13 ms·

> Half a century ago, most of the public said they trusted the news media. That was the aberration. 120 years ago when newspapers owned by the likes of Willi

> Half a century ago, most of the public said they trusted the news media. That was the aberration. 120 years ago when newspapers owned by the likes of William Hearst were doing their best to start unnecessary wars for shits and giggles, would you have trusted the news media? I hope not. The news industry was crooked then, and I don't think there's any reason to believe the American media briefly became trustworthy in the mid 20th century when public trust in the media was at all-time highs. I think Americans got caught up in a post-war optimistic fervor that blinded them to the faults of American media, and American society in general. Now the news media feel entitled to that level of trust which they never deserved in the first place. Reminder that one of America's most beloved "founding fathers" was a newspaperman propagandist. A man called Benjamin Franklin, who founded numerous newspapers specifically to push the revolutionary narrative in colonial America. Say what you like about the man, but impartial reporting was not his priority. The supposed age of impartial trustworthiness in news media is myth, not history. Newspapers have always been the tools of those who own them.

whatshisface 4y ago
>Benjamin Franklin, who founded numerous newspapers specifically to push the revolutionary narrative in colonial America. He was a printer with a franchise of other printers already, and he did value-added stuff like print the news long before the first stirrings of revolution; are you sure he wouldn't have founded them anyway?
- KRAKRISMOTT 4y ago
  Just like Murdoch amirite?
heyflyguy 4y ago
So many great points in here! Ben Franklin ref is gold.
mountainb 4y ago
It's not that much of an exaggeration to say that the default role of newspapers is to provoke political, ethnic, and religious pogroms and to advance various hackneyed agendas. The brief time in the US that coincided with a relatively trusted news establishment coincided with a lot of painstaking efforts at professionalization and projecting an aura of critical neutrality. Customers stopped wanting that, and the professionals were too expensive anyway. Now, we're back to pogrom-of-the-month club journalism, sometimes mostly digital but sometimes also in reality.
- nerdponx 4y ago
  > Customers stopped wanting that That's not true. Reagan's Republicans stopped wanting that, and then non-fairness was forced onto the masses until people didn't know the difference anymore.
  - carlosjobim 4y ago
    The customers are not the people who consume the media.
boh 4y ago
In 1949 the FCC introduced the "Fairness Doctrine" that "required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that fairly reflected differing viewpoints". It was repealed in 1987. People in the mid-20th century actually had regulatory restraint on incendiary click-bait. It wasn't just optimism that produced trust. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
- nerdponx 4y ago
  This is a great example of an executive regulation that should have just been a law before they tried to repeal it. By the time Congress tried to make it a law, it was already a political issue and of course Reagan vetoed it, because the whole thing was orchestrated by his FCC appointees in the first place. See also: same-sex marriage rights, abortion rights, net neutrality, right to repair, et alia.
- Dig1t 4y ago
  A lot of people I talk to about this seem to dislike the idea. As a centrist, I love it, I think it would go a long way towards building more trust in news institutions, if they made a strong commitment to trying their best to present multiple viewpoints on an event and doing their best to not introduce bias into it.
  - beezlebroxxxxxx 4y ago
    The Fairness doctrine had the benefit of a) time, and b) very little competition. Taking TV alone as an example, TV news was limited to a distinct hourly slot and a handful of channels. News was much more polished and prerecorded as segments. The closest modern example is probably PBS Newshour. Once you introduce much more competition and the addictive allure of 24hr news, you get into a situation where an enormous amount of news is prioritized around bread crumbing stories because it's always "in the present, as it happens", and way more reactionary. Breaking News! now happens everyday. CNN even have a regularly scheduled timeblock called...."Breaking News!" Most modern news today is rather more like commentary for a sports game, fairness or usefulness to the public is secondary. Modern news with a fairness doctrine would probably be profoundly boring, which is good in its own way (I'm sure you would agree), but not something that makes a company like CNN a lot of money. Good journalism is expensive and laborious; cheap commentary on a 24hr stream is relatively cheap and easy.
VLM 4y ago
At that time, the media was not united in support of one of the political parties. The problem with the linked article is it insinuates political bias is the only acceptable public opinion, propaganda in support of that one party is good, anyone in opposition to its aggressive propaganda is bad, and then weirdly implies lack of trust in that propaganda is somehow bad for democracy. The main problem with trust in media is a diversity of ownership implies a diversity of opinions, and we had that in the past. There is no diversity in ownership nor opinion now. There is the one party which must always be supported at all times by the good people, and the evil ones who do not obey.
- themitigating 4y ago
  Who is united against what political party? Claiming you're the underdog and fighting against the "mainstream media" is a manipulation tactic. Top 10 Cable News Shows in 2022 RANK NETWORK PROGRAM NAME P2+AA (000) #Tlc 1 FOXN THE FIVE 3419 246 2 FOXN TUCKER CARLSON TONIGHT 3031 228 3 FOXN JESSE WATTERS PRIMETIME 2857 200 4 FOXN HANNITY 2811 214 5 FOXN SPECIAL REPORT BRET BAIER 2511 244 6 FOXN THE INGRAHAM ANGLE 2269 215 7 FOXN GUTFELD! 2040 222 8 FOXN OUTNUMBERED 1858 245 9 FOXN AMERICA’S NEWSROOM 1761 496 10 MSNBC ALEX WAGNER/ MADDOW https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/these-are-the-top-rated-cable-news-shows-of-2022/521247/ https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/these-are-the-top-rated-cabl...
  - thfuran 4y ago
    That looks like a pretty politically lopsided lineup to me.
  - SapporoChris 4y ago
    Why did you restrict yourself to cable news? Do you think your selection could have any biases?
    - PaulHoule 4y ago
      Cable news is that way. My son thinks MSNBC is worse than Fox but I’d say Fox was commercially successful from the very beginning and that liberals were ‘too smart for that shit’ until the Trump administration where MSNBC really had grist for that mill and got much better ratings. CNN has the bias of ‘if it bleeds it leads’ and loved to promote antagonism with Trump because it was great for ratings. I would say though that even non-partisan business news on cable is awful. We will probably still be hearing the non-sensical FAANG acronym for years thanks to the ignorance of Jim Cramer. At least his stock picks are it much worse than a dart, not as bad as Jimmy the Greek’s football picks.
williamcotton 4y ago
This is basically the argument that Margaret Sullivan makes at the end of the article in question: Sullivan’s conclusion that the press should take sides put her in conflict with the Washington Post’s editor during the Trump years, Martin Baron. She quotes from an e-mail he sent her: “When we’ve done our work with requisite rigor and thoroughness (also known as solid, objective reporting) we should tell people what we’ve learned and what remains unknown—directly, straightforwardly, unflinchingly—just as people in lots of other professions do when they’re doing their jobs correctly. That’s what ‘objectivity’ was intended to mean when the term was developed for journalism more than a century ago”—that is, when Lippmann wrote “Public Opinion.” Sullivan’s position is an appeal to the original rationale of the First Amendment. We have a free press in order to protect democracy. When democracy is threatened, reporters and editors and publishers should have an agenda. They should be pro-democracy. Reporters should “stop asking who the winners and losers are,” Sullivan says; they should “start asking who is serving democracy and who is undermining it.” The press is in the game. It has a stake. Also according to the article she has a "memoir slash manifesto" called “Newsroom Confidential: Lessons (and Worries) from an Ink-Stained Life” (St. Martin’s) https://www.amazon.com/Newsroom-Confidential-Lessons-Worries-Ink-Stained/dp/1250281903 https://www.amazon.com/Newsroom-Confidential-Lessons-Worries...
Lammy 4y ago
> 120 years ago when newspapers owned by the likes of William Hearst were doing their best to start unnecessary wars for shits and giggles, would you have trusted the news media? I hope not. And 150 years ago, the San Francisco Chronicle editorial staff founded Bohemian Club to “facilitate the arts” and throw parties up in the Sonoma redwoods every summer. Some pretty high-profile guests over the years too. Move along, move along — nothing to see here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-1_Executive_Committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-1_Executive_Committee

whatshisface 4y ago

>Benjamin Franklin, who founded numerous newspapers specifically to push the revolutionary narrative in colonial America. He was a printer with a franchise of other printers already, and he did value-added stuff like print the news long before the first stirrings of revolution; are you sure he wouldn't have founded them anyway?

KRAKRISMOTT 4y ago
Just like Murdoch amirite?

heyflyguy 4y ago

So many great points in here! Ben Franklin ref is gold.

mountainb 4y ago

It's not that much of an exaggeration to say that the default role of newspapers is to provoke political, ethnic, and religious pogroms and to advance various hackneyed agendas. The brief time in the US that coincided with a relatively trusted news establishment coincided with a lot of painstaking efforts at professionalization and projecting an aura of critical neutrality. Customers stopped wanting that, and the professionals were too expensive anyway. Now, we're back to pogrom-of-the-month club journalism, sometimes mostly digital but sometimes also in reality.

nerdponx 4y ago
> Customers stopped wanting that That's not true. Reagan's Republicans stopped wanting that, and then non-fairness was forced onto the masses until people didn't know the difference anymore.
- carlosjobim 4y ago
  The customers are not the people who consume the media.

boh 4y ago

In 1949 the FCC introduced the "Fairness Doctrine" that "required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that fairly reflected differing viewpoints". It was repealed in 1987. People in the mid-20th century actually had regulatory restraint on incendiary click-bait. It wasn't just optimism that produced trust. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

nerdponx 4y ago
This is a great example of an executive regulation that should have just been a law before they tried to repeal it. By the time Congress tried to make it a law, it was already a political issue and of course Reagan vetoed it, because the whole thing was orchestrated by his FCC appointees in the first place. See also: same-sex marriage rights, abortion rights, net neutrality, right to repair, et alia.
Dig1t 4y ago
A lot of people I talk to about this seem to dislike the idea. As a centrist, I love it, I think it would go a long way towards building more trust in news institutions, if they made a strong commitment to trying their best to present multiple viewpoints on an event and doing their best to not introduce bias into it.
- beezlebroxxxxxx 4y ago
  The Fairness doctrine had the benefit of a) time, and b) very little competition. Taking TV alone as an example, TV news was limited to a distinct hourly slot and a handful of channels. News was much more polished and prerecorded as segments. The closest modern example is probably PBS Newshour. Once you introduce much more competition and the addictive allure of 24hr news, you get into a situation where an enormous amount of news is prioritized around bread crumbing stories because it's always "in the present, as it happens", and way more reactionary. Breaking News! now happens everyday. CNN even have a regularly scheduled timeblock called...."Breaking News!" Most modern news today is rather more like commentary for a sports game, fairness or usefulness to the public is secondary. Modern news with a fairness doctrine would probably be profoundly boring, which is good in its own way (I'm sure you would agree), but not something that makes a company like CNN a lot of money. Good journalism is expensive and laborious; cheap commentary on a 24hr stream is relatively cheap and easy.

VLM 4y ago

At that time, the media was not united in support of one of the political parties. The problem with the linked article is it insinuates political bias is the only acceptable public opinion, propaganda in support of that one party is good, anyone in opposition to its aggressive propaganda is bad, and then weirdly implies lack of trust in that propaganda is somehow bad for democracy. The main problem with trust in media is a diversity of ownership implies a diversity of opinions, and we had that in the past. There is no diversity in ownership nor opinion now. There is the one party which must always be supported at all times by the good people, and the evil ones who do not obey.

themitigating 4y ago
Who is united against what political party? Claiming you're the underdog and fighting against the "mainstream media" is a manipulation tactic. Top 10 Cable News Shows in 2022 RANK NETWORK PROGRAM NAME P2+AA (000) #Tlc 1 FOXN THE FIVE 3419 246 2 FOXN TUCKER CARLSON TONIGHT 3031 228 3 FOXN JESSE WATTERS PRIMETIME 2857 200 4 FOXN HANNITY 2811 214 5 FOXN SPECIAL REPORT BRET BAIER 2511 244 6 FOXN THE INGRAHAM ANGLE 2269 215 7 FOXN GUTFELD! 2040 222 8 FOXN OUTNUMBERED 1858 245 9 FOXN AMERICA’S NEWSROOM 1761 496 10 MSNBC ALEX WAGNER/ MADDOW https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/these-are-the-top-rated-cable-news-shows-of-2022/521247/ https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/these-are-the-top-rated-cabl...
- thfuran 4y ago
  That looks like a pretty politically lopsided lineup to me.
- SapporoChris 4y ago
  Why did you restrict yourself to cable news? Do you think your selection could have any biases?
  - PaulHoule 4y ago
    Cable news is that way. My son thinks MSNBC is worse than Fox but I’d say Fox was commercially successful from the very beginning and that liberals were ‘too smart for that shit’ until the Trump administration where MSNBC really had grist for that mill and got much better ratings. CNN has the bias of ‘if it bleeds it leads’ and loved to promote antagonism with Trump because it was great for ratings. I would say though that even non-partisan business news on cable is awful. We will probably still be hearing the non-sensical FAANG acronym for years thanks to the ignorance of Jim Cramer. At least his stock picks are it much worse than a dart, not as bad as Jimmy the Greek’s football picks.

williamcotton 4y ago

This is basically the argument that Margaret Sullivan makes at the end of the article in question: Sullivan’s conclusion that the press should take sides put her in conflict with the Washington Post’s editor during the Trump years, Martin Baron. She quotes from an e-mail he sent her: “When we’ve done our work with requisite rigor and thoroughness (also known as solid, objective reporting) we should tell people what we’ve learned and what remains unknown—directly, straightforwardly, unflinchingly—just as people in lots of other professions do when they’re doing their jobs correctly. That’s what ‘objectivity’ was intended to mean when the term was developed for journalism more than a century ago”—that is, when Lippmann wrote “Public Opinion.” Sullivan’s position is an appeal to the original rationale of the First Amendment. We have a free press in order to protect democracy. When democracy is threatened, reporters and editors and publishers should have an agenda. They should be pro-democracy. Reporters should “stop asking who the winners and losers are,” Sullivan says; they should “start asking who is serving democracy and who is undermining it.” The press is in the game. It has a stake. Also according to the article she has a "memoir slash manifesto" called “Newsroom Confidential: Lessons (and Worries) from an Ink-Stained Life” (St. Martin’s) https://www.amazon.com/Newsroom-Confidential-Lessons-Worries-Ink-Stained/dp/1250281903 https://www.amazon.com/Newsroom-Confidential-Lessons-Worries...

Lammy 4y ago

> 120 years ago when newspapers owned by the likes of William Hearst were doing their best to start unnecessary wars for shits and giggles, would you have trusted the news media? I hope not. And 150 years ago, the San Francisco Chronicle editorial staff founded Bohemian Club to “facilitate the arts” and throw parties up in the Sonoma redwoods every summer. Some pretty high-profile guests over the years too. Move along, move along — nothing to see here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-1_Executive_Committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-1_Executive_Committee