5 ms·

> In the beginning, there were ABC, NBC, and CBS, and they were good. Midcentury American man could come home after eight hours of work and turn on his televisi

> In the beginning, there were ABC, NBC, and CBS, and they were good. Midcentury American man could come home after eight hours of work and turn on his television and know where he stood in relation to his wife, and his children, and his neighbors, and his town, and his country, and his world. And that was good. Is this meant to be sarcasm? There are a ton of mid-century examples of journalism sowing baseless panic and hatred: the Red Scare, Vietnam War disinfo, etc. I understand the issues with the news today, but there was no idyllic Before Time when it was Good.

gorgoiler 5y ago
The following paragraph literally begins by talking about red baiting.
- jakelazaroff 5y ago
  They're referring to fringe sources (in contrast to the mainstream sources that were Good).
nonameiguess 5y ago
The entire analogy to the Book of Genesis is meant to illustrate a fallacious belief in the goodness of before times. There was no Eden. That was just the perception of a certain reader with a very limited perspective that this writer is trying to describe.
kjsdfghj 5y ago
"Good" like when you're eating steak in The Matrix.
_vertigo 5y ago
Clearly sarcasm if you read beyond the 5th paragraph.
- alisonkisk 5y ago
  It's clearly sarcasm at the first sentence, if you see the allusion to Genesis.
mc32 5y ago
This article parodies the mid-century American (which they are framing as a prototypical cosmopolitan white), however, they fail to acknowledge that this was typical of the medium everywhere. It was typical in mid-century Cuba, France, Japan, Brazil, etc. It wasn’t a uniquely American quality. It was the product of the times and the technology —just as today the problem with disinformation and information control is everywhere and not just in America.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  > however, they fail to acknowledge that this was typical of the medium everywhere. It was typical in mid-century Cuba, France, Japan, Brazil, etc. It wasn’t a uniquely American quality. They aren't arguing that this state of affairs was uniquely American...
  - mc32 5y ago
    No, it’s heavily implied. As if Americans are uniquely qualified to generate “the bad things”. “In the beginning, there were ABC, NBC, and CBS, and they were good. Midcentury American man…” “Over frequencies our American never tuned in to…”
    - throwaway894345 5y ago
      That doesn't imply that these things are uniquely American, it only means that the article is scoped to America. If you write an article about the sky and point out that it's blue, it doesn't imply that the sky is the only thing that is blue.
    - watwut 5y ago
      I read these as American writing about America and issues there. It is ok for Americans to write about America itself, it is ok for them to not have to make international comparative study from every opinion piece.
datavirtue 5y ago
I was remembering a time during the fairness doctrine when the news media seemed more fair and balanced but as I have watched various news broadcast s from the past I found that what I remembered was just the way they wanted me to see them. The news has always been very opinionated and they would use facial expressions and tone of voice to influence your opinion. It is quite disturbing to watch the old news and see that things are not as I remember them.
- dlivingston 5y ago
  Insert obligatory reference to Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent here.
- CamperBob2 5y ago
  Exactly. What's disturbing is how many contemporary writers seem to believe that the "Fairness Doctrine" had anything to do with "Fairness," that it's even remotely compatible with the First Amendment, or that anything like it would be workable today. Forcing Fox News to run strawman counterarguments to satisfy the letter of the law is not going to magically turn them into the Fair and Balanced(tm) news outlet they've always claimed to be. A better approach would be to establish and enforce a legal definition of "news" and apply deceptive trade practice law to any broadcaster who has to go to court to argue that no one takes their commentators seriously.
r00fus 5y ago
Even the seeds of modern "journalism" were yellow. Hearst didn't just build a crazy castle in California, he essentially drove the US involvement in the Spanish-American war - and that was not mid-century, but at the beginning of the 20th century.
kriskrunch 5y ago
Exactly my thought! Yellow journalism is another 20th century example. Disinformation is as ancient as writing. Articles on some topics are more commonly colored by the reporter's personal beliefs, and those change with the times. To fight this, I figured out how to block specific topics and sections from Google News, creating a simple prefilter with a browser plugin. Now, with most of the click bait distractions removed from my screen, I'm surprised to find that Google News actually has some interesting stuff in it.
UncleOxidant 5y ago
I'd move the time machine about 20 years later to the 70s. Yes, we still had 3 networks then. And all three (plus AP, UPI & Reuters) gave us a pretty middle-of-the-road view of the world. And, I would argue, we were a much more cohesive society because of this. By the 70s there was much more sensitivity for minorities then there was in the 50s and that was starting to show in journalism as well. Women's rights were making great strides - the ERA came very close to passing (something that likely couldn't happen now with so many state legislatures controlled by the right wing ). We were becoming very aware of environmental degradation and staring to do something about it. Having grown up in the 70s I find that era much preferable to today's 24/7, highly partisan news cycle. News outlets now are highly politicized and ideologically specialized. There is no cohesive vision for how to live together at this point. Sure, there were outliers back then (as the article suggests) - I vaguely remember John Birchers, but nobody took them seriously - now it's like Bircher views are mainstreamed and we're supposed to accept them as a viable view with some kind of equal footing among all the other views.
- marcinzm 5y ago
  Here's a dirty secret: when the economy is growing people tend to be content and not too partisan. No need to be too concerned who is in power since it's unlikely they'll make your good life much worse. Maybe you won't benefit as much versus the other candidate but either one will result in a good life. The 70s are roughly when that stopped being the case in America. The actual income adjusted for inflation hasn't increased since the 70s despite economic growth. Income disparity has increased as wealth was concentrated in a small percentage of the population. Technology has made many jobs obsolete and it's only getting worse. College and medical costs have skyrocketed.
throwaway894345 5y ago
From the second paragraph: > For him, information was in its right—that is to say, unquestioned—place. And that was good, too. They're saying that the pre-Internet media felt reliable to the average American because they were blissfully ignorant. Which is to say they agree with you. Personally, while I agree that there were issues with the media before, I do get the impression that the issues were fewer and farther between. It was usually the media going to bat for the establishment on issues of major policy (e.g., a war effort), and today it's the media going to bat for an ideological agenda (or rather 2-3 ideological agendas) for every single little thing that can possibly be framed along that particular ideological axis. Of course, there were publications that skewed liberal or conservative before (and someone will certainly respond to this with a short list of such examples before dropping the microphone triumphantly), but they hewed closely to the standards of journalism or else they were widely discredited.

gorgoiler 5y ago

The following paragraph literally begins by talking about red baiting.

jakelazaroff 5y ago
They're referring to fringe sources (in contrast to the mainstream sources that were Good).

nonameiguess 5y ago

The entire analogy to the Book of Genesis is meant to illustrate a fallacious belief in the goodness of before times. There was no Eden. That was just the perception of a certain reader with a very limited perspective that this writer is trying to describe.

kjsdfghj 5y ago

"Good" like when you're eating steak in The Matrix.

_vertigo 5y ago

Clearly sarcasm if you read beyond the 5th paragraph.

alisonkisk 5y ago
It's clearly sarcasm at the first sentence, if you see the allusion to Genesis.

mc32 5y ago

This article parodies the mid-century American (which they are framing as a prototypical cosmopolitan white), however, they fail to acknowledge that this was typical of the medium everywhere. It was typical in mid-century Cuba, France, Japan, Brazil, etc. It wasn’t a uniquely American quality. It was the product of the times and the technology —just as today the problem with disinformation and information control is everywhere and not just in America.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
throwaway894345 5y ago
> however, they fail to acknowledge that this was typical of the medium everywhere. It was typical in mid-century Cuba, France, Japan, Brazil, etc. It wasn’t a uniquely American quality. They aren't arguing that this state of affairs was uniquely American...
- mc32 5y ago
  No, it’s heavily implied. As if Americans are uniquely qualified to generate “the bad things”. “In the beginning, there were ABC, NBC, and CBS, and they were good. Midcentury American man…” “Over frequencies our American never tuned in to…”
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    That doesn't imply that these things are uniquely American, it only means that the article is scoped to America. If you write an article about the sky and point out that it's blue, it doesn't imply that the sky is the only thing that is blue.
  - watwut 5y ago
    I read these as American writing about America and issues there. It is ok for Americans to write about America itself, it is ok for them to not have to make international comparative study from every opinion piece.

datavirtue 5y ago

I was remembering a time during the fairness doctrine when the news media seemed more fair and balanced but as I have watched various news broadcast s from the past I found that what I remembered was just the way they wanted me to see them. The news has always been very opinionated and they would use facial expressions and tone of voice to influence your opinion. It is quite disturbing to watch the old news and see that things are not as I remember them.

dlivingston 5y ago
Insert obligatory reference to Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent here.
CamperBob2 5y ago
Exactly. What's disturbing is how many contemporary writers seem to believe that the "Fairness Doctrine" had anything to do with "Fairness," that it's even remotely compatible with the First Amendment, or that anything like it would be workable today. Forcing Fox News to run strawman counterarguments to satisfy the letter of the law is not going to magically turn them into the Fair and Balanced(tm) news outlet they've always claimed to be. A better approach would be to establish and enforce a legal definition of "news" and apply deceptive trade practice law to any broadcaster who has to go to court to argue that no one takes their commentators seriously.

r00fus 5y ago

Even the seeds of modern "journalism" were yellow. Hearst didn't just build a crazy castle in California, he essentially drove the US involvement in the Spanish-American war - and that was not mid-century, but at the beginning of the 20th century.

kriskrunch 5y ago

Exactly my thought! Yellow journalism is another 20th century example. Disinformation is as ancient as writing. Articles on some topics are more commonly colored by the reporter's personal beliefs, and those change with the times. To fight this, I figured out how to block specific topics and sections from Google News, creating a simple prefilter with a browser plugin. Now, with most of the click bait distractions removed from my screen, I'm surprised to find that Google News actually has some interesting stuff in it.

UncleOxidant 5y ago

I'd move the time machine about 20 years later to the 70s. Yes, we still had 3 networks then. And all three (plus AP, UPI & Reuters) gave us a pretty middle-of-the-road view of the world. And, I would argue, we were a much more cohesive society because of this. By the 70s there was much more sensitivity for minorities then there was in the 50s and that was starting to show in journalism as well. Women's rights were making great strides - the ERA came very close to passing (something that likely couldn't happen now with so many state legislatures controlled by the right wing ). We were becoming very aware of environmental degradation and staring to do something about it. Having grown up in the 70s I find that era much preferable to today's 24/7, highly partisan news cycle. News outlets now are highly politicized and ideologically specialized. There is no cohesive vision for how to live together at this point. Sure, there were outliers back then (as the article suggests) - I vaguely remember John Birchers, but nobody took them seriously - now it's like Bircher views are mainstreamed and we're supposed to accept them as a viable view with some kind of equal footing among all the other views.

marcinzm 5y ago
Here's a dirty secret: when the economy is growing people tend to be content and not too partisan. No need to be too concerned who is in power since it's unlikely they'll make your good life much worse. Maybe you won't benefit as much versus the other candidate but either one will result in a good life. The 70s are roughly when that stopped being the case in America. The actual income adjusted for inflation hasn't increased since the 70s despite economic growth. Income disparity has increased as wealth was concentrated in a small percentage of the population. Technology has made many jobs obsolete and it's only getting worse. College and medical costs have skyrocketed.

throwaway894345 5y ago

From the second paragraph: > For him, information was in its right—that is to say, unquestioned—place. And that was good, too. They're saying that the pre-Internet media felt reliable to the average American because they were blissfully ignorant. Which is to say they agree with you. Personally, while I agree that there were issues with the media before, I do get the impression that the issues were fewer and farther between. It was usually the media going to bat for the establishment on issues of major policy (e.g., a war effort), and today it's the media going to bat for an ideological agenda (or rather 2-3 ideological agendas) for every single little thing that can possibly be framed along that particular ideological axis. Of course, there were publications that skewed liberal or conservative before (and someone will certainly respond to this with a short list of such examples before dropping the microphone triumphantly), but they hewed closely to the standards of journalism or else they were widely discredited.