Essays | Themes | Research
What’s Happened to the Media?
And where is it going?
— Rich Kennedy
Some of us look back nostalgically to a time when Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite, and many others engaged in principled journalism that we trusted; when they spoke “truth to power” and helped keep the country on a better path. Those days are long gone. Now, many of us lament that the news media are a significant contributor to the political divide.
In this article, I’ll provide some highlights of the history of news media in America, an examination of where news is now, and a few predictions about where it’s going.
When considering the news media in America, it is essential to keep two key factors in mind: technology (what is possible or feasible) and financing (how it is funded). Ideally, a society should have accurate news focused on important issues that is widely available to everyone. The reality is that news is constrained by the ability to gather and share it, and judgments about what to cover are dominated by a business model whose primary objective is to generate profits for largely commercial interests.
In the early period of our country, from approximately 1800 to the Civil War, newspapers were primarily partisan political publications or commercial papers that catered to businesses. Most had limited circulation. They were run by small staffs that handled everything from reporting to soliciting advertising to printing the paper. Often, they openly and explicitly represented the views of a particular political entity that subsidized them. Some relied on government printing contracts that limited their independence. The idea of independent journalism that verifies, exposes, and explains serious issues in our world was not part of the landscape. Money and technology constrained the size and reach of newspapers.
Around the time of the Civil War, the telegraph improved communication, the railroads sped travel, and advances in printing technology made it cheaper to print more information on a scale that could reach many more people. Large circulation became the key to profitability, and newspapers were somewhat less politically partisan since they wanted to appeal to a larger audience. Competition for subscribers led to the rise of “yellow journalism,” which featured sensational headlines and exaggerated stories of questionable accuracy but attracted more readers. Advertising became the primary source of income. While professional journalism began to emerge, the emphasis was always on circulation.
Early in the 20th century, as more Americans got high school educations and technology further reduced the cost of printing, newspaper circulation, popularity, and influence grew. With the introduction of radio and television, an increasing number of people became connected to what we now know as “the media,” which included both information and entertainment. Radio and television stations were required to operate in the public interest, and news divisions were not expected to contribute much to the bottom line.
By the time most of us were born, mass media had become a significant part of our culture. Entertainment was big business. Professional journalists often had a significant impact on public opinion as they challenged the power and influence of the political class, but businesses and politicians were always in the background, sometimes limiting what could be covered in an effort to protect themselves.
Major changes occurred in the 1960s. First, the Vietnam War and the protests that led to LBJ dropping out of the 1968 election showed a generation that their collective voices could have a political impact. The civil rights movement exploded with protests and riots. Assassinations shocked the country. And through all of it, the news media played a significant role in highlighting what was happening, raising awareness, and in part advocating for change.
Television coverage brought the war into our living rooms. Images of mass protests increased political pressure to end the war and racism. The publication of the Pentagon Papers exposed the hypocrisy of what government officials were telling us about the war.
In the early 70s, investigative reporting by Woodward and Bernstein led to the downfall of the Nixon presidency and inspired a new generation of journalists who were looked upon as heroes. They were respected by many for standing up to the politically powerful. Still, while uncovering the Watergate scandal was a news success, it had the unintended consequence of encouraging a style of journalism in which sensationalism took precedence over accuracy. News garnered larger audiences. Beneath the veneer of providing public service, profit remained the primary motivator, and the needs of advertisers and powerful political interests continued to exert tremendous influence. Media, including the news, were there to support the commercial interests of their primary clients – large corporations. News programming was now contributing to the bottom line, and the line between news and entertainment began to blur. Being first with a story led to being less cautious about verifying accuracy with multiple sources.
The 1980s accelerated this trend with the advent of 24-hour news programming from CNN. Once again, technology—and money—played a key role in transforming the media landscape and its accompanying news coverage. The line between news and entertainment had been blurring for some time. Now, due to cable, it was possible to make money by delivering only news. But not, the news needed to be both informative and entertaining to drive ratings and, therefore, profits. Cable news journalists became celebrities, and the quality and ethics of reporting became more and more questionable. Trust in the media declined.
As it became cheaper to deliver news, it also became profitable to target a narrow audience and make money doing so. Partisan outlets, claiming to be objective, became as commonplace as they had in the early days of the country. But now, fueled by large advertising budgets and technological advances, the reach was far greater. Money, which had long supported newspapers and television networks that adhered to some standards, began to move to cable and later the internet. The popularity of talk radio increased. The most successful were often the most controversial. In particular, right-wing outlets like Fox News and commentators like Rush Limbaugh catered to audiences much like the yellow journalists of the late 19th century. Fox News’s “fair and balanced” motto was at best questionable—at worst a cruel joke. Other outlets were accused of having a decidedly liberal bias. Arguments over which was more accurate further fueled the political divide. More and more channels deliberately sought audiences and gave them what they wanted to hear, rather than what was true.
Journalistic standards have become quaint and old-fashioned, increasingly ignored. Profit and political influence are now the driving forces behind what is increasingly opinion masquerading as news. Fragmentation and the quality of information have suffered as the primary goal is to attract and retain viewers by reinforcing, rather than challenging, their existing beliefs.
The rise of the internet, smartphones, and social media has supercharged these changes. We now have an even more dangerous landscape, as it is now possible to create “channels” on a shoestring, which can reach millions with little or no regard for standards of truth and accuracy. Coupled with consumers who have little or no understanding of civics, a five-second attention span, and a limited ability to think critically, we have a hellscape of misinformation and hyperbole where almost anyone can grab a megaphone and spew dangerous nonsense with virtually no control. Many believe that this has led, in part, to the rise of a president who calls the free press the “enemy of the people”, who flouts the basic requirements of his office, and who lies so regularly that fact-checking becomes ineffective.
Where do we go from here? I’m afraid we will not see a return to news that is guided by the journalistic standards of the past, at least not anytime soon. Newspapers, television networks, and cable television will continue to decline. Streaming and social media are where audiences, especially younger people, are, and advertising dollars are following; therefore, they will continue to grow. Never forget that profit is the primary driver of the news business. Some of the best columnists are now distributing their work independently, using platforms such as Substack, podcasts, and social media outlets (e.g., YouTube, TikTok, Instagram). Powerful political entities with deep pockets, especially those on the right, are quietly increasing control of more outlets as part of their efforts to push their agendas. And behind it all are the advertisers who, by and large, don’t care what is being said, as long as it garners an audience that they can sell to.
Given this scenario, it is likely that corporate and political interests with the most to gain from maintaining the status quo will continue to dominate and manipulate the news in an effort to preserve their power. Most of the population will continue to follow the most popular outlets as long as they are entertained. Unless real-world events, such as war, depression, or a pandemic, cause significant societal shifts, the current morass is likely to persist. Delivery methods will evolve as technology changes impact profitability.
As long as the media, including news outlets, are primarily beholden to corporate interests and profit requirements, we are unlikely to have the kind of accurate, widespread information coverage a modern society needs to operate effectively. As technology makes it easier and cheaper for unscrupulous purveyors to reach large audiences with little or no regard for truth or accuracy, we will continue to be vulnerable to the spread of unverified and questionable information. As a consequence, we face the danger that demagogues, who can sway millions with primarily emotional messaging, become more popular and more powerful.
My idealistic alternative (or, rather, fantasy) is that we would develop a pay-as-you-go model for gathering and delivering news, completely separate from advertising, where news consumers would judge providers on the quality and value of their product and pay accordingly. This would include a clear delineation between factually accurate information and pieces that offer opinions or try to persuade. Consumers would look for entertainment in separate spaces. I know this is a pipe dream. My plan would depend on extensive changes to our educational, political, and commercial institutions, which will never happen, so you may call me a dreamer – maybe I’m not the only one.
After working for several Fortune 500 Companies, Rich started a software development company in 1984 that, among other things, paid the Radio City Rockettes, managed every concert at Madison Square Garden, priced books for Macmillan publishing, and allowed newly elected Senators to communicate with constituents. Rich is an actor, producer and director of numerous community theater productions, has played music for many years and even had a single produced by a member of Sly and the Family Stone. Most of his other time is spent reading, discussing politics, and following his grandson’s tennis career.
Rich found a home with OLLI in 2014, and has taught classes since 2017. Five years ago, during the pandemic, he initiated the OLLI Saturday Social, a weekly gathering space that offers OLLI members an opportunity to share fellowship and discuss politics and other current events via Zoom. Rich looks forward to sharing more classes on presidential history, politics and related current event topics with the OLLI community.
Leave a Reply