•

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

Why News Was So Neutral in the '50s & '60s

https://youtu.be/ZgZPJpdmw3A?si=h9-BrdDP6otTRIEM

The story of the 'golden age' of news and its subsequent fall.This video isn’t sponsored. If you want to support me, here are the best ways to do it:1) Watch...

Long but good.

24 comments

ByteOnBikes

•

As someone who can't watch a video right now because I have a bunch of loud kids, can I get a summary?

The title doesn't really explain why.

kryllic

•

Generated with ai because I also didn't watch lol:

Short Summary

In the 1950s and 60s, there was a belief in a golden age of news where information was delivered without political bias, shaped by cultural, technological, and political forces.
The rise of television, figures like Joe McCarthy and 60s radicals, and even Ronald Reagan played a role in shaping the news landscape.
The aftermath of World War II highlighted the power of propaganda and the need for responsible news delivery.
Government sought to regulate news organizations through acts like the Radio Act of 1927 and the Fairness Doctrine in 1949 to ensure programming was in the public interest.
During the era of television news, objectivity was valued, with news programs not expected to make money and a doctrine of social responsibility guiding ethical journalism.
The New York Times set high standards for objectivity, with television news aiming to emulate this model.
Clips from the era showed commentators presenting opposing viewpoints without bias or emotionally loaded language, allowing the audience to form their own opinions.
Anchors like Walter Cronkite maintained impartiality even when reporting on controversial topics like the election results of pro-segregation candidate George Wallace.
Journalism in the 60s and 70s shifted towards a more active approach, with journalists encouraged to call out lies and take sides based on facts.
By the end of the 60s, there was a noticeable shift towards more activism-driven content in newspapers like The New York Times, departing from earlier eras where objectivity was considered the highest journalistic goal.

thoro

•

If that's the summary, then the video is overly simplistic and doesn't understand the actual concept of media bias. The news was biased then too, especially foreign coverage, and it was biased before then. I mean, this goes all the way back to the USS Maine at the very least.

Anyone who wants to talk about media bias and hasn't read Manufacturing Consent or other similar work needs to be banned from the topic. Learn about the propaganda model. Maybe also read about the Committee on Public Information and Edward Bernays while you're at it.

I can't take anyone seriously who really thinks the overall news landscape was less biased when there were only a handful of networks determining news on TV and less alternatives in the print media as well.

Edit: Longer, but better

xor

•

Name a more iconic combo than lemmy.ml and criticising something they haven't even read (watched in this case)

thoro

•

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.

xor

•

Not yet, it's on my list, but my local library doesn't have a lot of Chomsky

GlassHalfHopeful

•

Curious, how does one summarize a video like this? I imagine I could make use of this quite a bit.

Hugh_Jeggs

•

Summarize.tech

GlassHalfHopeful

•

Giving it a go now. Thanks!

ser

•

Wow! This is useful

Microw

•

There was a clause in the regulations that led broadcasters to basically be scared of losing their license if they didnt include public-interest content in their programming. Plus news wasnt obligated to make profit by the managers

Dagwood222

•

Watch the movie 'Network,' and realize that it went from cutting edge satire to quaint docu-drama in real time.

blackluster117

•

That film only becomes more and more relevant as time goes on. Honestly terrifying now.

Dagwood222

•

Every once in a while I'll mention the 'Fairness Doctrine' and someone who never lived through it will commnet that it sounds horrifying.

They spent so much time in propaganda world that actual objectivity is a dangerous concept.

laughterlaughter

•

Network

What's so horrifying about the fairness doctrine, according to them?

gibmiser

•

You mean I have to listen to the arguments from the OTHER SIDE? They are WRONG and I only want to hear the news that tells me I'm right!

We are all susceptible to it. We seek out validation.

Then there is the whole "Well who decides..." and "government shouldn't be telling people what they can and can't say" which is understandable position at first until you understand what the regulations were actually doing.