"Gattman" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

At the risk of going totally off-topic, at what point has the news media
had the respect of the American people?

Up until the 80's when alternative media came into being and the blatent
dishonesty, hypocrisy and slovenlyness became known.

Well, I have to disagree somewhat because public issues with the media go
back at least to the coverage of Vietnam.

Probably, and even further, but were the issues about Vietnam coverage known
THEN, or was it something that came later. The first real damning coverage
came IIRC, after Giap's book was published.

Can't remember how it faired during World War II, but previous to that
the respect factor would have more to do with the cluefullness (lack
thereof) of the public than the accuracy of the media (lack thereof.) My
point is that if you study the history of mass media in the United States
you won't find a period in which they were particularly respected except
by their own readers. Exceptions going back to the 19th century include
The Oregonian, The Chigaco Tribune and the New York Times, but they
weren't without sin either.

Funny you mention the Chicago Tribune, because (it they're the paper I'm
thinking of) they published confidential information during WWII.

I recall reading about some of the hysteria directed at Thomas Jefferson.


Recall Abraham Lincoln's marginally-constitutional imprisonment of several
critical publishers.

Yes, and John Adams "Sedition Act".


An America with short attention spans, poor memory, and a dearth of
critical thinking skills hasn't helped to keep them on their toes,
either.

Unfortunately, I can't disagree. I studied Journalism at OSU under an
two-time Pulizer prize winner who required all J students to have a
science minor because he was tired of hearing about bigfoot, killer bees,
Alar and other cyclical and nonsensical media phenomena. (My senior
thesis was to interpret scientific data on the dietary benefits of oat
fiber versus wheat bran, back when everybody was reporting that one or the
other prevented hear disease. Turns out there's not a signifcant
difference.)

Hell, see what they did with the "Nutrition Pyramid" even as little as a
couple years ago, or the "Eight glasses of water a day" tripe :~)

We live and will always live in a world where some amount of people
believe whatever they read.

"I only know what I read in the newspapers" -- Will Rogers.

or

(Insert strong scottish accent here) "Do ya dare to disbelieve it if it's in
PRINNNT" -- Jock Hutchison

The only variable is what they choose to read, whether it's USA Today,
the Wall Street Journal or Moron.org

Yes, the "single-sourcers", never cross-checking...

First, they said newspapers would open the world to us and make us smarter,
then they said TV would open the world to us and make us smarter.

Right, Dude!!!

I think the MSM hit the skids when they had to compete with TV for the short
American attention span. It then became the dog chasing its tail. It only
got worse when, like anyone in power, they started believing their own BS in
the manner that other elites believe their own PR pronouncements.

What we see now is desperation on a precarious stage.