> Does "scholarship and history" mean "the Howard Zinn view of history?" Yeah, I can understand why some people would be sad that that's not taught in Texas and

> Does "scholarship and history" mean "the Howard Zinn view of history?" Yeah, I can understand why some people would be sad that that's not taught in Texas and everywhere. Although as far as I can tell, it IS taught in many blue counties. "That POV", from that sentence, referred to a POV about the nature of the news media informed by the scholarship and history of the field of media studies, not, like, world history. I was noting that perhaps some of the sentiment that we're in some exceptionally-bad media environment, now, is because some folks have recently realized that the media effectively all have some kind of bias and often lie or fail to be skeptical of things Important People tell them, but lack the context to realize that's not a new thing, so may decide it's some new development (beginning, curiously, roughly the time they realized it was a problem). That is, as I wrote, they've come to some of the same conclusions as one might from reading works in media studies, but, because they've come at it via a "shitty, partial, divorced-from-scholarship-and-history" road hyper-focused on recent events (and, ahem, who made them aware of it in the first place? Ahem) it looks to them like it's something that just started. My observations about the quality of high school history and civics instruction were separate, and no, I don't think they ought to teach Zinn.