Partisan Journalism

partisan journalism
In his well researched book Partisan Journalism: A History of Media Bias in the United States, Jim Kuypers traces the history of American journalism back to America’s founding and shows the history of journalism’s connection to party politics. Each era differs, of course. The changes in media from newspapers to radio and television and now the Internet make a marked difference in journalism. After all, few disagree with McLuhan who told us “The media is the message.”

This is clearly shown in the impact of the decrease in newspaper subscribers, who’d at least glance through most sections of the paper, and Internet readers, who hop by clicking from one link to the next, perhaps never seeing stories unrelated to their core interests.

I know from my research into the 19th century that newspapers were clearly affiliated with political parties. It was customary for each paper to annually declare which party they were aligned with. Now that practice is no more, but it’s not hard to determine that PBS*, MSNBC, CBS, CNN, etc. lean towards the Dems and Fox News leans towards the GOP. Kuypers does spend a good chapter on surveys of journalists, which confirm what I’d heard about a slant in journalists vis-a-vis in membership in and donations to the Democrats. (Roughly over 85% of journalists identify themselves as Democrats. Even a majority of Fox News employees donated to Democrats in 2012.) There’s a lot of solid data, along with the sources so you can double check it all.

Rather than rehash every section let me share an excellent summary and review:

[F]ocusing on the warring notions of objectivity and partisanship [ . . . ] Kuypers shows how the American journalistic tradition grew from partisan roots and, with only a brief period of objectivity in between, has returned to those roots today. The book begins with an overview of newspapers during Colonial times, explaining how those papers openly operated in an expressly partisan way; he then moves through the Jacksonian era’s expansion of both the press and its partisan nature. After detailing the role of the press during the War Between the States, Kuypers demonstrates that it was the telegraph, not professional sentiment, that kicked off the movement toward objective news reporting. The conflict between partisanship and professionalization/objectivity continued through the muckraking years and through World War II, with newspapers in the 1950s often being objective in their reporting even as their editorials leaned to the right. This changed rapidly in the 1960s when newspaper editorials shifted from right to left, and progressive advocacy began to slowly erode objective content. Kuypers follows this trend through the early 1980s, and then turns his attention to demonstrating how new communication technologies have changed the very nature of news writing and delivery. In the final chapters covering the Bush and Obama presidencies, he traces the growth of the progressive and partisan nature of the mainstream news, while at the same time explores the rapid rise of alternative news sources, some partisan, some objective, that are challenging the dominance of the mainstream press. This book steps beyond a simple charge-counter-charge of political bias
For more, click here.

The best part of the book was how it shows readers how to look out for framing, selection and emphasis and the sort of questions to see how television journalists shape the news to fit their agenda.

I recommend people read Partisan Journalism and take the time to fact check as you go.

*My near daily source.
My other regular source since I believe in learning from all sides.
Advertisements

From Mills’ “On Liberty”

Quote

“In this age, the mere example of non-conformity, the mere refusal to bend the knee to custom, is itself a service. Precisely because the tyranny of opinion is such as to make eccentricity a reproach, it is desirable, in order to break through that tyranny, that people should be eccentric. Eccentricity has always abounded when and where strength of character has abounded; and the amount of eccentricity in a society has generally been proportional to the amount of genius, mental vigor, and moral courage which it contained. That so few now dare to be eccentric, marks the chief danger of the time.”
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

Klavan on Journalists Risking “All” . . .

I have to agree with Andrew Klavan. Journalists need to get a grip and give more time to what’s happening in Isreal and Venezuela and stop giving so much time on the Mueller Report that anyone can read here.

Trump and Kim: Body Language

I love these body language analysis videos. So glad there’s one up on this latest summit.

I didn’t expect this conflict to just take two summits. I do hope one day there is peace between the two countries and that Kim makes the necessary changes to bring freedom and peace to his country and let it be part of the world.

She does say she doesn’t know why the summit would be in Hanoi. I think there was one other Asian country considered and Kim chose Hanoi.

I’ve been there and was surprised by how welcoming the people were to Americans. It seems that for the most part people have taken a “let bygones be bygones” approach to what they call the American War. (Cambodia’s the same. So’s Japan.) I attribute this to Buddhism and I suppose practicality.

As some commentators have said, Vietnam is a communist country, which does forbid religions and has a tight rein on social media, but there’s a lot of commerce. Life is comfortable as commercialism has brought prosperity.

If You Don’t Have Time to Read the Book

Here’s a good summary of Salam’s ideas on immigration, which he explains in his book Melting Pot or Civil War. If you believe in hearing two sides of an issue, Salam should be on your reading list.

Crowd Dynamics at the State of the Union

My favorite body language analyst covers the SOTU focusing on crowd dynamics. It’s an interesting aspect to the event that I haven’t seen others examine.