Thank you to everyone who supports these projects on Patreon. I wouldn't be able to devote so much time and so many resources to one video otherwise. I'm trying to make the best work I can, and the donations really do make it possible. If you'd like to chip in and support me, check out www.patreon.com/rchapman. Video notes below. If anyone is wondering how the networks stayed in business at the time, they had other programming that easily offset the losses that their news divisions took. Similarly, the NYT had other sections to their paper (sports, finance, culture), and when people bought the paper for those sections, they got those news along with it, regardless of how neutral their news was. Still, the NYT was the least profitable of the major three American papers at the time (The LA Times, The Washington Post & The NYT). They didn't care though. For them it was about principles and the prestige that came along with it. - Ryan
Ryan, thank you. That was very well researched. I lived through the 60's (and beyond). It *was* different. Journalism was a calling epitomized by Cronkite. When Dan Rather took the helm, it was like a scepter of virtue was being handed off and he had to live up to it. Watergate drove this to new heights. It feels like the free market, that fuel of excellence, accelerated the slide. Ted Turner founded CNN as a for-profit organization based on the ground-breaking notion that a full time news network had an audience. Then Fox News figured out that they could cut out the field offices, crank up the bile and get more viewers. It was a recipe for profits. IMHO, the NY Times followed Fox News down the gully of grievance. I would never have believed that grievance was a limitless fount of viewers. My salute to you. A high integrity analysis, providing new information in uncharged language.
I believe it would be important to adress that in either period there's been a permanent bias in favor of imperialism and a narrative of the US government always engaging in imperialist policies abroad with good intentions, and criticism being only valid when presented as "a mistake made by well meaning goals". When it comes to foreign policy, the press has always been heavily biased to support every intervention in every single country, with the most radical opinion being "we should stop our intervention for X strategic reason, even though we are noble and we are only there to help". Kind Regards!
I WAS BORN IN 1950 AND HAVE BEEN COMPLAINING ABOUT THE CHAOS IN THE NEWS A LONG TIME I BELIEVE THAT TO SAY ON TRACK OR UNDERSTAND THE TRUTH ITSELF RESPECT ALL OF US HAZING IS SOMETHING ELSE THAT DESCRIBES EVERYONE FOR THEM? THE 60s WAS HELL HONEST THERE WERE NO CLEAR TRUTH AND TOTAL IMBALANCE THEN THE LISTS OF PEOPLE FIGHTING THE VIET NAM WAR IN THE EVENING THANK-YOU FOR THIS
I'm 60, but when I took a journalism (writing) course back in the late 70s, my teacher started by saying if he could tell what our political, religious, or any other point of view is from our lives by what is written, it isn't journalism, it's editorializing and there's a page for that, but doesn't belong anywhere else in a newspaper.
Its a shame that these days he would be chased out of the school for being a "far right lunatic". News is supposed to be unbiased. Today, the only point of view anybody is allowed to have is far left.
@Chip Belori so true! I saw a poster on campus a few years ago promoting a conference of journalism students and activists to discuss how they could work together to bring about "social justice. "
Which means even in the late 1970s they knew the way it was supposed to be. I got the impression from this video that it was a 1-2 punch of the reaction to McCarthyism and then Reagan's policies, but it sounds like it's mostly reagan's fault then.
@@theJellyjoker It fills me with comfort if a news anchor reports a news objectively, putting the positions of each side. If you're not willing to listen to the positions and viewpoints of each side, then there is something mentally wrong with you, like ADHD or something.
@@Kenobi-vu9mb I am well aware that I often have different reactions to emotional triggers. I've had to comply with neurotypicals, can you images living all you life living in an alien society? One were you are forced to subject yourself to psychological torture all while having to thank your abusers for treating you like some sort of animal. you know that at it is only a matter of time before you are accused of something, you won't know what but it will always be your fault for not knowing and obviously doing it on purpose. So that "neutral stye" was used to pathologise and dehumanize me. One persons comfort is another's trauma.
My Dad did radio news in the 40s and 50s. He worked at KVEC & KSBW. I was a teenager, Vietnam War era, and I remember being angry about what I was hearing on the news. I asked Dad why they didn't say how bad this war was, and he said that that would be editorializing. The job of the presenter is to simply give the news and allow the listener, or viewer, to draw their own conclusions on how they felt about it.
I am not following you. Did your dad or anyone else on the news report the daily death and injuries? Did they mention the conditions? Those things can be reported factually and are news. And they certainly would have told people how bad things were.
There are two things about this video I want to highlight. First, you didn't make the claim that news was totally unbiased in the 50's and 60's, simply that it was less biased and fit within a values framework that typical Americans could work with. The second is that you didn't claim it was money in news that changed the situation, but it was one of three factors and the most recent one. For having the sense to lay both points out like you did, I thank you.
One thing that is worth keeping in mind: bias in media doesn't just have to do with how you report things, but also, much more importantly, it has to do with _what_ you choose to report. Journalists can keep their language neutral and non-emotional, but by choosing what is "news-worthy" and what isn't, and what information they are or aren't going to give on each issue, they can effectively inject their own bias and shape the public's perception while maintaining a façade of objectivity.
Certainly. I also enjoyed that little bit near the end where he explains how some believe objectivity in the 1950s may have to some extent taken everything at face value and thus defended it. Objectivity is important, but careful examination of the events from a more critical standpoint is also extremely valuable.
This is great point. Things can still be biased even if they were represented objectively. Giving two opposing views the same amount of space on the page might, at first glance, seem like the definition of objectivity. But the problem arises when all opposing sides are treated equally when they are actually not equal. A good example would be like treating a scientific study equally against a conspiracy theory, like we can actually see so many times.
@@rahko_i This used to happen all the time. The thing is, that at least an attempt at objectivity meant that conflicting views had to stand on their own merits. Common conspiracy and extremism always had trouble standing on their own in a neutral venue. Active intentional bias in a venue often lends credibility to extreme views. It really doesn't matter if that bias is for or against. Especially with conspiracy theories, clear bias often serves to reinforce the bases of a conspiracy for those who support it, while at least the attempt at objectivity largely discredits through opacity.
Compared with social media its akin to the best university on earth. Journal of Futures Studies, June 2020, 24(4): 1-4 The Internet, Epistemological Crisis and the Realities of the Future: An Introduction to this Special Issue
@@drstevej2527 Social media is unimaginably biased, there are just so many people you can eventually gather enough information to piece together what really happened, unlike mainstream news, which for the most part just flat out lies. Neither of these are great
@@lorefox201 Read the research! Remember this lesson in epistemology. Journal of Futures Studies, June 2020, 24(4): 1-4 The Internet, Epistemological Crisis and the Realities of the Future: An Introduction to this Special Issue
It's amazing seeing old interviews from 20, 30 years ago. They actually ask real questions to people, as if they want to learn something from them or get information. It seems alien compared to the interview theater today.
because iq has been trending downwards instead of up as is commonly believed. the iq tests are routinely updated for the "modern era", ie the standards are reduced
That's why podcasts have gotten so popular. They fill this niche. I'm not saying they're perfect and quality varies, but it's a breath of fresh air compared to cable news/interviews.
Sorry, they only asked questions that seemed legitimate. For example 18 years ago (fairly close to your 20-30 year range) John Kerry and George Dubya Bush were running against eachother for president of the United States. They both went to yale (Kerry 62-66, bush 64-68) and while there they were both members of the sacrifice and elite Skull and Bones Society. Only 1 journalist bothered to ask them about this and did not press them when they brushed it off, saying "if we told you it wouldn't be a secret". All the cotton candy questions asked during the rest of the campaign season are damning indictments of the media being fraudulent back then as well.
They stopped because politicians figured out they did didn't have to answer the questions and could simply plow through with their own sound bite. A classic was George Wallace on one of the Sunday interview shows. The interviewers asked probing questions, but didn't lay a glove on him.
This matches my observations. The news media have become emotion machines, with the overuse of adjectives to subtly manipulate us to share the journalist's bias, telling us how to feel about something rather than to think. The problem is that social media, to which people are turning to, are even worst!
Yes. The big problem was the creation of CNN. You can't keep an audience the whole day if you just report information. To make a show you start editorial using and doing interviews in the street to get the opinion of uninformed masses. It's entertainment, but hardly news. News in TV was much better as the 6 o'clock news
It's a shame y'all's news outlets all have to put profits first :/ Some countries have publicly funded national TV channels and news and such that we can trust, because their only financial interest is the funding they get from our taxes, and we demand a certain standard, like the ethical code mentioned in this video. That's still how we educate our journalists.
@@lunaqueer In the good old days. Unfortunately, now, even state funded media are increasingly biased if only by the prevalent biases stemming from the journalist's and redaction's generally common academical background (humanities, school of journalism) and social circle. And there are many ways to communicate a bias that do not breach any code, like not asking certain questions who's answers would cast something in a favorable or unfavorable light, not reporting some events for the same reasons, not challenging patently false statements, interviewing "experts" with a shared bias, interviewing someone known to share the journalist's (or media) opinion and using that person as a proxy for the journalist's opinion. To take an caricatural example, a journalist may not be allowed to say that the residents of island XYZ are all morons and criminals, but he/she can chose to interview some "personality" who will say exactly that and that "is news being reported, just doing my job". Some journalists obviously have little qualm about using their job as means of activism.
My dad who was born in the 60s often talks about the media he remembers when he was a kid. One instance he talks about was when he saw Walter Cronkite receive an update to some breaking news live on TV. Walter was handed a piece of paper, read it and then instantly turned to the producers and said something to the effect of "Is this really true? Because I'm not gonna say this unless it's been confirmed."
Hey Nick! Was it an Assassination....?I remember exactly how He Reacted to JFK being shot and it was the first time that I ever saw him look like he was ready to cry...My Pop Loved Him!
When I was four, I asked my dad if I could listen to his shortwave radio. He said yes. I remember l was listening to a station in South Africa and I told my dad they reported a news story totally differently than what we saw on TV. He was not impressed but I learned a valuable lesson that day.
This is an excellent piece. I have been in broadcast journalism for over 50 years, 10 years at the Associated Press during the 1970s, and I have seen the changes as they happened.
There's a reason Walter was probably one of the most trusted News Anchor on TV at the time. This was a guy who actually went to Vietnam to see what was happening. He covered Operation Torch in WWII, Flew in Bombing raids in a B-17, he was reporting on some of the biggest actions of the war. The only time you could see unbias is he was visibly shaken and choked up with the Kennedy Assassination. He also couldn't hide his enthusiasm with the Space Program, because he knew how historic those missions were.
Uncle Walter was a steady voice and hand in News/Journalism at that time. He leaned left, but kept his bias out of his reporting. He knew he had to be an unbiased referee. And yes, Reagan's repeal of the "Fairness Doctrine" set all of this in motion and the result is what we have today. Behind Reagan on this was Rupert Murdoch, who had been kicked out of his native Australia and then U.K. for his Yellow Journalism and Ultra-Conservative biases in news. I'm old enough to remember when the nightly news was "boring" and that Journalism had some type of ethics and integrity. As usual, once money got into the equation everything got fouled up. I consider myself a Moderate Independent who favors the Left. I believe in personal and fiscal responsibility, and also having regulations in place to keep things on a level playing field and to protect the general public. I think Social programs are needed, but also I don't want government (or religion) controlling my life. It is about balance between the two extreme views, that way everyone can benefit but also prosper due to their own efforts. Finally, very good job going over this subject. You did so in a very balanced manner.
Walter literally said you can’t be a journalist without being liberal. He was a partisan, too, just better at hiding it. The only reason things have changed is because the big news corps don’t decide the narrative anymore, due to the Internet. They’re so brazen because they’re lashing out at anyone who dares challenge their power.
As a career journalist who’s spent the past four decades watching my profession slip farther and farther away from facts and legitimate analysis into the realm of opinion-for-hire and influence peddling, may I say BRAVO! This is an extremely well -researched and well-presented piece. Any suggestions for getting our industry back to real journalism? (And, no, the bosses aren’t willing to consider ANYTHING that risks angering advertisers.)
If there was no political bias by Walter Cronkite, why was he the 1st for a few years the only reporter allowed to attend the 1954 Bilderberg yearly meetings, but not allowed to share what was discussed.
If you've got an updated copy of the invitation list and see Cronkite's name among those attending the "1954 Bilderberg yearly meetings [sic]," please share this ultra-secret document, from these ultra-secret meetings, of this ultra-secret society, from a time long before the internet, portable digital cameras, or other electronic surveillance devices. That'd be a really neat trick. But let's say, just for fun, that he was there and didn't report on it. That could be because he agreed to attend either "on background" or "off the record" and simply kept his word. If he was invited under one of those two circumstances, he would have known that - even if he couldn't report on the meetings - knowing who was there and what was discussed would give him a huge advantage over other journalists in future reporting of world events. That's a deal worth making, especially knowing there's no OTHER way to find out ANYTHING about what may or may not have happened there. Not everything is a conspiracy. 🤷🏻♂️
Thank you Mr. Chapman for reminding me that this did actually exist at one time. Ethics, integrity and accountability all swept away by political expedience and entitlement.
I think you might benefit from reading Asimov's full piece "Cult of Ignorance." He was referring to news media. I regret to inform you that it was always biased.
@@-Subtle- The media has been controlled by the same people for millennia. It's a trade passed down to their children and so-on. All the techniques were invented in Rome, Egypt, and Babylon.
I was in high school in 1973 taking a News Analysis class. The course was about how to determine bias in journalism from subtle clues. The type of lens used in a photograph (wide angle vs telephoto) could create bias. Statistical charts and if it is median or mode has bias. I thought it was a very valuable class.
The idea that high schools used to teach this depresses me. I’ve been arguing that Informal Logic should be a required course in all four years of high school… Now I think this should be as well. How the hell did we have these classes and then not?? How many times have I heard the Right clamor for “more critical thinking in schools”??
@@mpower1969or, rather, a skeptic's specialty? analyzing a source's potential biases makes you a skeptic, and being skeptical doesn't make you a snowflake.
I find it'll be interesting to see how the next generations do. Like I have memories of my grandparents sharing stories of their experiences 1940s forward. So what happens when oral history becomes that of lore and written history?
And of course everything that define the currently young people's youth, will one day be old as well. There will also come a day when pokemon is a "classic fiction" from "an ancient civilization", like Aesop's fables are today.
I'm old enough to recognize these voices from my childhood. The other day, I woke up and heard Dan Rather (or was it Walter? I was half asleep.) and immediately I started listening intently, knowing I would get facts. Then I realized what Millennium I'm in, and I was hearing only news. My point is, just the sound of his voice told me I was getting facts and would be drawing my own conclusions. Dan, Walter, and Edward. Decades have passed, and I still think integrity (over entertainment).
Your strive for honesty and integrity in the presentation of information is something that cannot often be bought or trained. Love your work Ryan Chapman!
Unfortunately, Walter Cronkite was pretty crooked, too. And there was, in fact, a widespread communist conspiracy in America. The Soviets themselves admitted it, after the collapse.
So you dont trust main stream media, but some random dude on youtube? A guys that doesnt just report, but actively interpretes information, which is a pretty big difference? Even if he is trying to be as honest as possible, his interpretation of events will be biased. IMO thats the bigger issue than any increase in media-bias. People seem increasingly bad at judging the trustworthiness of media. Social media made it so much worse.
@@termitreter6545 obviously your judgment is off... what this TH-camr is doing is extremely important. He is causing viewers to question what they hear-- even encouraging them to question him. Everything he says in his video is also applied to his video. thanks for questioning and thinking with your own mind
@@benjipixel1438 Im not saying what he does is bad, and most american media does seem to decline in neutrality. Critical thinking is good. But beyond that he is still presenting a narrative in his videos. Im a bit weirded out that people say "I dont trust the media, but I trust you!", despite not actually knowing the guy personally. That reminds me of conspiracy theorists that say the media lies, but then trust alex jones. When the reality is more like, "90% of the factual reporting in mainstream media is good, but question the narratives", and "alex jones lies 95% of the time".
The thing that most people fail to pay attention to about news from the 50s and 60s is what stories were selected. The bias was not in the reporting of what stories they published, but in what stories they chose to publish. An anchors bias or a channels bias is now on full display instead of hidden in the production room.
That has only gotten worse and more blatant. The whole narrative that white men are on average more problematic or dangerous is based on this. If you look at the facts the whole media narrative crumbles (and it is the opposite of what they are telling people) but their insanely selective reporting (omitting stories, motives etc. that go against the narrative) has created a „reality“ in which we now all live and policies are pushed based on that false reality and questioning that „reality“ is not allowed. Truth and facts don’t really matter. Media narrative and Story selection is far more important.
"If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast." William T. Sherman
As a lifelong broadcaster, and instructor for 33 years, including journalism, I applaud you for such an accurate summary of 20th century news reporting. Thank you.
I remember seeing a post on a site I was on a while back saying, that people in the news and normal conversation say "I feel" more then "I think" now; which while both can be used to state something opinionated one is more emotionally loaded and has less risk of intellectual judgement.
You're quickly becoming one of my favorite creators. This sort of rational, unbiased explanation is precisely what today's media lacks, whether mainstream or social.
He become one of favorite TH-cam creator, but unbiased is strench to me because everything has bias. Uncertainly the 50's and 60's standards of reporting is some thing I will prefer to what CNN and others are now, but there are issue with what they classified as objective. Also some issues that ful blown concern today like how reporter don't question government reports and other institutions reports were also a concern at that time as it now.
I think theres reasonsto be concerned about the journalistic integrity of american media, but how do you know this channel is unbiased and any more neutral than CNN or FOX? Its just some random guy.
@@termitreter6545 The way he speaks, the terms and adjectives he uses, the deconstruction. He is not trying to implicate you into believing in a certain way, he's just saying "I think it was like this, because..." and then gives apparent evidence. He's not hiding stuff, speaks straightforwardly, similarly to the news in precisely that era.
@@vintageinidierocker That is relativization and an unfalsifiable statement. It's like saying "not everyone is perfect" or "everyone makes mistakes". You told me nothing of value by telling me everyone is biased. You can't put CNN and this guy on the same "plateau of bias" even. And indeed, objective reality is always at least slightly obscured by the limits of language, culture etc.
One book I had to read in College was, "Amusing Ourselves to Death", by Neil Postman. Written in the early 1980s, this book explains how public discourse has been shaped by the medium in which it is used. Starting with smoke signals, to flags, to the written word, to the telegraph, then radio and by then in the book, television. An excellent read, you learn that as the medium changed to the television that more and more so, entertainment became preferred over all else. Although Postman never saw what became of cable television and the internet, after reading his book, you will understand that he was spot on. Its all about entertainment to shape opinion, with bias intentionally used as the tool. Journalistic integrity as my age knew it hasn't existed for decades. Our society and the world around us today exhibits the results of that.
A mentor of mine lended me that book, and I was quite intrigued by its message. It was one of the things that started to open my eyes to how our society works.
My father was an old-school this paper man "It's not important to know what a newspaper writes but what it doesn't write and why." "Never start an argument with a newspaper they will drown you in barrels of ink." "Say what you mean, mean what you say. Say it once and move on. Ink and paper cost money." My father was a linotype operator and proofreader. Try to get out of 200 word paragraph with my father proofreading. I just write 300 words and pray there be 200 words left by the time my father got done with it and then I'd have to hand write it all over again. He would sit in his room with a stack of newspapers and his red correction pencil. Rarely "Jim get in here you got to read this author." Not necessarily because he agreed with the author but he couldn't find anything wrong with it. They all took the journalism skills seriously.
They felt a responsibility to report the facts. Not perspective, not point of view, not opinion. Just what happened, and allow you to draw your own conclusion.
I had a boss a long time ago tell me, "Once you remove emotion, all that's left is professionalism." This nugget of advice has served me well for many years in dealing with people of differing viewpoints in my field.
What field is that? And I don't agree with that statement. Without empathy, you're just an ass. A mixture of logic and emotion are both important, though some are unable to properly mediate their emotions which may lead to issues. So.. maybe I disagree depending on the situation. Ironically, sometimes the most logical approach would be to act with emotion.
@@manwithouteyes Nor do health care providers, or child care providers, or elder care providers, or social workers, or therapists, or children's educators, yet emotional connection is central to each of those professions. You kind of thought you had a gotcha because you're sort of a doofus, right?
As a kid I can recall when TV news had an opinion section toward the end of the broadcast. Now the whole thing is opinion to varying degrees. It's not really news anymore. I hope more and more people see your video and start demanding journalistic integrity. It's supposed to be a watchdog and not a propaganda machine.
It blows my mind that I've expressed my disgust with modern media to friends, who basically replied "What are you talking about? All I see are facts." They don't even _attempt_ to sound objective anymore. It's all emotionally-driven children using the most extreme, loaded, emotionally-charged language possible to get you as worked up as possible for exactly one viewpoint. Meanwhile they won't believe me when I point out that practically all MSM have been caught red-handed blatantly editing video footage and interviews to show you the exact opposite of what actually happened.
@@Durzo1259 Yes. The editing of Trump's Charlottesville speech is a prime example. More people need to see the truth in this video. News is not at all like it used to be. And it's not just seeing facts thru the lens of a particular political bias, it's taking pieces of fact, twisting, omitting and reshaping it into a narrative to tell us what to think and how to feel.
It was always a propaganda machine. These sorts of companies are inherently incentivized to be the controllers of information on behalf of those in power, rather than a check against them.
@@keyman6689 I was hesitant to bring that up because the second you mention media lies against Tr-mp, all people do is say "No way, I hate Tr-mp so it has to be true!" and refuse to even look into it. I watched for 4 years as they blatantly edited footage and interviews to make him say the exact opposite of what he actually said, or just keep repeating claims about him based solely "an anonymous source claims". Sometimes I feel like the only person on Earth who questions claims made in support of my bias as much as those that go against it. Nobody seems to see the bigger picture when you operate on this ideology that "a lie isn't a lie if it's in furtherance of a greater truth."
@@Durzo1259 I think you might be missing the forest, not for the trees, but for a different forest. The first one is misleading and fabricated editing shifting opinions, and the other is the actual unedited rhetoric and imagery phrased by figures to receive specific reactions and incrementally shape peoples worldviews. The rhetoric and strategies used by Trump and especially Steve Bannon participated in both, receiving the first and dealing the second. Do not downplay it.
I'm 70 and from the age of 6 or 7 watched the NBC Evening News at 6 every evening. Really admired the demeanor of Chet Huntley and David Brinkley. I can say that I am a witness to the many changes in journalism style in print, radio,TV and now the web, but it was not until I came across your analysis that I was able to put everything more in context. Keep-up your journalistic professionalism.
Great job, Walt...uh, I mean Ryan. Your clear and objective journey through America's media history--venerably yellowed NYT headline to Starbucks-stained-Tucker NYT headline--starkly exemplifies the sea change in journalistic motives from "Golden Age" to now.
The movie "Network" really sums up that terrible moment when news became entertainment. I lived through watching all this happen and I remember how ludicrous the idea of a 24 hour news channel was. It made no sense to repeat the same stories hour after hour.
When I was a kid, the local evening news was an half hour long, followed by half an hour of national news. Reporters just delivered the facts of the stories without editorializing every story or expressing their personal opinions, or repeating the same story 6 or 8 times per program for 6 or 8 days in a row.
The editorializing already happened in the selection of how and what is a “fact” so while it did look and sound different it really wasn’t much of at all different.
I'm pleased to see a young man interested in real-life history of Marconey and educated himself to be accurate! He's absolutely correct! This young man has it together. Pleasant to hear. Especially for us last baby boomers. Life is short, kids!
I went into journalism right as the age of Gawker was beginning and got out. Quickly. I love your analysis on all this! I’d love to see another on how social media has shaped journalism and propaganda, because we’re entering the age of what I call “Digital Populism,” for better or worse, and for the first time, technology is making decisions sometimes independent of humans. Fascinating stuff. Love this channel!
Anyway: Have you seen some videos of 'Telltale'? Its really interesting. I say this just cause it's heavily on my mind right now, so why not. Random question, yes, i know, but i just wanna hear peoples opinions on it. People-of-all-flavoos.
You can get it for free, PBS is still among the best sources of news and is critically underrated. I wish people would watch them, PBS News Hour at least. Even more, support them no matter how little.
@@MarinCipollina I mean, just a quick look at his substack shows that he leans left. On July 8th he posted "A Dangerous Double Standard: All our energies must go to defeating Trump". I don't think he's wrong, but that's still a far cry from the neutrality shown in this video
I used to read the Wall Street Journal every day, because it did that -- journalism textbook news. (You can tell by reading the stories about the subjects that you know a lot about.) A. Kent MacDougall retired and wrote a story for Monthly review about how he was a socialist writing for the WSJ. Then they were bought by Rupert Murdoch. Before the Murdoch takeover, the WSJ printed a series of stories on Murdoch, and the WSJ itself. It seems that the WSJ was owned by the Bankroft family, that simply had a commitment to the best possible news, and they were profitable enough to indulge that value. The next generation of the Bankroft family wanted to improve their earnings, even if it meant Murdoch. In the old days, newspapers were run by (sometimes cranky) owners, who could follow their principles (for better or worse). In the days of public ownership and hedge funds, they inevitably wind up following their financial incentive.
This is almost like your whole channel in a nutshell. It's just brilliant. Find a few nice comments, and write them down somewhere. What you're doing is difficult, and you're going to feel discouraged and burned out. But what you're doing is important and unique. Keep going, Ryan! Unfortunately, I can't afford to support you no Patreon at the moment. I'm sorry about that. I really do love your videos. I can't think of anyone who is trying so hard to be objective about important issues at the moment.
I recently took a university level journalism course, which essentially stated that objectivity/neutrality isnt real and that we should accept that reporters/journalists have biases. It was also said that we shouldnt cover certain stories that conflicted with certain narratives. This course was being taught by a 30 year, prize winning reporter that worked for all the big names. Its going to get worse, unfortunately.
I was watching a news broadcast from the early 80s and the newsman was talking about some controversial decision of Reagan's, and I was almost shocked when I realized that I had no idea how this newscaster felt about Reagan or the controversy. He was simply reporting the news. It was incredible.
I knew someone would bring up the 80s as the new gold standard. This guy is going even further back then the 80s, to the 1950s and 60s as the showing the standard of neutrality. This indicates sometime during the 1970s and 80s things changed.
The news media for the most part hated conservatives since the 1960’s when the msm fell head over heels with JFK. A family member at one time was a member of the Press Corp in the Bay Area. Every single one of them had to far left in order to be in the press corp.
It was actually your piece on Orwell that made me think that maybe the world has always been the way it is now. Maybe everyone has always been wrapped in a story, detached from reality. One of Orwell's quotes from your video was about valiant soldiers being portrayed as cowards, and battles that didn't happen portrayed with champions and heroes (something close to that). It's interesting to hear that there was at least some news that was still trying to give facts without spin.
This video is inaccurate sadly. He provided examples of the emotionless journalism which many prefer. However, these journalist were very biased and they shaped opinion by the information the left out /omitted and what they didn't cover. For instance you can find the video of Walter Cronkite celebrating with a secret society... bragging about how he kept them secret or the country would have been outraged etc... He was a Socialist who acted impartial when in reality he was anything but... The media was so dishonest which is why Fox news was created. I don't love Fox News but they are leaps and bounds better than other outlets. This is not a compliemnt to Fox... simply pointing out how terrible the other outlets are. If you'd like we can look at any important story for the last 8 years and see which side was accurate. Covington Catholic kids Economic issues Trump impeachments Trump fake rape allegations Trump being a racist Central Park 5 Kyle Rittenhouse Climate Change Covid data on lockdowns and masks Trump called white nationalist and white supremacist "good people" Literallly almost any story that shaped publilc opinion.... I can confidently say that I'd put money that the media got 95+% wrong... So we can look at any 10 stories... and see if the media was wrong... What's worse is you have to read from all of them... because that's how you debunk the narrative they are pushing.. you have to read their articles... then piece together 20 different sources just to find the truth. With Covid I had to read countless studies and see why some studies were not reliable etc... With Trump I'd have to watch entire rally speeches just to find out what was actually said. But unfortunately people have been told over and over for decades that it's "both sides" or that both sides are evil, etc.... One side is clearly more the bad guy... Republicans are weak... Democrats are evil.
@@joelanderson5285 in a libertarian. My background is in economics. I was a Marxist for over a decade In reality one side is oblivious to the truth on pretty much every issue. The other side has people who have varying levels of knowledge. When you find out you're being lied to you move to the right naturally.
@@marcusdavenport1590 It was pretty well known Cronkite leaned left in private. And no media was perfect. But their were rails and lines on the highway then that don’t exist now. Most journalist felt their reporting should not reveal their opinion. It was a badge of honor.
@@exituscaeli959 I'm saying that this was a myth. They did a good job not letting you know their stance so you didn't know they were lying to you and didn't know that you even had to question them... They would intentionally not give you enough information and they'd ignore topics to benefit the left.
This was one of the most informative and interesting posts I've seen . I lived through all of the shows you included and now refuse to watch any "news" on television because of how it's become, all the yelling and talking over each other and vitriolic behavior, not to mention the obscene language some feel free to use. News today is a circus full of lying, biased performers. The public can not believe anyone anymore.
As a kid in the late 80's I remember being bored out of my mind by the MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour on PBS. As I grew up I began to appreciate more the quality of their reporting and the marked difference in that program, sponsored locally by a utility company, and the news programs with national corporation ads playing in the breaks. A steady diet of PBS - who seem to have stuck close to the fairness doctrine - is definitely part of why I grew up with the healthy critical thinking skills I have now.
Unfortunately national broadcasters interest's run directly counter to commercial broadcasters, particularly when they are the only ones willing to discuss the state and quality of journalism in real terms. As a result they are continually lobbied agaisnt by the powerful media lobbies and right wing parties with close ties to the murdochs and other media barrons will do anything in their power to dismantle public broadcasters to increase their monopoly over news.
PBS does deserve a lot of credit for their journalism. From the Newshour to Frontline documentaries to broadcasting international news in otherwise parochial markets, they take great pains to do good journalism. It's bananas that PBS gets a rep as too liberal, when it is largely funded by the federal government and of course, viewers like you.
I agree with your sentiments about PBS. They are definitely the best source for Unbiased reporting. At times I do question their choice of stories and believe if there is any bias, it is there.
Even PBS New Hour isn't as good as it used to be, and reflects the biases of its funders alot more, as compared to decades ago. It's still some of the best journalism on television, however.
@@athom716 Yep, all of my conservative friends (who think they're centrists) think PBS is a totally left-wing organization. I consider myself pretty middle of the road, as far as politics goes, but of course, they all think I'm a complete "liberal". They like to use the term "liberal" as if it were a slur of some kind. They look at me sideways when I mention that Thomas Jefferson and those guys were "liberals". Damned liberals!
This explains so much. Growing up, I was told that news was meant to be objective and unbiased. It didn't always appear that way though and this explains the systemic changes that have brought us here. Another excellent video!
Having lived through this period, I have to say that this video is spot on. The transfer of news to the network entertainment divisions forced them to put ratings (and therefore profits) ahead of any other consideration. Rating are increased by making viewers afraid or outraged. We all look for that echo chamber that confirms our own biases
This is the best comment I've seen in this entire section and is dead-on. They just want people angry or scared, that's what gets people tuning back in. It's like a political drama, only they get to base it off real events and make people believe their lives hang in the balance of watching it. Unplugging from all that is the healthiest choice I ever made. Even if I wanted to keep up with all those events...you just can't do it that way, they lie and stretch the truth too much to get useful information.
I was a fan of Fox News for that reason. But I got tired of listening to how wrong the other side was ALL the time. Even Michael Savage once said, "A broken watch is right twice a day." I don't want to listen to far-left or far-right news anymore when it never attributes any wrongs to its own side, or to something other than the "enemy." So I quit watching Fox News.
I hear this as the reason for why news is the way it is all the time. There may be truth in it to an extent, but it completely ignores the control aspect. If this model were the truth, than the ms media would probably have slightly above dirt poor ratings. It’s not what sells best, it’s what is most important for those who own it to be predominant thought forms, and it’s then also important that it is viewed. Unfortunately for the ms news media, a genuine nature is more discernible then they’d like, and it sells a million times better.
Great video! Only problem I had was that when it came to American foreign policy papers like the New York Times and the Washington Post were paramount in having the public be complicit in American foreign policy. For the most part, even in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, they would take the state department's line at face value and not be interrogative of these issues. This changed briefly after Watergate but has returned to the norm in recent years.
I'm going to have to watch it again, but I do think I recall his having qualified his statements with "mostly" and "for the most part". But yes, I am from the Caribbean, and just this morning I was talking to my son about that very issue - how Americans have been raised to see through the lens of "American interests" alone. I was very young, but I do remember how Henry Kissinger and American foreign policy was presented to the world as unquestionable. Where else as a pre-teen would I have acquired this image of Kissinger as a superstar except through watching the world news segment on television? I saw a clip today in which he, after leaving office, stated in a most cavalier manner that human rights were deemed secondary to American interests at the time. I see no reason to doubt him on that, considering the prevailing attitude I encounter in comments sections such as these. Comments such as, "You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs." Imagine civilians in Laos, Cambodia etc. being brushed off as "eggs"! Whoever made Americans believe, in a religious sort of way, that they alone should determine what kind of omelette should be made? That term "American lives" is presented as though these lives are more important than any other lives, in a much more emphatic way than can be explained by a natural affinity for your own. It's more dismissive of other lives than is normal. I doubt this attitude was cultivated in the days of Kissinger. It appears to be more deep-rooted than that. It's engrained in the psyche. We just don't enter into their consciousness. The average American does not think we are entitled to pursue our own interests or even that we have interests at all. I use the word "think" but I don't think they do this thinkingly. They just don't spare us a thought. It's like we're really eggs or something. And having been raised on American television, most unthinking Caribbean people aligned themselves with the narratives. American foreign policy was unquestioned. So that most of us, without one thought, welcomed Ronald Reagan's invasion of Grenada as a natural rescue mission. Well, my prime minister did support it, so there was that too, I suppose. But mostly, our people did see America as "a shining light on a hill", with a mandate to fix the world's problems by remaking the world in its image. Thankfully, that is changing, slowly but surely.
The newspapers of record have almost always been in lockstep with overall US imperial objectives. If you look at the bosses you can understand why. It's largely an old boys club, with dudes from top tier privileged backgrounds, going to ivy league universities, and then taking off into their careers. They were often also related to each other, or spent time in the same fraternities, much like an aristocracy. One hand washes the other, and it's easy to keep the system going that way.
When Walter closed his broadcast with “And that’s the way it is…” he was letting you know that the events reported were true to the best of his ability. He was not a fan of the news divisions having to make money or corporations buying the networks. When it is mentioned that Cronkite went to Vietnam, he was a World War Two correspondent reacting to a military he felt was no longer fighting the good fight.
“Objectivity was seen as complicity” Professionally I try to think as a scientist. Forward thinking. Objective but with a sense of optimism for the future. But I have never in my life thought of Objectivity as a bad thing. That quote is going to stick with me for awhile. I am not sure, if in the context it was stated, If they were right or wrong. Which I can honestly say shocks me. As working in the sciences it never occurred to me that being objective could be considered bad. Great video. Truly
Well, they seem to have over-associated objectivity with neutrality. "Objectivity means calling a lie a lie" was a shift in perspective for them. They were, at one point, unbiased to a fault. They weren't biased towards the truth when reporting on Mcarthy. They weren't biased towards what should be when reporting on social issues. Anything taken to an extreme becomes a problem, I suppose. As far as scientific thought is concerned, it's version of objectivity isn't focused on neutrality. Nor is it focused on being biased or unbiased. Rather, it's focused on a lack of bias. Your opinion as a person, when weighed against the outcome of an experiment, means nothing. Science seeks to observe and measure objective truths. (Not that scientific research is unbiased -- there is bias in funding research, and in presenting the results. But in a properly designed experiment, there is no bias in the results themselves.) But...hm....I suppose there is a problem there. And not just in the old trope of "has science has gone to far?" Science has taken ignoring the human perspective to an extreme, and that becomes a problem. It doesn't care about how you feel, it doesn't care about what you want. It doesn't care about justice. Climate change is a good example. Science observes and measures, and tells us things as they are. And that's good! But then it drops the ball when we need to decide how to fix climate change. How do we do it fairly? How do we do it politically? How do we do it without falling behind economically? How do we do it while respecting human opinions? Scientific thought struggles to answer that, because scientific thought rejects and is unconcerned with human opinions and biases. If you take scientific thinking to an extreme, you will fail when you try to do something outside of its realm. Pure objectivity is not persuasive. It does not unite us. It doesn't tell us what is fair, or what should be. Huh. I set out to argue that the meaning of objectivity in science was different than the meaning of objectivity in these old newscasts, but that last line applies equally to both.
@@aMulliganStewOne of the reasons there are so many people espousing ideas like flat-earth is that our societal institutions have proven themselves to be so unworthy of the public trust that people will believe anything rather than believe the “experts.”
@@tomc.5704 Yes science doens't tell us how to do that stuff because that isn't the job of scientistist? Scientists exist to find facts policy makers decide what to do with them.
One of the best videos on the history of journalism objectivity I have seen. Good work on this and well done on your research! Really felt I have gained something from this video.
I think you pretty much nailed the history here. Well-done! I found your title … sad but reasonable, I’ll say: In particular, asking why ‘60s journalism was so “neutral,” seems to imply that there’s something “normal” or “reasonable” about current-day journalism being _carefully designed_ specifically just to piss people off and create societal division. It’s easy for me to forget that many people alive today have only ever known the current screwed-up reality! That, speaking as somebody who grew up in this period where there was usually a very-clear distinction made between opinion pieces and just-the-facts news. I still have some hope - with Ground News and Newsy emerging - we’ll get out of this fractious way of ours.
Very thoroughly researched and well-done piece! As a journalist, one aspect I wanted to highlight (and to some extent you did touch on this in the section concerning the memo from the NYT managing editor, but I think it's worth expanding on) is that "bias" isn't necessarily just in how the news is covered, but what is covered. Particularly in the past, when social media and the internet allowed for easier information silos, news organizations decision on what to cover was almost as pivotal as how they covered it. Simply ignoring or downplaying the effects of, for instance, a civil rights protest, could be construed as a political act in of itself. Similarly, paying undue attention to a "less newsworthy" item can be viewed similarly. This is also amplified by to what degree actions were covered -- making the front page of the NYT implied a degree of importance that is in many ways subjective. That said, it's a bit of Sisyphean task to ask for perfection in this regard, as newsworthiness is a highly subjective gauge. News I may view, for whatever reason, as critically important, may not even be a blip on the radar for my next-door neighbor. There are certain controls you can put in - review boards, newsworthiness policies, etc. - but ultimately the editors make the call on the news thats fit to print, and some will disagree with those calls. In this regard, it's less about achieving perfect impartiality - which even storied journalists like Cronkite failed to fully obtain - and striving towards objectivity by putting checks and balances in place to avoid gross negligence.
I like your contribution to the internet. Not sure why but it makes me feel calm that someone wants to point these sorts of things out. Must have been nice to get straight facts and live in a society that valued them.
This was EXCELLENT!!! I am 67 y.o. and I remember when news was far more balanced. It is distressful to see what's happening now and your report provides excellent detail about what happened. I didn't realize old Ronald was instrumental in creating the mess we have today. This report was detailed, informative and reassuring (to see a young person do solid research and provide such a well-informed essay with a commitment to facts to support a viewpoint). Many thanks! ...by the way you won me over. Liked and subscribed!
This video actually did a great job abiding by those principles for the most part, and that really helps this video imo. Not only were we told about how news has changed from purely factual to sensationalized stories actively trying to sway your opinion, but we were shown an example of the old style as he didn’t inject his opinions on matters, but rather laid out the facts in a way that allows the viewer to make their own opinion on the topic without attempting to influence said opinion. Well done
I’m a liberal and I learned a lot from this. Thank you for explaining this subject as objectively as possible. It’s very difficult to trust any news sources. The bias from left wing networks and bias from right wing networks is ridiculous. The constant commentary and “panels of experts” to discuss mundane things is truly beyond me. And the plethora of opinion hosts on both sides who spin stories to fit a narrative is truly sad.
hmmm i listen to Radio NZ (RNZ) radio - its a publicly (govt) funded station its neutral but ive often heard it called left by right wingers including a friend who said the best radio in USA was PBS (ironically a public and private funded station) the similarity is theres no advertising . my friend listened to !ZB talkback -which considered rightwing - when the host he listened to resigned he was "forced" to listen to RNZ he begrudgingly thought it was a good station .lol What you forget is left means progress and right means conserve - in a society that wants to get better its as good as saying good and bad
@malcolm freeman progress doesn't necessarily mean get better. Racial eugenics and segregation were literally the vanguard of social progressives in the 30s, 40s and 50s. American progressives still hold Margaret Sanger in high esteem.
So true Sanger was a die hard eugenics pioneer. She wanted to eradicate "colors" the deaf dumb and blind. Anyone she thought was not a good candidate to reproduce. Absolutely disgusting. Oh BTW to people that don't know. She is the founder of planned parenthood.
With the exception of fox News, everything is blatantly left leaning. That includes cinema, commercials and pop music all pushing the same vibes. I hear this "admission" by liberals often and it gives me a chuckle.
This was an excellent description of how things used to be, and how we got to where we are today. I was previously unaware of the introspection coming about as a result of the McCarthy years, and while I understand the desire to do better I think I would also call that a dangerous slippery slope in retrospect. We've gone from a press that will present the rantings of McCarthy and let their audience figure out for themselves that he's making things up, to a press that is happy to editorialize, suppress, or amplify based on their political leanings. To a press that has no crises of conscience over hiding stories that they want to be ignored, or omitting inconvenient facts. To a press that is focused on an outcome rather than reporting.
No, if they are going to present the "rantings" of McCarthy, then they have a duty to tell the readers/viewers whether McCarthy has provided any evidence to back up his claims.
This channel is gold. For years I've been looking for this sort of content, wondering why it didn't exist. Keep doing what you are doing, and I hope that you continue modelling your videos in a similar line as those old new reporters.
There has always been bias in media, but back in the 1950’s news was listing specific events and less opinion. The 21st century has been a century of opinion rather than listing of events.
@@blackhawk7r221 I suspect you are correct; the rot had really set in by the 2000’s but probably started well before that and could well have been 1987. My theory is the main reason is the decline of traditional main stream media, people get a lot of news from the internet and do not rely on papers and TV. With the reduction of revenue the production cost had to go down, so the quality went down as well. Opinion is very cheap to pump out, while news is more expensive. However the effect occurred in other countries as well, which are not subject to the FCC fairness doctrine, so there must have been other factors at work. In 2018 a journalist at Der Spiegel admitted that he had "falsified his articles on a grand scale", inventing facts, persons and quotations in at least 14 of his stories. The journalists name was Relotius. The UK Guardian is also well known for making up stories, between May and September 2018 the guardian made claims about Assange which provide to be false. The Journalist was Luke Harding, Dan Collyns, and Stephanie Kirchgaessner. They did the same two year prior. Not sure why the Guardian had it in for Assange, but it’s a good example of the media just making up stories.
Thoughtful presentation and reflects my experience of childhood in the 50’s, college ‘66-‘70, military 70-75, grad school late ‘70’s & ‘80’s, teaching abroad since. From information to entertainment…for profit.
I got a graphic design job at my local newspaper in mid-2016. I had no interest in the news, my motivation was the purest one possible-$3 more an hour. At the time I believed that there was bias in the media, but only the unconscious kind that was impossible to avoid. But it wasn’t long before I started noticing strange patterns in the state/national stories and op-eds-very specific wording, odd leaps of logic, sensationalized headlines, etc. Naturally curious, I starting googling, and-without a single shred of journalistic training-I was soon able to sus out misleading facts and half-truths with a five-minute web search. Things only got worse once our paper was bought out by a national chain, and the non-local news took up more and more pages. I could literally watch the narrative change in real time-I still remember having to put a “Doctors say Coronavirus is less dangerous and less common that the flu” article on the front page of a February 2020 issue and thinking at the time it was BS. Eventually, another corporate merger made my entire department redundant, and we all got laid off. Ever since, I don’t listen to _any_ corporate news source. I’ve seen how the sausage is made, and I don’t trust any of it anymore.
@@MackNcD Trying to parse your metaphor... a single body, with a thousand tentacles reaching out to all the local news outlets? I guess that's accurate, but it could describe any large corporation with tons of local franchises, like McDonalds or Target. Nationally-owned local newspapers at least have different names and the veneer of reporting on local news.
The irony of this video is that the old media wouldn't take this channel seriously and yet this, to the best of my ability to observe & analyse this, comes across as more objective or at least fair than any media I've seen in my lifetime.
I was an eye-witness, and ultimately the whistleblower, to the most prolonged and violent campus riot of the 1960s -- San Francisco State. Every single one of the one humdred or so reporters who covered to story deliberately lied about it, including such luminaries as Bill Stout of CBS -- then Walter Cronkite's number two anchor -- and Art Seidenbaum of the Los Angeles Times, and my own father. I particularly remember the nastiness of the seedy-looking, filthy trench coat wearing NYT reporter who insulted me. The riots were a fake. Everyone on campus knew it. They were a cover for massive extortion and embezzlement scheme relentlessly exposed in the student newspaper. All of them ignored the evidence and told the story that the extremists wanted told. My dorm was firebombed but it didn't fit the narrative, so it didn't happen. My father and I were never close again. I finally took a box of evidence to the state attorney general, a democrat, who sat on it for six months until the riots became too much of a political burden, and shut the riots down. The regiment of reporters closed their notebooks and went home. The public never learned that they were fooled, and the lie of the "Student Strike" remains to this day. One day, ten years later, in 1979, I demanded that my father explain to me why he and the others lied to the public. He told more lies until I threatened to throw a chair at him. Finally, he said "We were not going to embarrass the anti-war movement with a scandal!" And that is modern journalism at its finest.
If perhaps he feared the anti-war movement would recoil from people who would otherwise agree with all its tenets out of principle, it would not have made sense to omit those details to cater to people who would ditch those principles at the sight of undisciplined behavior. Say if the Sons of Liberty had been more extreme in their obstruction of British laws, I don’t believe that would have legitimately discredited their revolutionary cause.
@@wildfire9280 The radicals weren't anti-war, they were pro-mass murder and civil war. It was a masturbation fantasy for them. Black and Hispanic fascist racists still dream of such things. I know, because I've talked to them.
Outstandingly well researched and presented! I searched for this topic to answer a question that my very intelligent 76-year-old mother had. I had a general idea, but you really provided such a wonderful tool for communicating those very important concepts. Thank you!
Damn this is good! I'm going on 76 in a couple of weeks and most of this resonates. Now, in the mid / late 50s I couldnt' perceive subjective vs. objective very well, except for one instance to which I'll return shortly. But your analysis is spot-on, far clearer for me as we moved into the 60s abd 70s. Excellent analysis. Also, I remember when Cronkite delievered his speech on tv in 1968. It was stunning to hear and so many across the many were grateful for his bravery coming against the was. It was so clear in his voice and look on his face that he had gone through tough self-serching. I was so struck by it. Never have forgotten it. I also remember Cronkite and his presentation of the election and George Wallace. I remember his voice, face. The one instance that I cite above is when Edward R. Murrow's Harvest of Shame was broadcast in 1960. I was 14 at the time and lived in the Central Valley of CA (Fresno County) where cotton was still king and where poverty was rife among African-Americans, poor whites, and Hispanics who toiled in the fields. (Including my mother who picked cotton to help bring my brother, sister, and I from the Azores.) Although the presentation centered mainly on the vegetable fields of the nation it was stunning and so incredibly bold that even a 14 year-old could understand ... and had seen time and again around him what Murrow was talking about. Though Murrow's journalism was certainly not 'main-steam' for the time it certainly had an effect that, slowly and with the help of others such as Chavez, helped change public views on the plight of these people. I would like to see possbily a video on him and others who, usually stating his/her 'bias', had the courage to do so. And, as others below have mentioned, hope you keep them coming. I've subscribed.
That’s an excellent example and I believe it makes a strong case against the arguments of left-wing activists at the time of the necessity to move away from objectivity, at least the form it was in post-McCarthy.
Very interesting video. It looks to me that the TV news stations back in the 50s/60's also seemed to have an air of class and professionalism that today's news sorely lacks.
In a short presentation you have done remarkably well at describing the problem. Neil Postman wrote "Amusing ourselves to Death" in 1985 (one year after a remembrance lecture of 1984) describing entertainment and profit in the News industry. Internet also rewards eyeballs instead of circulation numbers for nutrient ads, so you have to see the outrage headlines before the Baseball scores. In recent years we have learned of Schadenfreude and Dunning-Kreuger and an unnamed amusement based on Outrage, similar to the others. We are no longer asked to wait patiently for Gunsmoke to hear Cronkite for 30 minutes we have 24 hour news that makes more money. No need for Seinfeld, Cheers or Gunsmoke, just keep watching that outrageous story over and over.
@@overover.. There is of course bias and loss of objectivity in the news on both sides. I'm just glad to learn about some nuances of a political subject without finger pointing and mud slinging at one side or the other.
@@overover.. If you're honing in on the NYT examples, I think he's using them because of their preeminent position in America. Fox News was never considered unbiased unlike the NYT. I think it's sad that the NYT has strayed from its principles. I hope it finds its way back. It would make us a better, more informed electorate.
Wow, Ryan. This was outstanding. I was born in 1957 and received by journalism degree in 1979. I worked in news for a year then my career took me in another direction.It's not that there were no opinions on television. There was an "editorial" or "opinion" segment at the end of the newscast with a 3-5 minute speech labelled "editorial" or "opinion" at the bottom of the screen so you knew it was not "news". News was meant to be a series of factual statements along with what the newsmakers said. There was still subtle propaganda in what was omitted or what was emphasized but it did not match the blatant opinionating we see today. News anchors and news reporters were ordered to leave their opinions out and "stick to the facts". What really changed journalism was Ronald Reagan. The media despised him and the animosity was clear but Reagan won large majorities anyway. It was explained that Reagan would engage in well-planned stops across the country where he was always surrounded by American flags, cheering throngs and up-tempo patriotic songs. If that sounds familiar, that's exactly how Donald Trump does it now. News reporters like Sam Donaldson would rip into Reagan in their reports but they were also showing the adoring crowd which provided positive optics before Donaldson ever began speaking. That's when journalists dropped all pretense off objectivity and became "advocates". They would just tell one side of the story, not both. You're correct that news had a blind spot in their objectivity regarding communism but you must remember the country needed a boogeyman to rally against to maintain order. That was Hitler in the 30s and 40s then the Soviets in the 50s, 60s and 70s. BTW, if you ever heard Sir Walter's radio commentaries, it was clear he was a hard-core leftist but he felt newspeople were to be informers, not persuaders so he tried to leave his opinions out of the newscasts. Today, it's largely the opposite. The New York Times has also changed from fact-tellers to opinionists. The defeat of the Fairness Doctrine set this in morion but, while there was a Fairness Doctrine, most broadcasters simply steered clear of controversial subjects like abortion, race or womens rights. The news was blander back then.
_"There was still subtle propaganda in what was omitted or what was emphasized...."_ That's one thing that is not so subtle anymore. Biased news organizations display their colors less from what they report and how, and more by what they choose _NOT_ to report -- and the only way to get past this cheap method is to watch, read, and listen to literally _everything_ from every different news outlet. That takes a lot of time to devote to that much homework and I think most people aren't going to expend the effort, and that's one reason why silo journalism has proliferated the past 20 years or so. Just tell 'em what they wanna hear and leave out the stuff we _don't_ want them to hear and call it good.
@@briane173oh yes. Even back in those old mid-century days when journalists were professional, conscientious and intellectually honest, they still on the whole were of similar left-of-center ideologically. Walter Cronkite even admitted this. And so subtle slanting inevitably occured.
@@JT-rx1eo Thing I respected about Cronkite though was while he was doing his job one never sensed what his political bent was. He didn't bleed ideology. After he retired the gloves were off among the "star" TV journalists, and it's gotten steadily more and more over the top since.
The removal of the fairness doctrine hurts us in so many million ways. Earlier politicians made up the lies, the news was expected to report whatever the politician said. Now, the tv channel is the propaganda arm of the party it supports. Even before the news is out, the spin begins. Let's also not forget how viewership affects the media houses. Media houses will course correct to keep the stories that gain the most viewership, obviously. But then media houses have been seen gladly changing the facts , because the truth is inconvenient. This is seen with the 2020 election aftermath, for example. There's also the shouting of news that bothers me. A lot of our evening news is based on the character of the news anchor, not the news itself. Unfortunately this means that after being yelled at for an hour, you want to find someone to yell at for an hour. Let's take a distant example, but Bill O'Reilly shouting about the war on Christmas kind of gets you angry people repeatedly shouting the same talking points at others. It's not fun to be on the receiving end, and it doesn't promote conversations, shouting rarely does. When this happens to me, as someone in my thirties, and a busy schedule, i just ask them to send me a link for the show that they got their talking points from.
I really liked this video. It really puts into perspective how different today's world is to that of the 50s and 60s. My only criticism would be that I would have preferred that you put a little bit more focus at the first half of the video in why this changed. In the bonus (which calling it a bonus makes me think I can skip it without missing on things said prior) you mention reasoning for that change, which gives another side of the picture. Anyways, just thought of pointing that out. Thanks for the amazing video!
Thank you for this well produced piece. It really helped to confirm my memory of how things have changed. Your point about market forces is well made, but I also wonder about the role of cable television. Once the market became more subdivided the pressure became more intense to find and hold an audience. Prior to cable, I seem to remember people choosing between the three network newscasts kind of the way they chose cars. You had Ford, GM and Chrysler. There wasn’t a radical difference between them in quality or style, so people chose based on nuance or sometimes availability. Maybe your town only had a Chevy dealer, or like my family, CBS was the clearest channel. Something else I wonder is this: to what degree has media shaped values (outside the news). I find it hard to believe that it hasn’t made any difference to have shows like Andy Griffith or even later shows like Good Times that pressed the importance of families and communities staying together and supporting each and highlighting hard work and self sacrifice, contrasted with reality tv shows like real housewives or MTVs Real World which often focused on and celebrated self centered and immature behavior.
Your work is really appreciated. You do a great job of covering each topic in detail without promoting a particular position. If you are looking for a suggested topic for a future video I would suggest the Supreme Court (what it's purpose is, judicial philosophies, how it relates to the Constitution).
That would be good, and timely. Id like if he would also mention the inherent flaw in that congress picks the justices that supposedly restrict the power of congress
Or how about the irony of "How do you define a woman?" followed by the evasion: it is not my responsibility to comment on politically controversial topics.
@@joshualovelace3375 By older dictionaries, all trans women post-SRS would be considered women. That's why it's called "sexual reassignment." Now it's become political to deny that trans women are women, but no new definition of "woman" adequately works to shut them out. Post-transition trans women are both anatomically and hormonally female. The only other way to define a woman might be based on chromosomes, but chromosomal sex isn't as simple as "either XY and male or XX and female." Many intersex people might not even know they're intersex, including people assigned female at birth despite having a Y chromosome. So the answer isn't what most people think it is.
Thank you for more quality content! Seriously your stuff is so well researched and even as someone interested in the subjects you talk about I always learn something new
I think forcing news outlets to become non-profits would be a great thing. The news should be a resource for the public to stay informed on current events, not a form of entertainment. Increased regulation on what can be classified as news to highlight the distinction between editorials and news would be the best option to restore the quality of information in my opinion as this would not censor the discussion, and make sure that editorials and news are properly advertised as what they are. Selling editorials as news is akin to false advertising and should be treated as such.
The way I heard this years ago was that during the civil war there was a big push away from biased news because there was a major need for folks to know where battles were happening, what units were involved and more importantly if their sons/fathers/brothers/cousins were okay. Bias always creeps back in eventually though and the cycle continues.
Bias (worse yet, misinformation) was certainly noticeable in the coverage of racial strife and violence during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, at least if the instances I’m most aware of are representative of the (‘mainstream’) press as a whole then.
This is a really well-made video. One of the takeaways, for me, was that the news had been biased in the early 20th century, but then evolved into a 'golden age' of unbiased reporting. It makes me think that, despite differences in the medium (i.e. the internet vs. tv and radio), it could be possible to return to something like that. It won't happen overnight, nor did it happen quickly in the 20th century, but it did happen, and still could again.
Producers, and Editors, need to just report facts. Expose lies, and break the spin doctoring on all sides. Give people facts in an unbiased way and let people make their own decisions.
I think it unlikely, when there were 3 channels (1 or 2 in the UK) and you got your news from each at a certain time of day, they could afford to be honest. Now there is too much competition, they have to be racey, entertaining and most of all preach to their own choir. TV and print news are dying, and will need to become more and more extreme to keep the loyalty of their customers. Then it will just be the Internet left, and all will be madness.
This was how news was taught to us in school publications when I was still studying. Really helped me in weeding out actual news-writing from sensationalist editorials being passed off as “news.”
Very thought provoking. However I think there might be a middle ground between objectivity and activism. Objectivity often meant giving both sides of a question equal time regardless of merit and level of support and this caused problems with, for example, climate change where it gave the incorrect impression that science was very divided on this important issue. I think the middle ground is *facts based reporting* where quotes are always fact checked and there is a crystal clear dividing line between objective fact pieces and more activist opinion pieces. And to nurture a democracy so it has a long term future, *Critical Thinking* should be a mandatory subject in schools so people are more aware of situations where they are being manipulated and more aware of their inherent biases. Social biases get plenty of coverage but biases that cause us to misjudge information are even more important.
That only works if the people doing the reporting actually care about what the facts are. The 1619 project at the NYT demonstrates that is obviously not the case.
Hard agree. Kids should be taught formal logic and it's common fallacies, statistics, numeracy (that's critical thinking applied to numbers), and mindfulness. It's one thing to say "teach them critical thinking" but so many teachers and politicians don't have it themselves and so couldn't guess what to teach. Those subjects are what forms the framework of critical thinking. If we can ensure every child is taught that, the world will get better.
@@danreyn Hard agree with you also. Working out a syllabus with materials and training for teachers is key. Interestingly *Logic* had been one of the basic three building blocks subjects for a classical education in Europe for perhaps *1500 years* until relatively recently. *Rhetoric* was another one which was training for speech making but also clued one in to what tricks another speaker was using to manipulate his audience. The *Trivium* had to be completed before other subjects such as Geometry or even Music could be approached. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivium
In theory, maybe, but with the state of modern "fact checking," I have to disagree. Firstly, there are rarely ever true "facts", most complex issues being multifaceted, nuanced, and nobody really knowing the full truth of the matter, and secondly, attempts at "fact checking" generally amount to partisan arguments oversimplifying the argument, leaving out opposing views/facts/possibilities/nuance, and driving home a particular political narrative.
Thank you for this inciteful piece, Ryan. This is why I have stopped relying on the MSM for my information. I merely watch a bit to see what disingenuous spin they put on things. I am 65 and remember growing up with a father that watched the news every night. Although I didn't pay much attention back then, looking back I recognize the shift over time; I enjoy watching and listening to shows like Joe Rogan, Bill Maher, and Russel Brand whose political views I often disagree with, but at least have a desire to listen to the other side, ask intelligent questions, call out the BS, and get to the truth of the matter. I haven't watched your channel for awhile, but I recall appreciating the ones I have. I look forward to more from you.
@@orangehoof Good catch. I meant insightful, as I'm not inclined to promote violence, however in today's climate it could just as easily prove inCITEful.
Gosh this was terrific! I didn't remember the news's soul-searching after McCarthy until you spoke about it. But I certainly remember the news as it was, and it was wonderful. The nation was a mess (it always has been and always for different reasons) but we were mostly peaceful. Mostly. And not towards everyone. But mostly. And now not at all. Towards anyone.
Many many years back in a small town in New Mexico, a third party presidential candidate was showing up as part of a whistle stop campaign. If I mentioned Which candidate it would date me :) I was a young lad at the time and, though my father despised this candidate he, I, and most of the rest of the town went down to the train depot to see and hear. No other candidate was going to visit our hick town and other then watching the grass grow it was the only entertainment that day. The whole High School was let out for this occasion. As we waited in the sun (New Mexico is hot in the spring and summer), two charter busses pull up marked "CBS" on a stick on label on the sides. Out of one steps a at the time well known "journalist", film crew, support people (including make-up, the fellow was sweating, poor dear), and caterers who proceeded to set up a lunch for the Bus people. Out of the other bus stepped about 25 ragged dressed people with signs. The second group arranged themselves on the track near the townspeople who stood wondering "What in the world...?". Soon the train pulled in and the candidate walked out on the little platform on the back of the car and started to speak. The Charter bus crowed waved signs, shouted obscenities, and screamed so loud he could not be heard. He ducked back into the train which immediately left town. While all the towns folk, polietly stood there wondering what was going on, the ill dressed crowd stood and shouted some more, brandishing their slogan signs even after the train pulled out but the cameras were still rolling. Then, properly primed and painted for the camera, the reporter (who I happened to be standing near) starts describing in somber tones, then brisk tones, then happy tones over and over the details of the local small town riot that, he assured his listeners happened when this evil candidate appeared. After his 5 minute over and over saying the same thing in slightly different ways, all the news crew and their ready-made-riot-for-hire broke for lunch and gathered together around the white tablecloths the caterers had set out. Soon the whole lot of them packed up and headed down the highway following the train. That was the day I lost all respect for any "news" I see on TV, and most I read. Internet has been a boon because common people may lie too, but not as well choreographed, and with less makeup.
Calling propaganda evil is itself propaganda. Don't paint such a broad brush. Don't poison the well. Take each piece of information you receive with caution and intelligence.
There is now like 1000 sources to choose from so it is mostly about the intelligence of the viewer and how he is able to sort out information that he needs and do not get crazy just from reading the titles. People are hating the news but how many of them would watch news without the sauce and added comments?
The crazy thing is--despite being exposed to emotional, quick, and short form content, I find the news shown to be very alluring. Proves to me that I dont need built in bias to be entertained and educated with accuracy.
It's very interesting to see the difference in the way the news is broadcast to you in America vs. to us in The Netherlands. The main news broadcast of the day is a 20-30 min broadcast at 8pm, no editorials, no personal opinions of anchors or reporters: just half an hour of news. Sometimes during big world events I do switch to CNN, because they are usually the first and fastest with information, but it's really difficult not to go insane after watching that for 10 minutes xD it's crazy. A critic I do have for the news over here is that indeed they can be a bit too passive at times: sometimes when a politician states a blatant and objective lie, they don't always actively refute it, but present it simply as another opinion. Especially during the pandemic or election season this is very problematic. Obviously we have a very differently designed media lanscape that is far to complicated to explain here, but even the commercial broadcasted news is to a much higher standard than American news. Also, we don't have any 24hr news channels, thank god.
Growing up in the 60's-70's, this is spot on. I really thought the reasons why it was different now is compelling. I can't watch the news now, I don't liked to be pushed, hopefully, the pendulum will find the center, I think a growing democracy would be best served by the best of both sides. This is well done!
In 1987, Regan rescinded the FCC’s Fairness Act of 1949 that required unbiased reporting. No more Walter Cronkite types, now paid political mouthpieces under the guise of “news”.
CNN is saying they are going to take a stab at blunding off the partisan jabbing, and try to be more down the center... we'll see if they can follow through. But with FOX to the right and MSNBC to the left, they are trying to single themselves out as different than those partisan sources.
All that's needed is a return to the fairness doctrine. There should be accountability for lying on news networks. If there is no accountability, they will keep lying for views. The most obvious example that comes to mind is Fox News repeatedly pushing the false narrative that the US election was stolen by rigged Dominion machines, with precisely zero evidence. If they lose that case and face real repercussions, I encourage the US public to push their representatives for legally-mandated fairness doctrine during that momentum.
Speaking as a graduate of a journalism school, this was terrific. The evolution of journalism over the course of my lifetime has been disheartening. Indeed, I rarely volunteer what it was I studied in college.
Thank you to everyone who supports these projects on Patreon. I wouldn't be able to devote so much time and so many resources to one video otherwise. I'm trying to make the best work I can, and the donations really do make it possible. If you'd like to chip in and support me, check out www.patreon.com/rchapman. Video notes below.
If anyone is wondering how the networks stayed in business at the time, they had other programming that easily offset the losses that their news divisions took. Similarly, the NYT had other sections to their paper (sports, finance, culture), and when people bought the paper for those sections, they got those news along with it, regardless of how neutral their news was. Still, the NYT was the least profitable of the major three American papers at the time (The LA Times, The Washington Post & The NYT). They didn't care though. For them it was about principles and the prestige that came along with it.
- Ryan
Thank you for your efforts!
We are now following you on Twitter.
We put you in our social sustainability list.
Ryan, thank you. That was very well researched. I lived through the 60's (and beyond). It *was* different. Journalism was a calling epitomized by Cronkite. When Dan Rather took the helm, it was like a scepter of virtue was being handed off and he had to live up to it. Watergate drove this to new heights.
It feels like the free market, that fuel of excellence, accelerated the slide. Ted Turner founded CNN as a for-profit organization based on the ground-breaking notion that a full time news network had an audience. Then Fox News figured out that they could cut out the field offices, crank up the bile and get more viewers. It was a recipe for profits.
IMHO, the NY Times followed Fox News down the gully of grievance. I would never have believed that grievance was a limitless fount of viewers.
My salute to you. A high integrity analysis, providing new information in uncharged language.
Nice video. Worth looking at Robert Putnam's "The Upswing" for some deeper background.
I believe it would be important to adress that in either period there's been a permanent bias in favor of imperialism and a narrative of the US government always engaging in imperialist policies abroad with good intentions, and criticism being only valid when presented as "a mistake made by well meaning goals". When it comes to foreign policy, the press has always been heavily biased to support every intervention in every single country, with the most radical opinion being "we should stop our intervention for X strategic reason, even though we are noble and we are only there to help". Kind Regards!
I WAS BORN IN 1950 AND HAVE BEEN COMPLAINING ABOUT THE CHAOS IN THE NEWS A LONG TIME
I BELIEVE THAT TO SAY ON TRACK OR UNDERSTAND THE TRUTH ITSELF RESPECT ALL OF US HAZING IS SOMETHING ELSE THAT DESCRIBES EVERYONE FOR THEM? THE 60s WAS HELL HONEST THERE WERE NO CLEAR TRUTH AND TOTAL IMBALANCE THEN THE LISTS OF PEOPLE FIGHTING THE VIET NAM WAR IN THE EVENING THANK-YOU FOR THIS
I'm 60, but when I took a journalism (writing) course back in the late 70s, my teacher started by saying if he could tell what our political, religious, or any other point of view is from our lives by what is written, it isn't journalism, it's editorializing and there's a page for that, but doesn't belong anywhere else in a newspaper.
Its a shame that these days he would be chased out of the school for being a "far right lunatic". News is supposed to be unbiased. Today, the only point of view anybody is allowed to have is far left.
That's how I learned it, too. And in the same decade. Yes, everyone had personal opinions but they were NEVER to impact reporting a story.
@Chip Belori so true! I saw a poster on campus a few years ago promoting a conference of journalism students and activists to discuss how they could work together to bring about "social justice. "
As did my J-school profs. Around the time the internet took over the role of journalism changed. there are no journalists left only advocates.
Which means even in the late 1970s they knew the way it was supposed to be. I got the impression from this video that it was a 1-2 punch of the reaction to McCarthyism and then Reagan's policies, but it sounds like it's mostly reagan's fault then.
“He doesn’t use words that are emotionally loaded, he describes in simple terms the positions of each side” this is what we are missing.
It sounds dismissive and uncomfortable. Personally, it fills me with anxiety and fear. Not everyone has the same emotional reactions.
@@theJellyjokerthen you need a therapist
@@theJellyjoker It fills me with comfort if a news anchor reports a news objectively, putting the positions of each side. If you're not willing to listen to the positions and viewpoints of each side, then there is something mentally wrong with you, like ADHD or something.
@@Kenobi-vu9mb I am well aware that I often have different reactions to emotional triggers. I've had to comply with neurotypicals, can you images living all you life living in an alien society? One were you are forced to subject yourself to psychological torture all while having to thank your abusers for treating you like some sort of animal. you know that at it is only a matter of time before you are accused of something, you won't know what but it will always be your fault for not knowing and obviously doing it on purpose. So that "neutral stye" was used to pathologise and dehumanize me.
One persons comfort is another's trauma.
How exactly is the “neutral style” pathologizing and dehumanizing you? Genuinely curious
My Dad did radio news in the 40s and 50s. He worked at KVEC & KSBW.
I was a teenager, Vietnam War era, and I remember being angry about what I was hearing on the news. I asked Dad why they didn't say how bad this war was, and he said that that would be editorializing. The job of the presenter is to simply give the news and allow the listener, or viewer, to draw their own conclusions on how they felt about it.
Compare that to opinion pieces as journalists wash their dirty laundry in public.
@@invisibleman4827 They don't 'wash' anything (except, maybe, the brains of their undiscerning audience). They MAKE 'dirty laundry.'
@@invisibleman4827News Today “BOOO HOOO SOMEONE CALLED ME WEIRD WE NEED CIVIL WAR NOW”
@@Maya-ls3ky Why is a news organization using childish name calling towards an political party? “Boo Hoo” is 2nd grade mentality language.
I am not following you. Did your dad or anyone else on the news report the daily death and injuries? Did they mention the conditions?
Those things can be reported factually and are news. And they certainly would have told people how bad things were.
There are two things about this video I want to highlight. First, you didn't make the claim that news was totally unbiased in the 50's and 60's, simply that it was less biased and fit within a values framework that typical Americans could work with. The second is that you didn't claim it was money in news that changed the situation, but it was one of three factors and the most recent one.
For having the sense to lay both points out like you did, I thank you.
One thing that is worth keeping in mind: bias in media doesn't just have to do with how you report things, but also, much more importantly, it has to do with _what_ you choose to report. Journalists can keep their language neutral and non-emotional, but by choosing what is "news-worthy" and what isn't, and what information they are or aren't going to give on each issue, they can effectively inject their own bias and shape the public's perception while maintaining a façade of objectivity.
If this was the only problem we had, I wouldn't mind it nearly as much.
Certainly. I also enjoyed that little bit near the end where he explains how some believe objectivity in the 1950s may have to some extent taken everything at face value and thus defended it.
Objectivity is important, but careful examination of the events from a more critical standpoint is also extremely valuable.
This is great point. Things can still be biased even if they were represented objectively. Giving two opposing views the same amount of space on the page might, at first glance, seem like the definition of objectivity. But the problem arises when all opposing sides are treated equally when they are actually not equal. A good example would be like treating a scientific study equally against a conspiracy theory, like we can actually see so many times.
Journalism has become a profession of evil.
@@rahko_i This used to happen all the time. The thing is, that at least an attempt at objectivity meant that conflicting views had to stand on their own merits. Common conspiracy and extremism always had trouble standing on their own in a neutral venue. Active intentional bias in a venue often lends credibility to extreme views. It really doesn't matter if that bias is for or against. Especially with conspiracy theories, clear bias often serves to reinforce the bases of a conspiracy for those who support it, while at least the attempt at objectivity largely discredits through opacity.
THe irony of news outlets complaining about misinformation is killing me
Thats because modern news is about baiting those who disagree into viewership, which is why the vax stuff was massively downvoted on youtube.
Compared with social media its akin to the best university on earth.
Journal of Futures Studies, June 2020, 24(4): 1-4
The Internet, Epistemological Crisis and the Realities of the Future: An Introduction to this Special Issue
@@drstevej2527 false
@@drstevej2527 Social media is unimaginably biased, there are just so many people you can eventually gather enough information to piece together what really happened, unlike mainstream news, which for the most part just flat out lies. Neither of these are great
@@lorefox201
Read the research! Remember this lesson in epistemology.
Journal of Futures Studies, June 2020, 24(4): 1-4
The Internet, Epistemological Crisis and the Realities of the Future: An Introduction to this Special Issue
It's amazing seeing old interviews from 20, 30 years ago. They actually ask real questions to people, as if they want to learn something from them or get information. It seems alien compared to the interview theater today.
because iq has been trending downwards instead of up as is commonly believed. the iq tests are routinely updated for the "modern era", ie the standards are reduced
That's why podcasts have gotten so popular. They fill this niche. I'm not saying they're perfect and quality varies, but it's a breath of fresh air compared to cable news/interviews.
Sorry, they only asked questions that seemed legitimate. For example 18 years ago (fairly close to your 20-30 year range) John Kerry and George Dubya Bush were running against eachother for president of the United States. They both went to yale (Kerry 62-66, bush 64-68) and while there they were both members of the sacrifice and elite Skull and Bones Society. Only 1 journalist bothered to ask them about this and did not press them when they brushed it off, saying "if we told you it wouldn't be a secret".
All the cotton candy questions asked during the rest of the campaign season are damning indictments of the media being fraudulent back then as well.
They stopped because politicians figured out they did didn't have to answer the questions and could simply plow through with their own sound bite. A classic was George Wallace on one of the Sunday interview shows. The interviewers asked probing questions, but didn't lay a glove on him.
@@4CardsMan George Wallace was a great man.
This matches my observations. The news media have become emotion machines, with the overuse of adjectives to subtly manipulate us to share the journalist's bias, telling us how to feel about something rather than to think. The problem is that social media, to which people are turning to, are even worst!
Yes. The big problem was the creation of CNN. You can't keep an audience the whole day if you just report information. To make a show you start editorial using and doing interviews in the street to get the opinion of uninformed masses. It's entertainment, but hardly news. News in TV was much better as the 6 o'clock news
It's a shame y'all's news outlets all have to put profits first :/
Some countries have publicly funded national TV channels and news and such that we can trust, because their only financial interest is the funding they get from our taxes, and we demand a certain standard, like the ethical code mentioned in this video. That's still how we educate our journalists.
@@lunaqueerAnd yet the BBC exists, as the ultimate mouthpiece of whatever government we have at the time
@@lunaqueer In the good old days. Unfortunately, now, even state funded media are increasingly biased if only by the prevalent biases stemming from the journalist's and redaction's generally common academical background (humanities, school of journalism) and social circle. And there are many ways to communicate a bias that do not breach any code, like not asking certain questions who's answers would cast something in a favorable or unfavorable light, not reporting some events for the same reasons, not challenging patently false statements, interviewing "experts" with a shared bias, interviewing someone known to share the journalist's (or media) opinion and using that person as a proxy for the journalist's opinion. To take an caricatural example, a journalist may not be allowed to say that the residents of island XYZ are all morons and criminals, but he/she can chose to interview some "personality" who will say exactly that and that "is news being reported, just doing my job". Some journalists obviously have little qualm about using their job as means of activism.
@@lunaqueer Even public broadcasters can't be trusted now
My dad who was born in the 60s often talks about the media he remembers when he was a kid. One instance he talks about was when he saw Walter Cronkite receive an update to some breaking news live on TV. Walter was handed a piece of paper, read it and then instantly turned to the producers and said something to the effect of "Is this really true? Because I'm not gonna say this unless it's been confirmed."
Hey Nick! Was it an Assassination....?I remember exactly how He Reacted to JFK being shot and it was the first time that I ever saw him look like he was ready to cry...My Pop Loved Him!
I miss Walter, I do wish there was just news without others views!
The movie “Network,” was satire, in the 1970s. Now, it’s reality.
When I was four, I asked my dad if I could listen to his shortwave radio. He said yes. I remember l was listening to a station in South Africa and I told my dad they reported a news story totally differently than what we saw on TV. He was not impressed but I learned a valuable lesson that day.
@@sr2291 You have to understand, in MANY countries, Shortwave is government owned and/or funded.
This is an excellent piece. I have been in broadcast journalism for over 50 years, 10 years at the Associated Press during the 1970s, and I have seen the changes as they happened.
You should write a book mister.
You should be ashamed being associated w/ such divisive bias.
I agree with the other guy. You really should write a book on your experiences during that transition.
I want to read that book
Why didn't you do anything to stop it?
There's a reason Walter was probably one of the most trusted News Anchor on TV at the time. This was a guy who actually went to Vietnam to see what was happening. He covered Operation Torch in WWII, Flew in Bombing raids in a B-17, he was reporting on some of the biggest actions of the war. The only time you could see unbias is he was visibly shaken and choked up with the Kennedy Assassination. He also couldn't hide his enthusiasm with the Space Program, because he knew how historic those missions were.
Uncle Walter was a steady voice and hand in News/Journalism at that time. He leaned left, but kept his bias out of his reporting. He knew he had to be an unbiased referee.
And yes, Reagan's repeal of the "Fairness Doctrine" set all of this in motion and the result is what we have today. Behind Reagan on this was Rupert Murdoch, who had been kicked out of his native Australia and then U.K. for his Yellow Journalism and Ultra-Conservative biases in news.
I'm old enough to remember when the nightly news was "boring" and that Journalism had some type of ethics and integrity. As usual, once money got into the equation everything got fouled up.
I consider myself a Moderate Independent who favors the Left. I believe in personal and fiscal responsibility, and also having regulations in place to keep things on a level playing field and to protect the general public. I think Social programs are needed, but also I don't want government (or religion) controlling my life. It is about balance between the two extreme views, that way everyone can benefit but also prosper due to their own efforts.
Finally, very good job going over this subject. You did so in a very balanced manner.
Yes but so many on both sides were shaken up with Kennedy despite their views.
Baloney.
Sadly I don't think Walter could get hired by a news network today.
Walter literally said you can’t be a journalist without being liberal. He was a partisan, too, just better at hiding it. The only reason things have changed is because the big news corps don’t decide the narrative anymore, due to the Internet. They’re so brazen because they’re lashing out at anyone who dares challenge their power.
As a career journalist who’s spent the past four decades watching my profession slip farther and farther away from facts and legitimate analysis into the realm of opinion-for-hire and influence peddling, may I say BRAVO! This is an extremely well -researched and well-presented piece.
Any suggestions for getting our industry back to real journalism? (And, no, the bosses aren’t willing to consider ANYTHING that risks angering advertisers.)
vote for different people, Reagan killed "balanced" news media with the Fairness Doctrine. But at this point you are fighting the entire system.
Nope, can't even post truthful info on the internet without getting blocked. I've been trying to expose a billion dollar ripoff for years to no avail
If there was no political bias by Walter Cronkite, why was he the 1st for a few years the only reporter allowed to attend the 1954 Bilderberg yearly meetings, but not allowed to share what was discussed.
If you've got an updated copy of the invitation list and see Cronkite's name among those attending the "1954 Bilderberg yearly meetings [sic]," please share this ultra-secret document, from these ultra-secret meetings, of this ultra-secret society, from a time long before the internet, portable digital cameras, or other electronic surveillance devices. That'd be a really neat trick.
But let's say, just for fun, that he was there and didn't report on it.
That could be because he agreed to attend either "on background" or "off the record" and simply kept his word.
If he was invited under one of those two circumstances, he would have known that - even if he couldn't report on the meetings - knowing who was there and what was discussed would give him a huge advantage over other journalists in future reporting of world events.
That's a deal worth making, especially knowing there's no OTHER way to find out ANYTHING about what may or may not have happened there.
Not everything is a conspiracy. 🤷🏻♂️
Thank you Mr. Chapman for reminding me that this did actually exist at one time. Ethics, integrity and accountability all swept away by political expedience and entitlement.
I think you might benefit from reading Asimov's full piece "Cult of Ignorance." He was referring to news media.
I regret to inform you that it was always biased.
@@-Subtle- Thank you. I certainly will.
@@-Subtle- The media has been controlled by the same people for millennia. It's a trade passed down to their children and so-on. All the techniques were invented in Rome, Egypt, and Babylon.
It was replaced by profits first and foremost
No its from corporations
I was in high school in 1973 taking a News Analysis class. The course was about how to determine bias in journalism from subtle clues. The type of lens used in a photograph (wide angle vs telephoto) could create bias. Statistical charts and if it is median or mode has bias. I thought it was a very valuable class.
The idea that high schools used to teach this depresses me. I’ve been arguing that Informal Logic should be a required course in all four years of high school…
Now I think this should be as well. How the hell did we have these classes and then not?? How many times have I heard the Right clamor for “more critical thinking in schools”??
So many great subjects so little time and concentration.
finding bias in every molecule... a snowflake specialty.
Thank you for teaching me
@@mpower1969or, rather, a skeptic's specialty? analyzing a source's potential biases makes you a skeptic, and being skeptical doesn't make you a snowflake.
It’s weird to hear young people discussing events during my lifetime as history as if it were the Trojan War.
I find it'll be interesting to see how the next generations do. Like I have memories of my grandparents sharing stories of their experiences 1940s forward. So what happens when oral history becomes that of lore and written history?
@@CannonRaw Everything will be forgotten and nothing will be learned.
And of course everything that define the currently young people's youth, will one day be old as well. There will also come a day when pokemon is a "classic fiction" from "an ancient civilization", like Aesop's fables are today.
Yeah, I dunno. I didn't get that feeling from his video. I think it's possible that you're projecting this idea on him, or exaggerating.
@@Jimraynor45 Well Yes But This Will Only Happend When The Sun Destroys Earth
I'm old enough to recognize these voices from my childhood.
The other day, I woke up and heard Dan Rather (or was it Walter? I was half asleep.) and immediately I started listening intently, knowing I would get facts. Then I realized what Millennium I'm in, and I was hearing only news.
My point is, just the sound of his voice told me I was getting facts and would be drawing my own conclusions.
Dan, Walter, and Edward. Decades have passed, and I still think integrity (over entertainment).
Dan Rather was a disgraceful left wing liar. He would fit right in today
Your strive for honesty and integrity in the presentation of information is something that cannot often be bought or trained. Love your work Ryan Chapman!
Agree!
Unfortunately, Walter Cronkite was pretty crooked, too. And there was, in fact, a widespread communist conspiracy in America. The Soviets themselves admitted it, after the collapse.
So you dont trust main stream media, but some random dude on youtube? A guys that doesnt just report, but actively interpretes information, which is a pretty big difference? Even if he is trying to be as honest as possible, his interpretation of events will be biased.
IMO thats the bigger issue than any increase in media-bias. People seem increasingly bad at judging the trustworthiness of media. Social media made it so much worse.
@@termitreter6545 obviously your judgment is off... what this TH-camr is doing is extremely important. He is causing viewers to question what they hear-- even encouraging them to question him. Everything he says in his video is also applied to his video. thanks for questioning and thinking with your own mind
@@benjipixel1438 Im not saying what he does is bad, and most american media does seem to decline in neutrality. Critical thinking is good. But beyond that he is still presenting a narrative in his videos.
Im a bit weirded out that people say "I dont trust the media, but I trust you!", despite not actually knowing the guy personally.
That reminds me of conspiracy theorists that say the media lies, but then trust alex jones.
When the reality is more like, "90% of the factual reporting in mainstream media is good, but question the narratives", and "alex jones lies 95% of the time".
The thing that most people fail to pay attention to about news from the 50s and 60s is what stories were selected. The bias was not in the reporting of what stories they published, but in what stories they chose to publish. An anchors bias or a channels bias is now on full display instead of hidden in the production room.
Of course they were chosen. It wasn't like one or two interesting things happened each day to talk about.
@@unknownsword9042 you miss the point of my comment. Their bias was in the choices made.
@FUQ CENSORSHIP STASI I worked in media and this is exactly how it was.
That has only gotten worse and more blatant. The whole narrative that white men are on average more problematic or dangerous is based on this. If you look at the facts the whole media narrative crumbles (and it is the opposite of what they are telling people) but their insanely selective reporting (omitting stories, motives etc. that go against the narrative) has created a „reality“ in which we now all live and policies are pushed based on that false reality and questioning that „reality“ is not allowed. Truth and facts don’t really matter. Media narrative and Story selection is far more important.
"If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast." William T. Sherman
As a lifelong broadcaster, and instructor for 33 years, including journalism, I applaud you for such an accurate summary of 20th century news reporting. Thank you.
I remember seeing a post on a site I was on a while back saying, that people in the news and normal conversation say "I feel" more then "I think" now; which while both can be used to state something opinionated one is more emotionally loaded and has less risk of intellectual judgement.
You're quickly becoming one of my favorite creators. This sort of rational, unbiased explanation is precisely what today's media lacks, whether mainstream or social.
He is super biased against McCarthy who was right about communists
He become one of favorite TH-cam creator, but unbiased is strench to me because everything has bias. Uncertainly the 50's and 60's standards of reporting is some thing I will prefer to what CNN and others are now, but there are issue with what they classified as objective. Also some issues that ful blown concern today like how reporter don't question government reports and other institutions reports were also a concern at that time as it now.
I think theres reasonsto be concerned about the journalistic integrity of american media, but how do you know this channel is unbiased and any more neutral than CNN or FOX? Its just some random guy.
@@termitreter6545 The way he speaks, the terms and adjectives he uses, the deconstruction. He is not trying to implicate you into believing in a certain way, he's just saying "I think it was like this, because..." and then gives apparent evidence. He's not hiding stuff, speaks straightforwardly, similarly to the news in precisely that era.
@@vintageinidierocker That is relativization and an unfalsifiable statement. It's like saying "not everyone is perfect" or "everyone makes mistakes". You told me nothing of value by telling me everyone is biased. You can't put CNN and this guy on the same "plateau of bias" even. And indeed, objective reality is always at least slightly obscured by the limits of language, culture etc.
One book I had to read in College was, "Amusing Ourselves to Death", by Neil Postman. Written in the early 1980s, this book explains how public discourse has been shaped by the medium in which it is used. Starting with smoke signals, to flags, to the written word, to the telegraph, then radio and by then in the book, television. An excellent read, you learn that as the medium changed to the television that more and more so, entertainment became preferred over all else. Although Postman never saw what became of cable television and the internet, after reading his book, you will understand that he was spot on. Its all about entertainment to shape opinion, with bias intentionally used as the tool. Journalistic integrity as my age knew it hasn't existed for decades. Our society and the world around us today exhibits the results of that.
A mentor of mine lended me that book, and I was quite intrigued by its message. It was one of the things that started to open my eyes to how our society works.
Your age group never knew it. They were no better then than they are now. We had less access to tools and information to expose their fraud back then.
Took a turn for the current surreal after the FCC’s Fairness Act of 1949 was rescinded back in 1987.
Hence why so many late night shows have a political angle to them.
Yes! got Postman because it was kind of 'underground'. (Not sure that's the word I want.) There are others out that I need to read.
My father was an old-school this paper man "It's not important to know what a newspaper writes but what it doesn't write and why." "Never start an argument with a newspaper they will drown you in barrels of ink." "Say what you mean, mean what you say. Say it once and move on. Ink and paper cost money." My father was a linotype operator and proofreader. Try to get out of 200 word paragraph with my father proofreading. I just write 300 words and pray there be 200 words left by the time my father got done with it and then I'd have to hand write it all over again. He would sit in his room with a stack of newspapers and his red correction pencil. Rarely "Jim get in here you got to read this author." Not necessarily because he agreed with the author but he couldn't find anything wrong with it. They all took the journalism skills seriously.
They felt a responsibility to report the facts. Not perspective, not point of view, not opinion. Just what happened, and allow you to draw your own conclusion.
I had a boss a long time ago tell me, "Once you remove emotion, all that's left is professionalism." This nugget of advice has served me well for many years in dealing with people of differing viewpoints in my field.
What field is that? And I don't agree with that statement. Without empathy, you're just an ass. A mixture of logic and emotion are both important, though some are unable to properly mediate their emotions which may lead to issues. So.. maybe I disagree depending on the situation. Ironically, sometimes the most logical approach would be to act with emotion.
In journalism maybe, in day-to-day life that sounds more like sociopathy.
+Justin Well, if your profession revolves around emotion, then that would be an unprofessional way to proceed. That's the problem with pithy cliches.
@@highroller-jq3ix sorry I don't work in the arts
@@manwithouteyes Nor do health care providers, or child care providers, or elder care providers, or social workers, or therapists, or children's educators, yet emotional connection is central to each of those professions. You kind of thought you had a gotcha because you're sort of a doofus, right?
As a kid I can recall when TV news had an opinion section toward the end of the broadcast. Now the whole thing is opinion to varying degrees. It's not really news anymore. I hope more and more people see your video and start demanding journalistic integrity. It's supposed to be a watchdog and not a propaganda machine.
It blows my mind that I've expressed my disgust with modern media to friends, who basically replied "What are you talking about? All I see are facts."
They don't even _attempt_ to sound objective anymore. It's all emotionally-driven children using the most extreme, loaded, emotionally-charged language possible to get you as worked up as possible for exactly one viewpoint.
Meanwhile they won't believe me when I point out that practically all MSM have been caught red-handed blatantly editing video footage and interviews to show you the exact opposite of what actually happened.
@@Durzo1259 Yes. The editing of Trump's Charlottesville speech is a prime example. More people need to see the truth in this video. News is not at all like it used to be. And it's not just seeing facts thru the lens of a particular political bias, it's taking pieces of fact, twisting, omitting and reshaping it into a narrative to tell us what to think and how to feel.
It was always a propaganda machine. These sorts of companies are inherently incentivized to be the controllers of information on behalf of those in power, rather than a check against them.
@@keyman6689 I was hesitant to bring that up because the second you mention media lies against Tr-mp, all people do is say "No way, I hate Tr-mp so it has to be true!" and refuse to even look into it. I watched for 4 years as they blatantly edited footage and interviews to make him say the exact opposite of what he actually said, or just keep repeating claims about him based solely "an anonymous source claims".
Sometimes I feel like the only person on Earth who questions claims made in support of my bias as much as those that go against it. Nobody seems to see the bigger picture when you operate on this ideology that "a lie isn't a lie if it's in furtherance of a greater truth."
@@Durzo1259 I think you might be missing the forest, not for the trees, but for a different forest. The first one is misleading and fabricated editing shifting opinions, and the other is the actual unedited rhetoric and imagery phrased by figures to receive specific reactions and incrementally shape peoples worldviews. The rhetoric and strategies used by Trump and especially Steve Bannon participated in both, receiving the first and dealing the second. Do not downplay it.
I'm 70 and from the age of 6 or 7 watched the NBC Evening News at 6 every evening. Really admired the demeanor of Chet Huntley and David Brinkley. I can say that I am a witness to the many changes in journalism style in print, radio,TV and now the web, but it was not until I came across your analysis that I was able to put everything more in context. Keep-up your journalistic professionalism.
Huntley and Brinkley were equals of Cronkite.. Eric Severeid was very good. It was a different era.
Great job, Walt...uh, I mean Ryan. Your clear and objective journey through America's media history--venerably yellowed NYT headline to Starbucks-stained-Tucker NYT headline--starkly exemplifies the sea change in journalistic motives from "Golden Age" to now.
The movie "Network" really sums up that terrible moment when news became entertainment. I lived through watching all this happen and I remember how ludicrous the idea of a 24 hour news channel was. It made no sense to repeat the same stories hour after hour.
I was going to go with Anchorman 2
Made no cents but sure made dollars...
This should be required viewing for all American citizens. Imagine a time in which journalistic integrity was actually a thing. Instant sub.
You don’t have to imagine, you can watch old news reports right here on YT!
When I was a kid, the local evening news was an half hour long, followed by half an hour of national news. Reporters just delivered the facts of the stories without editorializing every story or expressing their personal opinions, or repeating the same story 6 or 8 times per program for 6 or 8 days in a row.
Stop watching cable 24hr news
The editorializing already happened in the selection of how and what is a “fact” so while it did look and sound different it really wasn’t much of at all different.
No they didn't, you were a kid and had no idea what they were talking about.
The official name for that is brainwashing and at the end of it you will confess to crimes you didn't commit and couldn't have.
@@dreed7312 Some kids are smarter than others.
I'm pleased to see a young man interested in real-life history of Marconey and educated himself to be accurate! He's absolutely correct! This young man has it together. Pleasant to hear. Especially for us last baby boomers. Life is short, kids!
I went into journalism right as the age of Gawker was beginning and got out. Quickly. I love your analysis on all this! I’d love to see another on how social media has shaped journalism and propaganda, because we’re entering the age of what I call “Digital Populism,” for better or worse, and for the first time, technology is making decisions sometimes independent of humans.
Fascinating stuff. Love this channel!
Anyway: Have you seen some videos of 'Telltale'? Its really interesting. I say this just cause it's heavily on my mind right now, so why not.
Random question, yes, i know, but i just wanna hear peoples opinions on it. People-of-all-flavoos.
i would GLADLY pay for access to a news agency that delivers news like this
DAN RATHER is one of the great ones
You can get it for free, PBS is still among the best sources of news and is critically underrated. I wish people would watch them, PBS News Hour at least. Even more, support them no matter how little.
@@MarinCipollina I mean, just a quick look at his substack shows that he leans left. On July 8th he posted "A Dangerous Double Standard: All our energies must go to defeating Trump". I don't think he's wrong, but that's still a far cry from the neutrality shown in this video
I used to read the Wall Street Journal every day, because it did that -- journalism textbook news. (You can tell by reading the stories about the subjects that you know a lot about.) A. Kent MacDougall retired and wrote a story for Monthly review about how he was a socialist writing for the WSJ. Then they were bought by Rupert Murdoch. Before the Murdoch takeover, the WSJ printed a series of stories on Murdoch, and the WSJ itself. It seems that the WSJ was owned by the Bankroft family, that simply had a commitment to the best possible news, and they were profitable enough to indulge that value. The next generation of the Bankroft family wanted to improve their earnings, even if it meant Murdoch. In the old days, newspapers were run by (sometimes cranky) owners, who could follow their principles (for better or worse). In the days of public ownership and hedge funds, they inevitably wind up following their financial incentive.
@@avradio0b These days anyone sane and rational "leans left" by definition.
This is almost like your whole channel in a nutshell. It's just brilliant.
Find a few nice comments, and write them down somewhere. What you're doing is difficult, and you're going to feel discouraged and burned out. But what you're doing is important and unique. Keep going, Ryan!
Unfortunately, I can't afford to support you no Patreon at the moment. I'm sorry about that.
I really do love your videos. I can't think of anyone who is trying so hard to be objective about important issues at the moment.
I recently took a university level journalism course, which essentially stated that objectivity/neutrality isnt real and that we should accept that reporters/journalists have biases. It was also said that we shouldnt cover certain stories that conflicted with certain narratives. This course was being taught by a 30 year, prize winning reporter that worked for all the big names. Its going to get worse, unfortunately.
straight facts, impartial reporting, and fairness isnt coming back any time soon
I was watching a news broadcast from the early 80s and the newsman was talking about some controversial decision of Reagan's, and I was almost shocked when I realized that I had no idea how this newscaster felt about Reagan or the controversy. He was simply reporting the news. It was incredible.
I knew someone would bring up the 80s as the new gold standard. This guy is going even further back then the 80s, to the 1950s and 60s as the showing the standard of neutrality. This indicates sometime during the 1970s and 80s things changed.
@@John-ct9zsRoger Ailes, amirite?
funny you say that as Reagan killed news media from having to be "balanced" by enacting the fairness doctrine.
@@John-ct9zsReagan brought emotion and feelings into politics. Which gradually transformed into more about how we feel rather than how we believe.
The news media for the most part hated conservatives since the 1960’s when the msm fell head over heels with JFK.
A family member at one time was a member of the Press Corp in the Bay Area. Every single one of them had to far left in order to be in the press corp.
It was actually your piece on Orwell that made me think that maybe the world has always been the way it is now. Maybe everyone has always been wrapped in a story, detached from reality. One of Orwell's quotes from your video was about valiant soldiers being portrayed as cowards, and battles that didn't happen portrayed with champions and heroes (something close to that). It's interesting to hear that there was at least some news that was still trying to give facts without spin.
This video is inaccurate sadly.
He provided examples of the emotionless journalism which many prefer.
However, these journalist were very biased and they shaped opinion by the information the left out /omitted and what they didn't cover.
For instance you can find the video of Walter Cronkite celebrating with a secret society... bragging about how he kept them secret or the country would have been outraged etc...
He was a Socialist who acted impartial when in reality he was anything but...
The media was so dishonest which is why Fox news was created.
I don't love Fox News but they are leaps and bounds better than other outlets.
This is not a compliemnt to Fox... simply pointing out how terrible the other outlets are.
If you'd like we can look at any important story for the last 8 years and see which side was accurate.
Covington Catholic kids
Economic issues
Trump impeachments
Trump fake rape allegations
Trump being a racist
Central Park 5
Kyle Rittenhouse
Climate Change
Covid data on lockdowns and masks
Trump called white nationalist and white supremacist "good people"
Literallly almost any story that shaped publilc opinion.... I can confidently say that I'd put money that the media got 95+% wrong...
So we can look at any 10 stories... and see if the media was wrong...
What's worse is you have to read from all of them... because that's how you debunk the narrative they are pushing.. you have to read their articles... then piece together 20 different sources just to find the truth.
With Covid I had to read countless studies and see why some studies were not reliable etc...
With Trump I'd have to watch entire rally speeches just to find out what was actually said.
But unfortunately people have been told over and over for decades that it's "both sides" or that both sides are evil, etc....
One side is clearly more the bad guy... Republicans are weak... Democrats are evil.
@@marcusdavenport1590 Marcus how would you define your politics? I'm guessing left leaning.
@@joelanderson5285 in a libertarian. My background is in economics. I was a Marxist for over a decade
In reality one side is oblivious to the truth on pretty much every issue.
The other side has people who have varying levels of knowledge.
When you find out you're being lied to you move to the right naturally.
@@marcusdavenport1590 It was pretty well known Cronkite leaned left in private. And no media was perfect. But their were rails and lines on the highway then that don’t exist now. Most journalist felt their reporting should not reveal their opinion. It was a badge of honor.
@@exituscaeli959 I'm saying that this was a myth.
They did a good job not letting you know their stance so you didn't know they were lying to you and didn't know that you even had to question them...
They would intentionally not give you enough information and they'd ignore topics to benefit the left.
Great job. The bias in mass media today is outrageous and unacceptable. We need commentary like this guy showing media bias.
Grew up in the 60-70s, studied journalism, and you did an outstanding job of presenting this!
This was one of the most informative and interesting posts I've seen . I lived through all of the shows you included and now refuse to watch any "news" on television because of how it's become, all the yelling and talking over each other and vitriolic behavior, not to mention the obscene language some feel free to use. News today is a circus full of lying, biased performers. The public can not believe anyone anymore.
"News today is a circus full of lying, biased performers."
It's *_always_* been like this, I'm sorry you never noticed.
@@CoralCopperHeadSomeone did not watch the video!
I’m rewatching this a second time. One of my favourite videos on TH-cam currently.
As a kid in the late 80's I remember being bored out of my mind by the MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour on PBS. As I grew up I began to appreciate more the quality of their reporting and the marked difference in that program, sponsored locally by a utility company, and the news programs with national corporation ads playing in the breaks. A steady diet of PBS - who seem to have stuck close to the fairness doctrine - is definitely part of why I grew up with the healthy critical thinking skills I have now.
Unfortunately national broadcasters interest's run directly counter to commercial broadcasters, particularly when they are the only ones willing to discuss the state and quality of journalism in real terms. As a result they are continually lobbied agaisnt by the powerful media lobbies and right wing parties with close ties to the murdochs and other media barrons will do anything in their power to dismantle public broadcasters to increase their monopoly over news.
PBS does deserve a lot of credit for their journalism. From the Newshour to Frontline documentaries to broadcasting international news in otherwise parochial markets, they take great pains to do good journalism. It's bananas that PBS gets a rep as too liberal, when it is largely funded by the federal government and of course, viewers like you.
I agree with your sentiments about PBS. They are definitely the best source for Unbiased reporting. At times I do question their choice of stories and believe if there is any bias, it is there.
Even PBS New Hour isn't as good as it used to be, and reflects the biases of its funders alot more, as compared to decades ago. It's still some of the best journalism on television, however.
@@athom716 Yep, all of my conservative friends (who think they're centrists) think PBS is a totally left-wing organization. I consider myself pretty middle of the road, as far as politics goes, but of course, they all think I'm a complete "liberal". They like to use the term "liberal" as if it were a slur of some kind. They look at me sideways when I mention that Thomas Jefferson and those guys were "liberals". Damned liberals!
This explains so much. Growing up, I was told that news was meant to be objective and unbiased. It didn't always appear that way though and this explains the systemic changes that have brought us here. Another excellent video!
Having lived through this period, I have to say that this video is spot on. The transfer of news to the network entertainment divisions forced them to put ratings (and therefore profits) ahead of any other consideration. Rating are increased by making viewers afraid or outraged. We all look for that echo chamber that confirms our own biases
This is the best comment I've seen in this entire section and is dead-on. They just want people angry or scared, that's what gets people tuning back in. It's like a political drama, only they get to base it off real events and make people believe their lives hang in the balance of watching it.
Unplugging from all that is the healthiest choice I ever made. Even if I wanted to keep up with all those events...you just can't do it that way, they lie and stretch the truth too much to get useful information.
I was a fan of Fox News for that reason. But I got tired of listening to how wrong the other side was ALL the time. Even Michael Savage once said, "A broken watch is right twice a day." I don't want to listen to far-left or far-right news anymore when it never attributes any wrongs to its own side, or to something other than the "enemy." So I quit watching Fox News.
I remember my English teacher wrote on the board 'News is Entertainment', then wrote it in reverse 'Entertainment is News'.
Palindrome
I hear this as the reason for why news is the way it is all the time. There may be truth in it to an extent, but it completely ignores the control aspect. If this model were the truth, than the ms media would probably have slightly above dirt poor ratings. It’s not what sells best, it’s what is most important for those who own it to be predominant thought forms, and it’s then also important that it is viewed. Unfortunately for the ms news media, a genuine nature is more discernible then they’d like, and it sells a million times better.
You create such wonderful content - thank you Ryan. Joining Patreon for sure.
Good one MR.
Great video! Only problem I had was that when it came to American foreign policy papers like the New York Times and the Washington Post were paramount in having the public be complicit in American foreign policy. For the most part, even in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, they would take the state department's line at face value and not be interrogative of these issues. This changed briefly after Watergate but has returned to the norm in recent years.
Both of those papers have been leftist propaganda sheets since the rise of Communism.
I'm going to have to watch it again, but I do think I recall his having qualified his statements with "mostly" and "for the most part".
But yes, I am from the Caribbean, and just this morning I was talking to my son about that very issue - how Americans have been raised to see through the lens of "American interests" alone.
I was very young, but I do remember how Henry Kissinger and American foreign policy was presented to the world as unquestionable. Where else as a pre-teen would I have acquired this image of Kissinger as a superstar except through watching the world news segment on television?
I saw a clip today in which he, after leaving office, stated in a most cavalier manner that human rights were deemed secondary to American interests at the time. I see no reason to doubt him on that, considering the prevailing attitude I encounter in comments sections such as these.
Comments such as, "You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs." Imagine civilians in Laos, Cambodia etc. being brushed off as "eggs"! Whoever made Americans believe, in a religious sort of way, that they alone should determine what kind of omelette should be made?
That term "American lives" is presented as though these lives are more important than any other lives, in a much more emphatic way than can be explained by a natural affinity for your own. It's more dismissive of other lives than is normal.
I doubt this attitude was cultivated in the days of Kissinger. It appears to be more deep-rooted than that. It's engrained in the psyche. We just don't enter into their consciousness.
The average American does not think we are entitled to pursue our own interests or even that we have interests at all.
I use the word "think" but I don't think they do this thinkingly. They just don't spare us a thought. It's like we're really eggs or something.
And having been raised on American television, most unthinking Caribbean people aligned themselves with the narratives. American foreign policy was unquestioned.
So that most of us, without one thought, welcomed Ronald Reagan's invasion of Grenada as a natural rescue mission. Well, my prime minister did support it, so there was that too, I suppose. But mostly, our people did see America as "a shining light on a hill", with a mandate to fix the world's problems by remaking the world in its image.
Thankfully, that is changing, slowly but surely.
The newspapers of record have almost always been in lockstep with overall US imperial objectives.
If you look at the bosses you can understand why.
It's largely an old boys club, with dudes from top tier privileged backgrounds, going to ivy league universities, and then taking off into their careers. They were often also related to each other, or spent time in the same fraternities, much like an aristocracy.
One hand washes the other, and it's easy to keep the system going that way.
When Walter closed his broadcast with “And that’s the way it is…” he was letting you know that the events reported were true to the best of his ability. He was not a fan of the news divisions having to make money or corporations buying the networks. When it is mentioned that Cronkite went to Vietnam, he was a World War Two correspondent reacting to a military he felt was no longer fighting the good fight.
Well done man, you've produced something genuinely of value here. I hope your channel does well
“Objectivity was seen as complicity”
Professionally I try to think as a scientist. Forward thinking. Objective but with a sense of optimism for the future.
But I have never in my life thought of Objectivity as a bad thing. That quote is going to stick with me for awhile. I am not sure, if in the context it was stated, If they were right or wrong. Which I can honestly say shocks me. As working in the sciences it never occurred to me that being objective could be considered bad.
Great video. Truly
Claiming "complicity" betrays their obvious subjective perspective. Typical idiot bolshevists.
Well, they seem to have over-associated objectivity with neutrality.
"Objectivity means calling a lie a lie" was a shift in perspective for them. They were, at one point, unbiased to a fault. They weren't biased towards the truth when reporting on Mcarthy. They weren't biased towards what should be when reporting on social issues.
Anything taken to an extreme becomes a problem, I suppose.
As far as scientific thought is concerned, it's version of objectivity isn't focused on neutrality. Nor is it focused on being biased or unbiased. Rather, it's focused on a lack of bias. Your opinion as a person, when weighed against the outcome of an experiment, means nothing. Science seeks to observe and measure objective truths. (Not that scientific research is unbiased -- there is bias in funding research, and in presenting the results. But in a properly designed experiment, there is no bias in the results themselves.)
But...hm....I suppose there is a problem there. And not just in the old trope of "has science has gone to far?" Science has taken ignoring the human perspective to an extreme, and that becomes a problem. It doesn't care about how you feel, it doesn't care about what you want. It doesn't care about justice.
Climate change is a good example. Science observes and measures, and tells us things as they are. And that's good! But then it drops the ball when we need to decide how to fix climate change. How do we do it fairly? How do we do it politically? How do we do it without falling behind economically? How do we do it while respecting human opinions? Scientific thought struggles to answer that, because scientific thought rejects and is unconcerned with human opinions and biases.
If you take scientific thinking to an extreme, you will fail when you try to do something outside of its realm. Pure objectivity is not persuasive. It does not unite us. It doesn't tell us what is fair, or what should be.
Huh. I set out to argue that the meaning of objectivity in science was different than the meaning of objectivity in these old newscasts, but that last line applies equally to both.
"Earth Round? Opinions Differ."
@@aMulliganStewOne of the reasons there are so many people espousing ideas like flat-earth is that our societal institutions have proven themselves to be so unworthy of the public trust that people will believe anything rather than believe the “experts.”
@@tomc.5704 Yes science doens't tell us how to do that stuff because that isn't the job of scientistist? Scientists exist to find facts policy makers decide what to do with them.
One of the best videos on the history of journalism objectivity I have seen. Good work on this and well done on your research! Really felt I have gained something from this video.
I think you pretty much nailed the history here. Well-done!
I found your title … sad but reasonable, I’ll say: In particular, asking why ‘60s journalism was so “neutral,” seems to imply that there’s something “normal” or “reasonable” about current-day journalism being _carefully designed_ specifically just to piss people off and create societal division. It’s easy for me to forget that many people alive today have only ever known the current screwed-up reality!
That, speaking as somebody who grew up in this period where there was usually a very-clear distinction made between opinion pieces and just-the-facts news. I still have some hope - with Ground News and Newsy emerging - we’ll get out of this fractious way of ours.
Very thoroughly researched and well-done piece! As a journalist, one aspect I wanted to highlight (and to some extent you did touch on this in the section concerning the memo from the NYT managing editor, but I think it's worth expanding on) is that "bias" isn't necessarily just in how the news is covered, but what is covered. Particularly in the past, when social media and the internet allowed for easier information silos, news organizations decision on what to cover was almost as pivotal as how they covered it. Simply ignoring or downplaying the effects of, for instance, a civil rights protest, could be construed as a political act in of itself. Similarly, paying undue attention to a "less newsworthy" item can be viewed similarly. This is also amplified by to what degree actions were covered -- making the front page of the NYT implied a degree of importance that is in many ways subjective.
That said, it's a bit of Sisyphean task to ask for perfection in this regard, as newsworthiness is a highly subjective gauge. News I may view, for whatever reason, as critically important, may not even be a blip on the radar for my next-door neighbor. There are certain controls you can put in - review boards, newsworthiness policies, etc. - but ultimately the editors make the call on the news thats fit to print, and some will disagree with those calls. In this regard, it's less about achieving perfect impartiality - which even storied journalists like Cronkite failed to fully obtain - and striving towards objectivity by putting checks and balances in place to avoid gross negligence.
I like your contribution to the internet. Not sure why but it makes me feel calm that someone wants to point these sorts of things out. Must have been nice to get straight facts and live in a society that valued them.
We still do
This was EXCELLENT!!! I am 67 y.o. and I remember when news was far more balanced. It is distressful to see what's happening now and your report provides excellent detail about what happened. I didn't realize old Ronald was instrumental in creating the mess we have today. This report was detailed, informative and reassuring (to see a young person do solid research and provide such a well-informed essay with a commitment to facts to support a viewpoint). Many thanks!
...by the way you won me over. Liked and subscribed!
This video actually did a great job abiding by those principles for the most part, and that really helps this video imo. Not only were we told about how news has changed from purely factual to sensationalized stories actively trying to sway your opinion, but we were shown an example of the old style as he didn’t inject his opinions on matters, but rather laid out the facts in a way that allows the viewer to make their own opinion on the topic without attempting to influence said opinion. Well done
Thank you for your thoughtful and balanced analysis, Ryan. Your service to society is appreciated. Dan
I’m a liberal and I learned a lot from this. Thank you for explaining this subject as objectively as possible.
It’s very difficult to trust any news sources. The bias from left wing networks and bias from right wing networks is ridiculous.
The constant commentary and “panels of experts” to discuss mundane things is truly beyond me.
And the plethora of opinion hosts on both sides who spin stories to fit a narrative is truly sad.
hmmm i listen to Radio NZ (RNZ) radio - its a publicly (govt) funded station its neutral but ive often heard it called left by right wingers including a friend who said the best radio in USA was PBS (ironically a public and private funded station) the similarity is theres no advertising . my friend listened to !ZB talkback -which considered rightwing - when the host he listened to resigned he was "forced" to listen to RNZ he begrudgingly thought it was a good station .lol
What you forget is left means progress and right means conserve - in a society that wants to get better its as good as saying good and bad
@malcolm freeman progress doesn't necessarily mean get better. Racial eugenics and segregation were literally the vanguard of social progressives in the 30s, 40s and 50s. American progressives still hold Margaret Sanger in high esteem.
So true Sanger was a die hard eugenics pioneer. She wanted to eradicate "colors" the deaf dumb and blind. Anyone she thought was not a good candidate to reproduce. Absolutely disgusting. Oh BTW to people that don't know. She is the founder of planned parenthood.
With the exception of fox News, everything is blatantly left leaning. That includes cinema, commercials and pop music all pushing the same vibes. I hear this "admission" by liberals often and it gives me a chuckle.
totalwars57, I am a conservative and agree with you honest observations.
Very encouraging, Ryan, to hear such sober analysis by a young person in this age. My compliments.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Found your channel today and loving it. Sharing your content with everyone I couldnt share the facts with before.
This was an excellent description of how things used to be, and how we got to where we are today. I was previously unaware of the introspection coming about as a result of the McCarthy years, and while I understand the desire to do better I think I would also call that a dangerous slippery slope in retrospect. We've gone from a press that will present the rantings of McCarthy and let their audience figure out for themselves that he's making things up, to a press that is happy to editorialize, suppress, or amplify based on their political leanings. To a press that has no crises of conscience over hiding stories that they want to be ignored, or omitting inconvenient facts. To a press that is focused on an outcome rather than reporting.
No, if they are going to present the "rantings" of McCarthy, then they have a duty to tell the readers/viewers whether McCarthy has provided any evidence to back up his claims.
@@katies6287 No.
@@katies6287
Isn't todays media enough evidence of his claims
@@16m49x3 Evidence of RN1441 claims ?
@@katies6287
No. The press should have simply presented public figures who had counterarguments and let the public decide which was more credible.
This channel is gold. For years I've been looking for this sort of content, wondering why it didn't exist. Keep doing what you are doing, and I hope that you continue modelling your videos in a similar line as those old new reporters.
There has always been bias in media, but back in the 1950’s news was listing specific events and less opinion. The 21st century has been a century of opinion rather than listing of events.
Not between 1949 and 1987. The FCC’s Fairness Act was in effect.
@@blackhawk7r221 I suspect you are correct; the rot had really set in by the 2000’s but probably started well before that and could well have been 1987. My theory is the main reason is the decline of traditional main stream media, people get a lot of news from the internet and do not rely on papers and TV. With the reduction of revenue the production cost had to go down, so the quality went down as well. Opinion is very cheap to pump out, while news is more expensive.
However the effect occurred in other countries as well, which are not subject to the FCC fairness doctrine, so there must have been other factors at work. In 2018 a journalist at Der Spiegel admitted that he had "falsified his articles on a grand scale", inventing facts, persons and quotations in at least 14 of his stories. The journalists name was Relotius.
The UK Guardian is also well known for making up stories, between May and September 2018 the guardian made claims about Assange which provide to be false. The Journalist was Luke Harding, Dan Collyns, and Stephanie Kirchgaessner. They did the same two year prior. Not sure why the Guardian had it in for Assange, but it’s a good example of the media just making up stories.
@@peterfmodel True words
That why in the title it is "less"
Thoughtful presentation and reflects my experience of childhood in the 50’s, college ‘66-‘70, military 70-75, grad school late ‘70’s & ‘80’s, teaching abroad since. From information to entertainment…for profit.
I got a graphic design job at my local newspaper in mid-2016. I had no interest in the news, my motivation was the purest one possible-$3 more an hour. At the time I believed that there was bias in the media, but only the unconscious kind that was impossible to avoid. But it wasn’t long before I started noticing strange patterns in the state/national stories and op-eds-very specific wording, odd leaps of logic, sensationalized headlines, etc. Naturally curious, I starting googling, and-without a single shred of journalistic training-I was soon able to sus out misleading facts and half-truths with a five-minute web search. Things only got worse once our paper was bought out by a national chain, and the non-local news took up more and more pages. I could literally watch the narrative change in real time-I still remember having to put a “Doctors say Coronavirus is less dangerous and less common that the flu” article on the front page of a February 2020 issue and thinking at the time it was BS. Eventually, another corporate merger made my entire department redundant, and we all got laid off. Ever since, I don’t listen to _any_ corporate news source. I’ve seen how the sausage is made, and I don’t trust any of it anymore.
So you’re saying it’s a bit like an octopus in shape?
@@MackNcD Trying to parse your metaphor... a single body, with a thousand tentacles reaching out to all the local news outlets? I guess that's accurate, but it could describe any large corporation with tons of local franchises, like McDonalds or Target. Nationally-owned local newspapers at least have different names and the veneer of reporting on local news.
The way Ryan delivers his points is like the unbiased reporter of the golden era.
I think that was his whole point all along 🙂
The irony of this video is that the old media wouldn't take this channel seriously and yet this, to the best of my ability to observe & analyse this, comes across as more objective or at least fair than any media I've seen in my lifetime.
You blew me away! What incredibly intelligent content! Bravo🎉
It's so refreshing to hear someone analyze a subject in an objective way. Thank you and keep it up!
I was an eye-witness, and ultimately the whistleblower, to the most prolonged and violent campus riot of the 1960s -- San Francisco State. Every single one of the one humdred or so reporters who covered to story deliberately lied about it, including such luminaries as Bill Stout of CBS -- then Walter Cronkite's number two anchor -- and Art Seidenbaum of the Los Angeles Times, and my own father. I particularly remember the nastiness of the seedy-looking, filthy trench coat wearing NYT reporter who insulted me.
The riots were a fake. Everyone on campus knew it. They were a cover for massive extortion and embezzlement scheme relentlessly exposed in the student newspaper.
All of them ignored the evidence and told the story that the extremists wanted told. My dorm was firebombed but it didn't fit the narrative, so it didn't happen. My father and I were never close again.
I finally took a box of evidence to the state attorney general, a democrat, who sat on it for six months until the riots became too much of a political burden, and shut the riots down.
The regiment of reporters closed their notebooks and went home. The public never learned that they were fooled, and the lie of the "Student Strike" remains to this day.
One day, ten years later, in 1979, I demanded that my father explain to me why he and the others lied to the public. He told more lies until I threatened to throw a chair at him. Finally, he said "We were not going to embarrass the anti-war movement with a scandal!"
And that is modern journalism at its finest.
If perhaps he feared the anti-war movement would recoil from people who would otherwise agree with all its tenets out of principle, it would not have made sense to omit those details to cater to people who would ditch those principles at the sight of undisciplined behavior.
Say if the Sons of Liberty had been more extreme in their obstruction of British laws, I don’t believe that would have legitimately discredited their revolutionary cause.
@@wildfire9280 The radicals weren't anti-war, they were pro-mass murder and civil war. It was a masturbation fantasy for them. Black and Hispanic fascist racists still dream of such things. I know, because I've talked to them.
I remember this.
Outstandingly well researched and presented! I searched for this topic to answer a question that my very intelligent 76-year-old mother had. I had a general idea, but you really provided such a wonderful tool for communicating those very important concepts. Thank you!
oh man, thank you so much for making this. I hadnt had a good example of what SHOULD be expected from journalism, but now I do. thank you.
Damn this is good! I'm going on 76 in a couple of weeks and most of this resonates. Now, in the mid / late 50s I couldnt' perceive subjective vs. objective very well, except for one instance to which I'll return shortly. But your analysis is spot-on, far clearer for me as we moved into the 60s abd 70s. Excellent analysis. Also, I remember when Cronkite delievered his speech on tv in 1968. It was stunning to hear and so many across the many were grateful for his bravery coming against the was. It was so clear in his voice and look on his face that he had gone through tough self-serching. I was so struck by it. Never have forgotten it. I also remember Cronkite and his presentation of the election and George Wallace. I remember his voice, face.
The one instance that I cite above is when Edward R. Murrow's Harvest of Shame was broadcast in 1960. I was 14 at the time and lived in the Central Valley of CA (Fresno County) where cotton was still king and where poverty was rife among African-Americans, poor whites, and Hispanics who toiled in the fields. (Including my mother who picked cotton to help bring my brother, sister, and I from the Azores.) Although the presentation centered mainly on the vegetable fields of the nation it was stunning and so incredibly bold that even a 14 year-old could understand ... and had seen time and again around him what Murrow was talking about. Though Murrow's journalism was certainly not 'main-steam' for the time it certainly had an effect that, slowly and with the help of others such as Chavez, helped change public views on the plight of these people.
I would like to see possbily a video on him and others who, usually stating his/her 'bias', had the courage to do so. And, as others below have mentioned, hope you keep them coming. I've subscribed.
That’s an excellent example and I believe it makes a strong case against the arguments of left-wing activists at the time of the necessity to move away from objectivity, at least the form it was in post-McCarthy.
Very interesting video. It looks to me that the TV news stations back in the 50s/60's also seemed to have an air of class and professionalism that today's news sorely lacks.
Excellent, thank you. I am 71 years old and have seen everything you talk about and you are right on.
Not talking about Reagan removing the Fairness Doctrine is insane.
He's a Reaganite maybe?
In a short presentation you have done remarkably well at describing the problem. Neil Postman wrote "Amusing ourselves to Death" in 1985 (one year after a remembrance lecture of 1984) describing entertainment and profit in the News industry. Internet also rewards eyeballs instead of circulation numbers for nutrient ads, so you have to see the outrage headlines before the Baseball scores. In recent years we have learned of Schadenfreude and Dunning-Kreuger and an unnamed amusement based on Outrage, similar to the others. We are no longer asked to wait patiently for Gunsmoke to hear Cronkite for 30 minutes we have 24 hour news that makes more money. No need for Seinfeld, Cheers or Gunsmoke, just keep watching that outrageous story over and over.
This is quickly becoming the gold standard for unbiased content for me. It is excellent.
What?... he broke down the loss of objectivity in the news without once mentioning the right i.e. Fox, how is that unbiased?
@@overover.. There is of course bias and loss of objectivity in the news on both sides. I'm just glad to learn about some nuances of a political subject without finger pointing and mud slinging at one side or the other.
@@bomapenguin The exclusion of one side from criticism, will be the only takeaway for many viewers
@@overover.. If you're honing in on the NYT examples, I think he's using them because of their preeminent position in America. Fox News was never considered unbiased unlike the NYT. I think it's sad that the NYT has strayed from its principles. I hope it finds its way back. It would make us a better, more informed electorate.
@@bomapenguin That's a good point. There seems to be no middle ground between woke, and a right wing cesspit these days
Wow, Ryan. This was outstanding. I was born in 1957 and received by journalism degree in 1979. I worked in news for a year then my career took me in another direction.It's not that there were no opinions on television. There was an "editorial" or "opinion" segment at the end of the newscast with a 3-5 minute speech labelled "editorial" or "opinion" at the bottom of the screen so you knew it was not "news". News was meant to be a series of factual statements along with what the newsmakers said. There was still subtle propaganda in what was omitted or what was emphasized but it did not match the blatant opinionating we see today. News anchors and news reporters were ordered to leave their opinions out and "stick to the facts".
What really changed journalism was Ronald Reagan. The media despised him and the animosity was clear but Reagan won large majorities anyway. It was explained that Reagan would engage in well-planned stops across the country where he was always surrounded by American flags, cheering throngs and up-tempo patriotic songs. If that sounds familiar, that's exactly how Donald Trump does it now. News reporters like Sam Donaldson would rip into Reagan in their reports but they were also showing the adoring crowd which provided positive optics before Donaldson ever began speaking.
That's when journalists dropped all pretense off objectivity and became "advocates". They would just tell one side of the story, not both.
You're correct that news had a blind spot in their objectivity regarding communism but you must remember the country needed a boogeyman to rally against to maintain order. That was Hitler in the 30s and 40s then the Soviets in the 50s, 60s and 70s.
BTW, if you ever heard Sir Walter's radio commentaries, it was clear he was a hard-core leftist but he felt newspeople were to be informers, not persuaders so he tried to leave his opinions out of the newscasts. Today, it's largely the opposite. The New York Times has also changed from fact-tellers to opinionists. The defeat of the Fairness Doctrine set this in morion but, while there was a Fairness Doctrine, most broadcasters simply steered clear of controversial subjects like abortion, race or womens rights. The news was blander back then.
_"There was still subtle propaganda in what was omitted or what was emphasized...."_ That's one thing that is not so subtle anymore. Biased news organizations display their colors less from what they report and how, and more by what they choose _NOT_ to report -- and the only way to get past this cheap method is to watch, read, and listen to literally _everything_ from every different news outlet. That takes a lot of time to devote to that much homework and I think most people aren't going to expend the effort, and that's one reason why silo journalism has proliferated the past 20 years or so. Just tell 'em what they wanna hear and leave out the stuff we _don't_ want them to hear and call it good.
@@briane173oh yes. Even back in those old mid-century days when journalists were professional, conscientious and intellectually honest, they still on the whole were of similar left-of-center ideologically. Walter Cronkite even admitted this. And so subtle slanting inevitably occured.
@@JT-rx1eo Thing I respected about Cronkite though was while he was doing his job one never sensed what his political bent was. He didn't bleed ideology. After he retired the gloves were off among the "star" TV journalists, and it's gotten steadily more and more over the top since.
The removal of the fairness doctrine hurts us in so many million ways. Earlier politicians made up the lies, the news was expected to report whatever the politician said.
Now, the tv channel is the propaganda arm of the party it supports. Even before the news is out, the spin begins.
Let's also not forget how viewership affects the media houses. Media houses will course correct to keep the stories that gain the most viewership, obviously. But then media houses have been seen gladly changing the facts , because the truth is inconvenient. This is seen with the 2020 election aftermath, for example.
There's also the shouting of news that bothers me. A lot of our evening news is based on the character of the news anchor, not the news itself. Unfortunately this means that after being yelled at for an hour, you want to find someone to yell at for an hour. Let's take a distant example, but Bill O'Reilly shouting about the war on Christmas kind of gets you angry people repeatedly shouting the same talking points at others. It's not fun to be on the receiving end, and it doesn't promote conversations, shouting rarely does.
When this happens to me, as someone in my thirties, and a busy schedule, i just ask them to send me a link for the show that they got their talking points from.
I really liked this video. It really puts into perspective how different today's world is to that of the 50s and 60s.
My only criticism would be that I would have preferred that you put a little bit more focus at the first half of the video in why this changed. In the bonus (which calling it a bonus makes me think I can skip it without missing on things said prior) you mention reasoning for that change, which gives another side of the picture.
Anyways, just thought of pointing that out. Thanks for the amazing video!
Thank you for this well produced piece. It really helped to confirm my memory of how things have changed. Your point about market forces is well made, but I also wonder about the role of cable television. Once the market became more subdivided the pressure became more intense to find and hold an audience. Prior to cable, I seem to remember people choosing between the three network newscasts kind of the way they chose cars. You had Ford, GM and Chrysler. There wasn’t a radical difference between them in quality or style, so people chose based on nuance or sometimes availability. Maybe your town only had a Chevy dealer, or like my family, CBS was the clearest channel. Something else I wonder is this: to what degree has media shaped values (outside the news). I find it hard to believe that it hasn’t made any difference to have shows like Andy Griffith or even later shows like Good Times that pressed the importance of families and communities staying together and supporting each and highlighting hard work and self sacrifice, contrasted with reality tv shows like real housewives or MTVs Real World which often focused on and celebrated self centered and immature behavior.
The media sold you this lie 🌎 Question it…
Your work is really appreciated. You do a great job of covering each topic in detail without promoting a particular position. If you are looking for a suggested topic for a future video I would suggest the Supreme Court (what it's purpose is, judicial philosophies, how it relates to the Constitution).
That would be very interesting.
That would be good, and timely. Id like if he would also mention the inherent flaw in that congress picks the justices that supposedly restrict the power of congress
@@kevinallister8373 nice
Or how about the irony of "How do you define a woman?" followed by the evasion: it is not my responsibility to comment on politically controversial topics.
@@joshualovelace3375 By older dictionaries, all trans women post-SRS would be considered women. That's why it's called "sexual reassignment."
Now it's become political to deny that trans women are women, but no new definition of "woman" adequately works to shut them out.
Post-transition trans women are both anatomically and hormonally female.
The only other way to define a woman might be based on chromosomes, but chromosomal sex isn't as simple as "either XY and male or XX and female." Many intersex people might not even know they're intersex, including people assigned female at birth despite having a Y chromosome.
So the answer isn't what most people think it is.
Thank you for more quality content! Seriously your stuff is so well researched and even as someone interested in the subjects you talk about I always learn something new
I think forcing news outlets to become non-profits would be a great thing.
The news should be a resource for the public to stay informed on current events, not a form of entertainment.
Increased regulation on what can be classified as news to highlight the distinction between editorials and news would be the best option to restore the quality of information in my opinion as this would not censor the discussion, and make sure that editorials and news are properly advertised as what they are.
Selling editorials as news is akin to false advertising and should be treated as such.
The way I heard this years ago was that during the civil war there was a big push away from biased news because there was a major need for folks to know where battles were happening, what units were involved and more importantly if their sons/fathers/brothers/cousins were okay. Bias always creeps back in eventually though and the cycle continues.
Bias (worse yet, misinformation) was certainly noticeable in the coverage of racial strife and violence during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, at least if the instances I’m most aware of are representative of the (‘mainstream’) press as a whole then.
This is a really well-made video. One of the takeaways, for me, was that the news had been biased in the early 20th century, but then evolved into a 'golden age' of unbiased reporting. It makes me think that, despite differences in the medium (i.e. the internet vs. tv and radio), it could be possible to return to something like that. It won't happen overnight, nor did it happen quickly in the 20th century, but it did happen, and still could again.
Producers, and Editors, need to just report facts. Expose lies, and break the spin doctoring on all sides. Give people facts in an unbiased way and let people make their own decisions.
I think it unlikely, when there were 3 channels (1 or 2 in the UK) and you got your news from each at a certain time of day, they could afford to be honest. Now there is too much competition, they have to be racey, entertaining and most of all preach to their own choir. TV and print news are dying, and will need to become more and more extreme to keep the loyalty of their customers. Then it will just be the Internet left, and all will be madness.
This was how news was taught to us in school publications when I was still studying. Really helped me in weeding out actual news-writing from sensationalist editorials being passed off as “news.”
Very thought provoking. However I think there might be a middle ground between objectivity and activism. Objectivity often meant giving both sides of a question equal time regardless of merit and level of support and this caused problems with, for example, climate change where it gave the incorrect impression that science was very divided on this important issue.
I think the middle ground is *facts based reporting* where quotes are always fact checked and there is a crystal clear dividing line between objective fact pieces and more activist opinion pieces.
And to nurture a democracy so it has a long term future, *Critical Thinking* should be a mandatory subject in schools so people are more aware of situations where they are being manipulated and more aware of their inherent biases. Social biases get plenty of coverage but biases that cause us to misjudge information are even more important.
That only works if the people doing the reporting actually care about what the facts are. The 1619 project at the NYT demonstrates that is obviously not the case.
Hard agree. Kids should be taught formal logic and it's common fallacies, statistics, numeracy (that's critical thinking applied to numbers), and mindfulness. It's one thing to say "teach them critical thinking" but so many teachers and politicians don't have it themselves and so couldn't guess what to teach. Those subjects are what forms the framework of critical thinking. If we can ensure every child is taught that, the world will get better.
@@danreyn Hard agree with you also. Working out a syllabus with materials and training for teachers is key. Interestingly *Logic* had been one of the basic three building blocks subjects for a classical education in Europe for perhaps *1500 years* until relatively recently. *Rhetoric* was another one which was training for speech making but also clued one in to what tricks another speaker was using to manipulate his audience. The *Trivium* had to be completed before other subjects such as Geometry or even Music could be approached.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivium
Okrent's Law: The pursuit of balance can create imbalance because sometimes something is true.
In theory, maybe, but with the state of modern "fact checking," I have to disagree. Firstly, there are rarely ever true "facts", most complex issues being multifaceted, nuanced, and nobody really knowing the full truth of the matter, and secondly, attempts at "fact checking" generally amount to partisan arguments oversimplifying the argument, leaving out opposing views/facts/possibilities/nuance, and driving home a particular political narrative.
Good job reporting the facts in an unbiased manner.
Thank you for this inciteful piece, Ryan. This is why I have stopped relying on the MSM for my information. I merely watch a bit to see what disingenuous spin they put on things. I am 65 and remember growing up with a father that watched the news every night. Although I didn't pay much attention back then, looking back I recognize the shift over time; I enjoy watching and listening to shows like Joe Rogan, Bill Maher, and Russel Brand whose political views I often disagree with, but at least have a desire to listen to the other side, ask intelligent questions, call out the BS, and get to the truth of the matter. I haven't watched your channel for awhile, but I recall appreciating the ones I have. I look forward to more from you.
Inciteful (as in inciting a riot) or Insightful (as in providing insight)?
@@orangehoof Good catch. I meant insightful, as I'm not inclined to promote violence, however in today's climate it could just as easily prove inCITEful.
Gosh this was terrific! I didn't remember the news's soul-searching after McCarthy until you spoke about it. But I certainly remember the news as it was, and it was wonderful. The nation was a mess (it always has been and always for different reasons) but we were mostly peaceful. Mostly. And not towards everyone. But mostly.
And now not at all. Towards anyone.
Many many years back in a small town in New Mexico, a third party presidential candidate was showing up as part of a whistle stop campaign. If I mentioned Which candidate it would date me :)
I was a young lad at the time and, though my father despised this candidate he, I, and most of the rest of the town went down to the train depot to see and hear. No other candidate was going to visit our hick town and other then watching the grass grow it was the only entertainment that day. The whole High School was let out for this occasion.
As we waited in the sun (New Mexico is hot in the spring and summer), two charter busses pull up marked "CBS" on a stick on label on the sides. Out of one steps a at the time well known "journalist", film crew, support people (including make-up, the fellow was sweating, poor dear), and caterers who proceeded to set up a lunch for the Bus people. Out of the other bus stepped about 25 ragged dressed people with signs.
The second group arranged themselves on the track near the townspeople who stood wondering "What in the world...?".
Soon the train pulled in and the candidate walked out on the little platform on the back of the car and started to speak. The Charter bus crowed waved signs, shouted obscenities, and screamed so loud he could not be heard. He ducked back into the train which immediately left town.
While all the towns folk, polietly stood there wondering what was going on, the ill dressed crowd stood and shouted some more, brandishing their slogan signs even after the train pulled out but the cameras were still rolling. Then, properly primed and painted for the camera, the reporter (who I happened to be standing near) starts describing in somber tones, then brisk tones, then happy tones over and over the details of the local small town riot that, he assured his listeners happened when this evil candidate appeared. After his 5 minute over and over saying the same thing in slightly different ways, all the news crew and their ready-made-riot-for-hire broke for lunch and gathered together around the white tablecloths the caterers had set out.
Soon the whole lot of them packed up and headed down the highway following the train.
That was the day I lost all respect for any "news" I see on TV, and most I read. Internet has been a boon because common people may lie too, but not as well choreographed, and with less makeup.
Thanks for continuing to make some of the best content on TH-cam.
Propaganda is one of the great evils of the world, and is still alive today, even in the age of social media.
"even"? social media is what helped its exponential increase
Calling propaganda evil is itself propaganda. Don't paint such a broad brush. Don't poison the well. Take each piece of information you receive with caution and intelligence.
Social media is like a very loud amplifier for propaganda lol.
Propaganda is not inherently bad, its everywhere. People have a way too narrow understanding of what it is.
There is now like 1000 sources to choose from so it is mostly about the intelligence of the viewer and how he is able to sort out information that he needs and do not get crazy just from reading the titles. People are hating the news but how many of them would watch news without the sauce and added comments?
The crazy thing is--despite being exposed to emotional, quick, and short form content, I find the news shown to be very alluring. Proves to me that I dont need built in bias to be entertained and educated with accuracy.
It's very interesting to see the difference in the way the news is broadcast to you in America vs. to us in The Netherlands.
The main news broadcast of the day is a 20-30 min broadcast at 8pm, no editorials, no personal opinions of anchors or reporters: just half an hour of news. Sometimes during big world events I do switch to CNN, because they are usually the first and fastest with information, but it's really difficult not to go insane after watching that for 10 minutes xD it's crazy.
A critic I do have for the news over here is that indeed they can be a bit too passive at times: sometimes when a politician states a blatant and objective lie, they don't always actively refute it, but present it simply as another opinion. Especially during the pandemic or election season this is very problematic.
Obviously we have a very differently designed media lanscape that is far to complicated to explain here, but even the commercial broadcasted news is to a much higher standard than American news. Also, we don't have any 24hr news channels, thank god.
Growing up in the 60's-70's, this is spot on. I really thought the reasons why it was different now is compelling. I can't watch the news now, I don't liked to be pushed, hopefully, the pendulum will find the center, I think a growing democracy would be best served by the best of both sides. This is well done!
In 1987, Regan rescinded the FCC’s Fairness Act of 1949 that required unbiased reporting. No more Walter Cronkite types, now paid political mouthpieces under the guise of “news”.
CNN is saying they are going to take a stab at blunding off the partisan jabbing, and try to be more down the center... we'll see if they can follow through. But with FOX to the right and MSNBC to the left, they are trying to single themselves out as different than those partisan sources.
All that's needed is a return to the fairness doctrine. There should be accountability for lying on news networks. If there is no accountability, they will keep lying for views. The most obvious example that comes to mind is Fox News repeatedly pushing the false narrative that the US election was stolen by rigged Dominion machines, with precisely zero evidence. If they lose that case and face real repercussions, I encourage the US public to push their representatives for legally-mandated fairness doctrine during that momentum.
Speaking as a graduate of a journalism school, this was terrific. The evolution of journalism over the course of my lifetime has been disheartening. Indeed, I rarely volunteer what it was I studied in college.
0:01 I didn´t expect Franz Josef Strauß when I clicked on this Video
Did something get cut?