6 ms·

You are splitting hairs. The point was there was no "tailored" view of the news. There where 3 and they had standards that they all followed. We do not have tha

• mquander 9y ago
  Really? What about tabloids? What about Rush Limbaugh? What about Bill O'Reilly? A shitload of people consumed primarily absurdly terrible news sources before they were on the Internet.
  • jacquesm 9y ago
    That's absolutely true but the horizontal peer-to-peer connection wasn't made it was mostly one-way.
• dredmorbius 9y ago
  The news was exceedingly highly tailored. It's just that the tailors agreed on their cuts. Noam Chomsky, Marshall McLuhan, Jerry Mander, Niel Postman, and Robert W. McChesney all address this, as do many, many others. If you'd like it from the horse's mouth, here's Edward R. Murrow's 1958 "Wires and Lights in a Box" speech: http://www.rtdna.org/content/edward_r_murrow_s_1958_wires_lights_in_a_box_speech http://www.rtdna.org/content/edward_r_murrow_s_1958_wires_li...
• jerf 9y ago
  Yes, it was absolutely tailored. The fact that there was no competition does not imply that it was not tailored. Pick your favorite news story of that era. Dig deeper into it. Read the after-the-fact analyses and behind-the-scenes exposes. I guarantee you you will be shocked at the disparity between what was reported and what was most likely the truth. Yellow journalism never stopped, it just put on a suit and tie. It is true that we get more highly-focused infotainment now, in a much more viciously competitive environment. It is not at all clear to me that the actual quality of the reporting has gone down all that much, though, on the grounds that it was nowhere near as high as the mythos says it was.