me:
>>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. ...<<
On 4/2/06, Sean Johnson Andrews wrote:
>... the guy you mentioned is probably not a real historian. He's a
FOX news commentator/"journalist" making the rounds for his new
book.<
exactly, but the evidence he cited sounded okay.
> 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. <
right. But it's okay to judge yesterday's standards according to our own. If the massive news-reading habits of the people in 1996 wasn't constrained by needs for "objectivity," it limits the validity of statements that suggest that the non-news-reading habits of people today are somehow a problem. Nowadays, at least most people say they want "objectivity" even if they don't get it.
> ... 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.
that's true
-- Jim Devine / "There can be no real individual freedom in the presence of economic insecurity." -- Chester Bowles