> On 4/2/06, Josh Narins <josh at narins.net> wrote:
>> Anyway, it reminds me of the role of information in a popular
>> government, and how America in 1776 was the #2 newspaper-reading society
>> in world history. Sweden, at some point, beat that record.
>
> I heard on U.S. National Public Radio some historian reporting that
> back in 1776, newspapers in the colonies were totally irresponsible
> and "yellow" in their content and mode of presentation. Famous
> patriot, journalist, and beer-maker Samuel Adams was especially bad.
It is a separate argument how biased or partisan the newspapers were at the time of the repubilic's founding, but the guy you mentioned is probably not a real historian. He's a FOX news commentator/"journalist" making the rounds for his new book.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/158648334X/104-7026655-0613565?v=glance&n=283155
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,1195,00.html
I haven't read his book but I can say that of the people who I have read on the subject, the comparison he makes is sort of anachronistic. For instance, in Michael Schudson's _Discovering the News_ he argues that it wasn't until the mid 1800s that the concept of news (as an objective telling of events) was even relevant. In other words, to say that the journalists of that time were "irresponsible" or "yellow" in their content is a ridiculous assertion since the professional code that would ask they be objective had yet to be invented. On the other hand, he says that the latter was largely the result of increased circulation of newspapers as the price was lowered and they began to focus on garnering larger audiences. The clincher was the invention of the telegraph and the founding of wire services like the AP (c.1845--basically alongside the war w/ Mexico over Texas; wires run across the nation to transmit news from the front), whose main goal is to sell their product to as many newspapers as possible in a variety of markets so, theoretically, would need to have the most objective product. As this became more ingrained, a professional code of journalism developed.
On the other hand, most media ecology theorists would say that this instantaneous, mass focused news was more likely to cause the sensationalistic, yellow journalism this guy points to regardless of journalistic standards in general, and McChesney argues that it is more the result of consolidation of radio and then TV networks. And then, of course, there is Habermas which is a whole other argument. The upshot is that many media scholars would push forward significantly the moment of the most yellow, sensationalistic journalism. Whatever Eric Burns says in his book, I doubt he has any sense that he's entering a conversation--except for the one he sees on Cable News.
In any case, this guy seems to be doing a wierd bit of ideological work for FOX. When I saw him on the daily show a few weeks ago, he kept saying that the news was different then because people actually lied and politicians were involved in shaping that news--something which, evidently never happens on his channel today. But my biggest complaint about him is that he seemed completely pompous and humorless--I suppose he thought that the best way to appear academic was to display some of their worst characteristics.
clip here: http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=60232
-s