In the face of record newspaper endorsements for Barack Obama, many citing Sarah Palin as the deciding factor – including such conservative strongholds as the Houston Chronicle, and the Chicago Tribune – what is a conservative media outlet to do? Easy. Attempt to de-legitimize newspaper endorsements entirely: “Should Newspapers Endorse Candidates?” Interesting question, Fox News; almost as interesting as the timing.
Advertisement
Mr. Ames: I am the author of “Should Newspapers Endorse Candidates,” so I thought I might add a comment to your questions about timing.
My thoughts about this matter began several years ago in an email exchange with Gregory Mitchell of Editor and Publisher, a leading journal covering media matters. (I occasionally serve as a war correspondent for liberal talk radio outlet based in Washington.) As a scholar of 19th century American history, my interest in how journalism then functioned, as well as its role in exacerbating regional tensions, has been intense. More recent scholarship has pushed me further in the direction of raising these questions, especially how, when, and why American journalism transformed itself from a relatively low status profession into one that today rates its own rather elaborate “Newseum” in Washington. Inevitably, I was drawn to the origin and purpose of staff editorials. (These must be distinguished from Op Ed pages in which columnists do not speak on behalf of the publisher/managers of the entity.)
I contend that in the late 19th century and into the first decades of last century, journalism transformed itself into an increasingly high-status profession with commensurate financial and prestige rewards.
At the moment, it seems that this model is under attack. It is trite but true to observe that the internet and cable television has altered the economic landscape. Moreover, probably fed by these trends, journalism appears to be evolving again–perhaps returning to its 19th century origins as an intensely partisan enterprise. At the end of the day, I believe that American journalism will increasingly ape the British model, where newspapers are understood to be Tory, Labor, or Liberal.
How extreme this development perhaps can only be known by those of a certain age. In the not too distant past, newspapers were themselves rarely the story–that has changed now. In that time, there were once entities known as “newspapers of record”–journals whose credibility was so high that few would question their product and most would turn to them for “the story.” That has also now fractured. My interest (among others) is in understanding the role of editorials and columnists in this process.
For the record, Fox Forum only recently (the last three weeks) asked me to write for them. Although many of my entries are reactive to current events, they are informed by ideas that are much older, subjects I have been considering for some years. There will be more of these to come. Again for the record, I am indifferent as to whether a newspaper endorses McCain, Obama or anyone else. It has long been observed that newspaper editorials typically move few votes.
In any case, I thank you for your comment, and adding to the “better angels” of our discourse.
Posted by Richard F. Miller | October 19, 2008, 3:47 pmMr. Miller, thanks so much for replying! I’m sorry if I misunderstood your article. Arguably, my suspicion of the Fox News label subsumed my evaluation of the merits of the article :). I studied history in college, and, prior to law school, planned on being a historian, so I have a deep & abiding respect for historians, especially those who bring their knowledge to modern politics.
So, stripped of my partisan assumptions, your conclusion is interesting indeed. I do think you’re correct about the trend in the significance of newspapers over the ages; the media, in general, has fallen from its position as an unbiased reporter in the Murrow years, to perhaps fit better with the British model. That’s not necessarily bad, I don’t think… so long as, as Murrow would suggest, we say what we mean, and mean what we say. If American newspapers are to transition into partisan organs, they should wear their affiliations publicly, like their British counterparts, rather than hiding behind misleading slogans about balance & accuracy. Call it truth-in-advertising, or a meaningful degree of caveat emptor.
A good deal of this country’s problems could probably be solved by an honest attempt to grapple with the problem of bias and partisanship. We Americans tend to avoid & disclaim both; our counterparts across the Pond seem to delight in it. Look at Prime Minister’s Questions. Unfortunately, America seems to stuck in the middle, at a compromise between the partisan-but-respectful model and the bipartisan-and-respectful model that tends to take the worst of both while omitting the best.
No doubt it is interesting… I’ll be looking forward to your future columns!
Posted by Ames | October 19, 2008, 5:09 pmMr. Ames: Thanks for your response. To begin to number a few of the brass tacks here, my concern grew out of a book review I was asked to do for Blue & Gray, a well-known magazine of the American Civil War. The book was a reprint of Donald E. Reynolds’ 1970 classic, “Editors Make War: Southern Newspapers in the Secession Crisis,” and essentially tracked the contours of pro- and anti-Secession feeling throughout the South during the 24 months preceding the firing on Fort Sumter. The book is for specialists, but like most well-done specialist tracts, raised larger questions about the role of newspapers and the publics they serve.
Clearly, neither of us expects that the current partisan impasse is likely to lead to another “Fort Sumter.” But as a student of rhetoric (latest tome), I’ve been increasingly interested in how speech drives action, especially in forming ideas of the “Other.” “Others” abound in civilized life, of course, and normally, the “Other”–neighbor, boss, co-worker–is really a benign sort. But occasionally, “Others” begin to assume very dramatic and threatening shapes. (It is worth noting that while the perpetuation of slavery was the root cause of the Civil War, what actually drove the violence were ideas that whites held about each other, and strange ones they were: the stereotypes of Southerner and Northerner held by their opposite number seem almost bizarre in the retelling but were in fact common currency in 1861. Reynolds fingers the newspapers as culprits here.)
At the moment, “otherization” is running quite high on all points of the spectrum; much is media driven (the source of so much of our adult ideation about others); straw men by the dozens are now in the saddle. As a historian, I know that the consequences of “otherization” can turn for good or for ill–some wars are worth waging, and some domestic political opponents are worth opposing. But occasionally, the process can spin out of control.
I don’t believe we’ve arrived at a tipping point; nor do I “blame” the media–news only retails pre-existing ideas; but the media is able to do so widely, and the tone of conversation has changed markedly, and news and editorializing has become far more ad hominum than at any other time since the 1930s.
This trend might well go nowhere–the Great Depression and the societal tensions generated therefrom led to change but, some labor violence aside, not widespread social disorder. Nevertheless, while American media may be moving towards a British model of outright party identification, the nature of that identification is what troubles me, because what is being constructed are not only ideological ideas but notions of “the other’s” race, ethnicity, religion, social class, and gender. Some honest thinking suggests that these “others” exist on all sides of the many divides.
You must remember this, at least from a historian’s standpoint: if the perceived differences are ideological, argument can change minds and persuade; but if the “other” is so by factors that transcend ideology–she is what she is because she is black, evangelical, atheist white, Latino, Jewish, working class, redneck, a wine-sipping elite, or some other category–these “others” are usually thought of as less susceptible to argument and more so to force. And when enough people believe it, we’ve reached the tipping point.
Posted by Richard F. Miller | October 20, 2008, 10:31 amHonestly, that was thoughtful exchange by two intelligent people interested in exploring the potentially contentious topic at hand.
Why can’t I see that on Fox News? CNN? MSNBC?
Why do I have to watch arguing partisans?
Posted by JD | October 20, 2008, 4:11 pm