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.
>, 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. Jim Devine <<<<<>>>>>
newspapers in the early republic were tied to - and often - financed by politicians and political parties, both hamilton and jefferson supported papers friendly to their views by favoring them with government business (there was no government printing office until after civil war, established in 1869, if memory serves), every president from john adams through james buchanan maintained personal friendships with editors whose newspapers reflected their views...
mid-19th century telegraph machine and high-speed rotary press made mass circulation possible, desire to maximize circulation led to reliance on ad revenue which 'required' editorial independence from politically partisan subsidies (last of which came to a close around the civil war)...
'codification' of journalistic objectivity associated with first schools of journalism at university of missouri and at columbia... mh