TIL: Why News Was So Neutral in the '50s & '60s - eviltoast

Long but good.

  • thoro@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Yeah, some people work. Have you read Manufacturing Consent?

    Either way, the summary is pretty accurate after watching. He devoted 30 seconds to recognizing that anti communism was a major pillar of the news media back then, at least. But that is a major reflection of exactly how they weren’t “unbiased” and basically shows how the regulations and fairness doctrine did very little to expose Americans to ideas outside those accepted by the elites who owned and ran NBC, CBS, ABC, and NYT/WaPo. So to claim that it’s mostly true that they were “unbiased” back then is still a bit ridiculous after such an acknowledgement. “They were mostly unbiased unless you count mainstream, elite American opinion of the 50s/60s as a type of bias”…

    Again, no look at the structure of the news media and how they treated the US government’s and major corporations’ words as a major form of sourcing, the importance and influence of advertising, etc.

    He has a handful of chosen examples. Manufacturing Consent has case studies documenting coverage of specific events from these media sources.

    The populace wasn’t more educated when everyone got their news from the same 5 sources (and a more educated populace is what we should want from our news media.)

    They just all mostly agreed and said the same things. There was still bias, it just wasn’t as partisan and people were less likely to disagree because there wasn’t anyone saying otherwise. The faux neutrality was a facade.