Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: abb
But without the legacy of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew, the history and future of American journalism might be very different.

Grasping at straws instead of looking at the real cause and effects. The vast majority of daily publications endorse the vast majority of Democrat candidates each election cycle. This was not always the case. The media have shited so far to the left in the last 30 years, while the average citizen has not. I'm reminded of the David Copperfield magic stunt: making the Statue of Liberty “disappear" before the camera and live audience. Of course what really happened was the stage and audience revolved 180 degrees, out of view of the statue. Everyone’s perception was that the statue disappeared , but the reality was their perspective had shifted.

13 posted on 04/14/2009 12:07:47 PM PDT by Huskrrrr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Huskrrrr

A lot of what happened to the Drive-By Media can be traced to Henry Luce (co-founder of Time magazine) leaving the scene in the mid-60s. While he wasn’t conservative to the degree us FReepers are, he was nevertheless a moderating force on the national media scene.

And his influence was vast while he was active.


18 posted on 04/14/2009 12:13:54 PM PDT by abb ("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

To: Huskrrrr
This was not always the case. The media have shited so far to the left in the last 30 years
If you read Ann Coulter Treason or M. Stanton Evans Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies on McCarthy and his treatment by Big Journalism, you will realize that journalism was full-throated leftism fifty and sixty years ago.

Indeed, if you reflect on the fact that according to William Safire, the meaning of the word "liberal" was changed (essentially inverted) during the 1920s and ask yourself who could have had the motive and the opportunity to accomplish that, you will realize that only socialists had the motive ("socialism" having failed as a brand in the U.S.) and only journalists had the opportunity. The inevitable conclusion is that journalists were uniformly socialist back in the 1920s. I wondered for years, even decades, why in the twentieth century journalism claimed to be "objective" but actually was leftist. Whereas the newspapers of the founding era were openly partisan and not uniformly leftist.

Relatively recently I was struck by a blinding flash of the obvious - the newspaper business was transformed by the telegraph and the wire services (mostly the AP) in the second half of the nineteenth century. Journalism which claims objectivity but is actually uniformly leftist seems to trace back to the post-Civil War era with the implications of the transformation of the business model of journalism working out.

The Right to Know


40 posted on 04/14/2009 2:54:26 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The conceit of journalistic objectivity is profoundly subversive of democratic principle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson