandra Levy's body was found!
Some lie through commission, by deliberately making up stories in whole or in part.
See "Rivera, Geraldo".
They have come to rely almost exclusively on anonymous sources, and use an arcane "code" to vaguely indicate a source's bona fides. The more and stronger adjectives used to describe the source, theoretically the more authoritative the source. Someone "familiar with" is not as good as someone "close to." Even better is "an official with..." Better still is a "senior official." And so on. However, because reporters do not have to reveal their sources to anyone, they could entirely invent a source and a story, and no one would be the wiser. In the meantime, both other reporters/broadcasters and the gullible public play the "who's the source" game.
"I have it confidentially from a senior official high up in the chain of command that this could actually be true..."
They lie by playing on the public's ignorance — not stupidity, but inattention. They are aware that the vast majority of the public pays little (if any) attention to current events, and they use this ignorance to manipulate. Absent a huge event like Sept. 11, there just isn't much going on in the news that most people pay much (if any) attention to. This explains why there are always a few manufactured "big" stories each year that are hyped and sensationalized for every dime and every ratings point to be squeezed out of them.
See "Enron".
They lie by the way they gather information for their stories. For example, a reporter will go ask Person A what he "feels" about the color of the sky. Person A will say something like it's a nice blue. The reporter then scurries over to Person B and says "sources" claim the sky is a nice blue. Yesterday you said it was a hazy blue. Why did you say it was hazy when others say it is nice? Doesn't matter what Person B says at this point. The report takes it and runs back to Person A and also to Person C, each time using a question premised on a slight though deliberate distortion of what others have said. Suddenly those questioned are on the defensive, are responding to entirely false assertions, and are getting increasingly caught in a he-said, she-said web of the reporter's making. Before you know it, the reporter has ginned up a SENSATIONAL story. SENSATIONAL is the reporter's life blood, because it guarantees that his story will get the maximum notice by other media outlets and by the public. Works every time (unless your name is Don Rumsfeld, you've figured out the game long ago, and you have nothing to lose by smiling and telling the media, in effect, to f**k off). And by the way, without even knowing it, simply by answering the first fishing question, Person A could very well be the anonymous source on which the whole mess is based.
"General Powell, sources with General Schwartzkopf say the first U.S. attack will come Tuesday morning from just south of the Kuwaiti border. Is that what your forces are planning to do?"
They lie by the way they conduct and manipulate polls. They take and report polls to try to drive public opinion, not simply to report it.
Try this out:
40% favor abortion on demand.
35% favor abortion only in certain cases (such as rape or the life of the mother).
25% disapprove of abortion in all cases.
These percentages have held roughly true in poll after poll for decades and *without fail*, the media will trumpet this by saying a *majority* of people support abortion when 60% are against it except, perhaps, in the "hard cases".
They will then use *this* distortion to browbeat politicians into thinking their candidacies will be hurt more if they don't come out in favor of abortion on demand, when the opposite is true.
Any time the media tries to make you think that LESS than 50% is some sort of majority, stop and think for a moment what the actual facts are saying, instead of the spin.
Bottom line: the media pretend to be doing us a favor by providing objective reports of current events, when, in fact, they are manipulating you and me into buying what they are selling. They succeed because very, very, very few people are perceptive or attentive enough to get it.
Most news media are very skilled at getting good details and good information on major breaking stories. It's when they start to analyze, assess and speculate that they create all the trouble for themselves.
The difference between the news media of today and that of 30 years ago is the reporters of that day cared more about the facts and less about the ideology. Perhaps because we had just come out of WWII and we had a common enemy (the Germans, followed by the Soviets), there was a greater sense of reporting for the public good. Today, it has become agendized and PC'd to the point that most of the liberal media views which "side" will be helped/hurt more than what the truth actually is. And we all know which "side" the liberal news media roots for.
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.