. . . Still, even with the telegraph (which really didn't connect a great deal until the late 1850s), that didn't change newspaper reporting.
I think I referenced Mr. Lincoln's T-Mails and News Over the Wires in the article which started this thread. The former, more recent, book led me to want more on the topic and caused me to Google up the latter book. In consequence, I am at some risk of conflating the contents of the two somewhat. But the clear message was that the Associated Press, initially the New York Associated Press, was founded in 1848 and was an aggressive monopoly seeking to prevent public news from being transmitted in competition with itself. That was too obviously an unprecedented concentration of propaganda power to escape notice, and the AP was challenged on that basis. And the AP's response to that challenge to its very legitimacy was to point out that the newspapers in that association were of various political stripes - and to claim on that basis that there was no danger in the AP because the AP was objective.What changed reporting was the Civil War. It had nothing to do with the "chain of control," or anything like that---it had everything to do with the public's demand for facts as opposed to opinions and rhetoric.Of course, since in the founding era there was no barrier to entry into the newspaper business other than a little capital, the perspective of any given newspaper no matter how tendentious had natural limits to its effect. But the AP was a different matter entirely. And of course the tradition of claiming objectivity is best known in the broadcasting business, where claiming objectivity is vital to the legitimacy of licensed journalism.
According to the sources I cited, the Lincoln Administration did in fact coopt the AP by giving it favorable access to the telegraph offices and to Administration officials, and by preventing others from effectively competing with the AP - in exchange for favorable coverage and suppression of unfavorable or sensitive reports.if you are really interested in this, try to run down an article (you'd probably need interlibrary loan or a college library) from 1973 or 1974 by Robert C. Loewenberg, "'Value-Free' vs. 'Value-Laden' History: A Distinction Without a Difference," The Historian. I can find the exact date if you want it. He shows that attempting to separate "facts" from "values," whether in history or journalism, is impossible, and that "objectivity" was one response---but the other was outright bias against the "status quo," whether it was society, tradition, or whatever. In part, then, that explains the inbred liberalism of reporters.
Very interesting, professor. I do want to see that! I'll be talking to my favorite librarian (my son) about it next time I drop by and see him.
BTTT
You are right-—Lincoln did co—opt the AP, but the change was broader (obviously, the Confederate news services were doing it too). And Leonard’s history of newspapers, “News For All,” suggests that change was slower and less far-reaching still. Even after the CW, for example, you still had the “penny press”/”yellow press” which MOSTLY covered scandal and crime, but was still anything but “objective.”
As usual, you keep your eye on the ball and inspire a good discussion! Thanks.