Saturday, 8 July 2017

The History of the American News Media

It's a pleasure to welcome Mari Anne Christie for a delve into the history of the American news media!


---oOo---


Back when the American news media could be trusted…

“A gruesome clash between North and South is inevitable—
if only because newspapermen are screaming about it.”
— Blind Tribute

America is a country divided; it cannot be argued. Perhaps more so than any time in our history, barring only the Civil War of 1861-65. And the environment now is beginning to look remarkably similar to 1860.
While it seems logical to say that, as Americans, we have more in common than not, myriad forces continue to tell us we are wrong, chief among them, that broad, varied and variable category, “The Press.” Whether “fake news” or “Russian partisan propaganda” or “opening up the libel laws” or the role of comedic satire or the need for (or advisability of) “Woodward-and-Bernstein-style” exposés, all we seem to hear about on the news is… the news.
Conventional wisdom says the media environment wasn’t so hyper-partisan before President Reagan pressured the FCC to abolish the Fairness Doctrine, which mandated balanced reporting in broadcast journalism, requiring broadcasters to discuss controversial matters of public interest and air opposing views. Back then, the story goes, the press existed to provide a service, to act as part of the systems of checks and balances—the “Fourth Estate” in the triumvirate of American checks and balances. Reporters acted with integrity and forethought, exposed corruption, spent more time informing than imposing electoral dogma. The news business used to be trustworthy. Right?
Not exactly. 
The Fairness Doctrine, when instituted, was sorely needed. The ethics the Fairness Doctrine meant to codify in the face of new broadcasting technologies were still quite young in 1949. They weren’t even industry norms until the early 20th century. (It should be noted that, even now, media ethics are entirely voluntary and, ironically, unenforceable by virtue of the First Amendment.) While the question of ethics and values in this industry goes back to the 17th century in Europe, the answers, in America at least, are much more recent.
The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ), arguably the modern keeper of this canon of ethics, was not formed until 1909 (then—and until 1960—a men’s fraternity called Sigma Delta Chi). The American Society of Newspaper Editors (as of 2009, the American Society of News Editors) (ASNE) was formed in 1922 for the express purpose of developing and codifying norms and ethics for the industry, which were set in type the following year. The SPJ borrowed this code in 1926, and these remained their central tenets until 1973. 
However, if we travel further back, sixty or so years before the ASNE and SPJ began their work to make the news business honest, trustworthy, and accountable, we reach the beginnings of the Civil War, when the glorious olden days of media integrity didn’t exist. Not only that, just about any reporter, if presented with the concept of “fair and balanced,” would have either given you a blank stare or laughed at you outright.
On the question of partisanship, our modern media has nothing on the early 19th century. 
So, back to the Civil War: the current president asks, “Why couldn’t we just work that out?” Of course, the thought process is reductive; in short, it couldn’t be worked out because slavery could not, should not, and would not stand. But as to why emotions ran to such a fever pitch at just that moment in history? Perhaps because newspapermen were screaming about it.
Even given the risk inherent in trying to separate a man from his money (even when that “money” is invested in ownership of other humans); and given the (pseudo)religious and (im)moral justifications for slavery, and their opposite refrains in the Abolitionist movement; and given the innate tension between federalism and community sovereignty that threads through our entire democratic history; and given that Europe would quite possibly have used slavery (in due course) as a pretext for embargo or another war; and given, finally, that an armed black uprising probably would have eventually succeeded, why did the rhetoric heat to a boil then? Why did we end with a conflagration then
At the risk of also becoming reductive (probably inevitable when discussing the causes of the Civil War): 
It might have had something to do with the fact that nearly every newspaper in America was associated with one political party or another, and no political party was without its conjoined newspapers. Not only was this the norm and accepted practice, it wasn’t even considered unethical. If a man (and, of course, it was always men) was smart enough to own a printing press, erudite enough to make his opinions matter to his readership, and wealthy enough to expand his newspaper’s reach, why would he not use it to trumpet his own views? If he had once held elected office or planned to in the future, would that not just make him better informed about the issues of the day? And why would he not affiliate with the politicians who agreed with him, to expand his circulation, lend weight to his message, and defray his costs? It is capitalism in action. The American Way. (For both Americas—freedom of the press was enshrined in both Constitutions, and the norms of the burgeoning industry crossed the Mason-Dixon line.)
Thus, a partisan, vocal, and influential news media (in part) drove conflict into war, and now, it seems, we have forgotten the lessons of the past. To provide a bit of necessary perspective, it should be noted that without the constraints of the Fairness Doctrine, and owing, in part, to the expanded technological landscape, partisanship in the news business is once again the norm, as are the use of political relationships and affiliations for purposes of profit and influence. The primary differences between the media now and in 1860 are: the increased speed with which news travels and the expanded breadth of its reach.
References:
"American Society of Newspaper Editors Code of Ethics or Canons of Journalism." (1923) Illinois Institute of Technology Ethics Codes Collection, 10 Nov. 2016, http://ethics.iit.edu/ecodes/node/4457.
"American Society of Newspaper Editors: History." (2014) ASNE website, 10 Nov. 2016, http://asne.org/content.asp?contentid=83.
"American Society of Newspaper Editors: Statement of Principles." (2014) ASNE website, 10 Nov. 2016, http://asne.org/content.asp?contentid=171.
 “Society of Professional Journalists: Code of Ethics [2014]." SPJ website, 10 Nov. 2016, https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp.
“Society of Professional Journalists: History of the Society." SPJ website, 10 Nov. 2016, https://www.spj.org/spjhistory.asp.

https://youtu.be/m9oihJUkTBk
 Excerpt from Blind Tribute
The general looked as if he were sucking a lemon. “As it happens, Mr. Wentworth, your note was prescient. The Army has need of your services.”
“I can’t imagine what the Army could possibly need from me.” Harry didn’t need to imagine, as the subject had been raised twice by his contacts in Lincoln’s cabinet, and both times, he had politely declined their requests. Harry was not of a mind to be as polite a third time, and this man wasn’t nearly important enough to warrant restraint.
“Clearly, I am here to discuss it.” 
Judging by the shade of his face, the general’s mood was devolving every minute, and Harry expected it wasn’t going to get any better before he left.
One might assume a man wanting someone’s help would at least drink his whiskey. 
“As we move into new territory,” the general said, “we are coming across abandoned newspaper offices.”
“Abandoned?”
Stevens looked away briefly. “What do you call it when a building full of printing presses is found with no owner?”
“I’d call it violent suppression of information at the hands of an invading army. In line with President Lincoln’s actions against the Journal of Commerce and other newspapers in the North, but presumably involving more bloodshed and fewer arrests.” Harry struggled to calm his tone, in pursuit of the other goals to be accomplished before the general left in his inevitable huff. “But I’ve seen such actions all over the world, both subtle and brazen. Perhaps, for some, it isn’t so easy to identify.” 
“The president had every right to—”
Harry held up a hand and shook his head, stopping the general’s speech. He smiled, taking in every motion as Stevens shifted in his seat. Showing his teeth, he said, “No. There is no argument to be made on Lincoln’s side of this issue, if you would call yourself a patriot. Not if you wish to be received in my home. So, what is it you’d like me to do about these newspaper offices?”
A wiser man would have been distracted by Harry’s canines. “We’d like you to organize them into a logical structure to… assist us in achieving our military objectives.”
“Is it not enough you have a stranglehold on the Associated Press and American Telegraph? Now you want to operate a misinformation service, and you think I should manage it?”
The general stiffened. “I would not express it in those words.”
“Of course not.” Harry sat back silently, and Rink followed his lead. The captain tapped out and refilled his pipe, and Harry took out a cigar. He offered the box to Stevens, but the man declined with a quick shake of his head. Stevens sat staring, but was more than self-disciplined enough to also remain quiet. Eventually, Harry said, “You’d like me to print articles favorable to the Union in areas you’ve occupied.”
“Well… yes.”
“The dictionary definition of misinformation. No.”
“No?”
“No. To begin with, Lincoln and I do not see eye-to-eye on the role of the Fourth Estate. He may thank his treatment of the opposition press, in part, for this decision, and he well knows it, as he has heard my opinion on the topic at great length. This is why he did not approach me directly, and why you have been sent against your will to have your ears blistered in his stead. There are plenty of correspondents milling around the South who believe far more in your cause; I daresay some would do it purely for the dubious prestige. Choose one of them.”
“We have… I mean, for individual… we need someone who can oversee the entire…” The general trailed off at the look on Harry’s face. He managed a blush before he regained his military composure. “It’s a sizable enterprise…”
“I imagine. The more sizable, the more my answer is no.”

To pre-order Blind Tribute for July 28 delivery: www.Books2Read.com/BlindTribute

Giveaway

Mari will be giving away a quill pen (like Harry's) and powdered ink, a swag pack including Harry's Editorials Collection, and a e-copy of the book to one winner.

If you can’t embed here is the direct link: http://www.rafflecopter.com/rafl/display/16e4beaa15/?

Book Blurb
Every newspaper editor may owe tribute to the devil, but Harry Wentworth’s bill just came due.

As America marches toward the Civil War, Harry Wentworth, gentleman of distinction and journalist of renown, finds his calls for peaceful resolution have fallen on deaf—nay, hostile—ears, so he must finally resolve his own moral quandary. Comment on the war from his influential—and safe—position in Northern Society, or make a news story and a target of himself South of the Mason-Dixon Line, in a city haunted by a life he has long since left behind?
The day-to-day struggle against countervailing forces, his personal and professional tragedies on both sides of the conflict, and the elegant and emotive writings that define him, all serve to illuminate the trials of this newsman’s crusade, irreparably altering his mind, his body, his spirit, and his purpose as an honorable man. Blind Tribute exposes the shifting stones of the moral high ground, as Harry’s family and friendships, North and South, are shattered by his acts of conscience.

Author Bio

Mari was “raised up” in journalism (mostly raising her glass at the Denver Press Club bar) after the advent of the web press, but before the desktop computer. She has since plied her trade as a writer, editor, and designer across many different fields, and currently works as a technical writer and editor. 
Under the name Mari Christie, she has released a book-length epic poem, Saqil pa Q'equ'mal: Light in Darkness: Poetry of the Mayan Underworld, and under pen name Mariana Gabrielle, she has written several Regency romances, including the Sailing Home Series and La Déesse Noire: The Black Goddess. Blind Tribute is her first mainstream historical novel. She expects to release the first book in a new family saga, The Lion’s Club, in 2018.

She holds a BA in Writing, summa cum laude and With Distinction, from the University of Colorado Denver, and is a member of the Speakeasy Scribes, the Historical Novel Society, and the Denver Press Club. She has a long family history in Charleston, South Carolina, and is the great-great niece of a man in the mold of Harry Wentworth.


Links

Universal Link
books2read.com/blindtribute

Mari’s Website
Amazon

Barnes & Noble

Smashwords

iBooks

Kobo

Scribd

24Symbols.com

Indigo
Mari Christie Social Media  
Facebook Launch Party, July 28th, 2pm - 8 pm MDT: https://www.facebook.com/events/724880974366499/

Author Website & blog: www.MariAnneChristie.com 
Street Team: https://www.facebook.com/groups/marismuses/

 ASNE Code of Ethics table


4 comments:

  1. Thanks for hosting Mari! :) ~Aleen

    ReplyDelete
  2. Carole in Canada writes:

    Tried posting a comment but it never showed so I will post it here:
    Great post! Looks like 'Yellow Journalism' is alive and well. One has to dissect the information provided on the news channels because you certainly can't take it at face value any more. All have a certain political bias. I think what bothers me the most is editing of video to provide a narrative that they can 'spin' to their own leanings. It's unfortunate that civility and respect are no longer a matter of course. I do think the Code of Ethics has fallen to the wayside as well. We certainly can't seem to learn from history! Thank you Catherine for hosting Mari Christie. Congratulations on your new book Mari Christie!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. :-) Yes. People keep asking me why I am saying America looks very much like 1858 (more than we look like 1787), and the media is the primary reason. I am hopeful that I know a lot of journalists who are hewing more to the code of ethics now, and are firmer in their convictions than they were a year ago. But they are not the ones deciding what goes on the air.

      Delete