The Present State of Media
And its Future
Back in the day, as my students used to say about things that happened before they were born, professional journalists would take pride in their work.
Frank Luther Mott identifies yellow journalism based on five characteristics:[4]
scare headlines in huge print, often of minor news
lavish use of pictures, or imaginary drawings
use of faked interviews, misleading headlines, pseudoscience, and a parade of false learning from so-called experts
emphasis on full-color Sunday supplements, usually with comic strips
dramatic sympathy with the "underdog" against the system.
Modern media has all of the bolded characteristics (both TV/cable and ‘print’ - that last would refer to all that are primarily in words). I found # 3 on that list particularly appropriate with today’s media.
There are other facets of biased or misleading journalism - too many outlets try to fill space with lightly changed press releases - what has been call Press Release Journalism.
Other tricks that lead to biased reporting:
Calling someone just before the end of the cycle for getting the story into the news, and asking for a comment. Often, the person contacted will be blindsided, and be forced to reply with “No comment”. The Presstitute will never mention that the opposing side was not given sufficient heads up to be able to present an alternative scenario.
Use of unflattering photos - this is straight out of the Yellow Journalism era, when - photos being very expensive and time-consuming to produce, used cartoons with exaggerated and distorted features to lampoon the opposition, and lead to preconceived notions of who the heroes and villains of the story were.
Echo chambers - too often, the media agree to use the same phrases and slant on stories. Sometimes, this is directed by the side that wants to make sure their version of the story takes hold, and create an “everybody agrees about this” impression. This can create the Bandwagon Effect. Kids are often warned about this in classes, so they have to use that method sparingly.
Closely allied to the Bandwagon Effect is the “You’re a Denier!” accusation. That method of deflecting alternative framing of their pet stories relies on associating any criticism of their sources or conclusions with being Just the Same as the most out-there conspiracy theorist. Some - and by some, I mean me, as well - think that the most strange and easily ridiculed CTs are deliberately initiated/planted/paid for by The Left or their allies in the 3-letter agencies. Which, I am confident, will be considered proof that I am, indeed, a CT. The biggest trouble with labeling people like that is that - too often - those ‘ridiculous theories’ have been found to have more than a grain of truth to them. The Babylon Bee is particularly hated because so many of their looniest parodies have come true.
The incestuous relationship between people in government and the media. Snopes calls that claim a mixture of True and False, but does so by stating that the “relationship is outdated”. Meaning that it WAS true, but either the pair have divorced, or one of them no longer works in that capacity. That closeness between Presidential administrations and the media continues to today. The relations are not always between married people or core family members; it also includes concurrent time in college, belonging to the same social circles, live-ins, and associations with the same activist groups.
Direct pressure on the owners of social media to censor stories unfavorable to the Leftists/Dems - it’s finally out there, thanks to some diligent legal work.
Politicians have always tried to influence the press coverage. In the past, it could be quite blatant, and involve bribes and/or favors.
Mid-century journalists, most of them coming out of college programs, felt they had to conceal their connections to political parties or interest groups. They made great efforts to appear to be unbiased.
Watergate had two very biased journalists covering the story - BOTH Woodward and Bernstein. Bernstein was an admitted Leftist and openly stated that he hoped to take down Nixon.
Woodward appeared, by contrast, to be the reasoned and non-partisan of the two. So, why was he on the story?
Woodward later collaborated with Scott Armstrong to write The Brethren, a tell-all about the Supreme Court that violated the confidentiality of Justice discussions about cases. Some - and by some, I include me - think that the book was written to get Rehnquist out of his position as Chief Justice. He did die in September, 2005, the same year the book came out.
Today’s Update: Jonathan Turley’s column on impeachment, and reasons why it is NEITHER a Partisan Witch Hunt nor a Rush to Judgement.