BackStory

Just the Facts?: Partisanship and the Press


The current era of partisan news and name-calling is enough to make you wonder what happened to good old-fashioned objective reporting. But in this hour, BackStory asks: Where did the idea of media objectivity come from in the first place? Historian Marcus Daniel explains that the bitter rhetoric of editors in the 1790s played a key role in the birth of our democracy. Matthew Goodman tells the story of an elaborate hoax involving “lunar man-bats” in the early days of the penny press. And Michael Kinsley, founder of the online journal Slate, argues that opinion journalism can be more informative than so-called “objective” news.

Play

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Guests Include:

Show Highlights

  • Peter Porcupine — Marcus Daniel explains that the bitter rhetoric of editors in the 1790s played a key role in the birth of our democracy.
  • Jefferson & the Press — The History Guys discuss Thomas Jefferson’s sometimes contradictory ideas about a free press.
  • Lunar Manbats — Matthew Goodman tells the story of an elaborate hoax involving “lunar man-bats” in the early days of the penny press.
  • New Media & Objectivity — Michael Kinsley talks about why he’s not worried about objectivity in the new media landscape.

Web Exclusive

The Adorable Origins of Yellow Journalism
When did news become so… jaundiced? It’s hard to say. But we do know when it got yellow. Associate producer Rachel Quimby tells the story of the Yellow Kid– an improbable character who found himself at the center of the late nineteenth-century newspaper wars.

Further Reading

Want to dig deeper into the history of partisanship and the press? Check out this list of resources compiled by the History Guys to learn more.

eighthnoteCheck out the music in our “Partisanship and the Press” show.

13 Responses

  • As a current copy editor and former reporter on a daily paper, i can tell you that sometimes, striving for “objectivity” backfires. In the coverage of the “debate” over creationism vs. evolution, for example, you can do a huge disservice to readers by giving equal number of column-inches to crackpots just because they are on the “other side.” Likewise, in covering a war, do you resort to calling folks who set off suicide bombs near schools, shopping malls, restaurants “militants”? Many of our news media do. And I’m sure they do it because it sounds more “objective” than the more accurate “terrorists.”

    Quote
    Radionut
    1/28/2009 at 5:54 pm

  • Hi Tony, I have a question. It’s a lot easier to idealize “objectivity” when there’s only one newspaper, rather than many. When I was about 10 in Buffalo there was a huge outcry about the closing of the Buffalo Courier-Express, the thought being that without two major papers a city would lack proper press scrutiny. Nowadays, most local papers are shells that operate local news and sports departments and get almost everything else from wire reports and nationally syndicated columnists. My question is, has this contraction had the strange result of enshrining the importance of the New York Times, the “serious” paper? How far back does the Times’ reputation as the “paper of record” stretch? In, say, 1920, was the Times perceived as just another paper of many?

    Quote
    Asad Raza
    1/30/2009 at 8:15 am

  • In Dallas, Texas we have only one major newspaper. It editorializes its articles including the front page. It would appear that it prints whatever it takes to sell the newspaper, not even attempting to give balanced coverage which could allow the present reader to make informed decisions; and the future historian, gather an accurate picture. This newspaper’s front page articles seem intent on inflaming rather than informing. Yes, biased reporting can influence people more than objective reporting. This is called propaganda.

    It would be refreshing to have articles that show the tremendous good our troops are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the difference our being there can and will have on our nation and the world.

    My question is, what can we as citizens do to make the news media more responsible?

    Quote
    Kathy Smith
    4/2/2009 at 1:03 am

  • i wonder if the solution to newspapers’ coming end-times would be for them to reject the corporate model and re-structure as nonprofits. Without pressure to make a profit for shareholders, there would be a lot less agony every day for reporters over, “Is this my last day on the job?”

    Quote
    radionut
    4/2/2009 at 7:39 am

  • Anyone who has ever written a news story knows that true objectivity is very hard to achieve, not because the writer is particularly biased, but because the effort to write a concise and interesting report , tends to favor whoever gives you the most cogent quotes
    and influences where you begin and how you end the piece. You have only one opening and one closing sentence.

    Any reporter who writes frequently on controversial topics has experienced attacks from both sides of the dispute claiming bias that favored their opponent.

    Quote
    anne schott
    5/11/2009 at 3:35 pm

  • A professional historic observation went by quickly, but has been bothering me, “The ‘pyramid style’ of reporting came from frequnet telegraph outages, requiring that the ‘core story’ be contained in the first paragraph.

    I dispute this and ask you for genuine historic justification.

    1) Good presentation requires a “hook” at the immediate introduction – this is as true of journalism as with “Law and Order” on TV.

    2) ACTION ITEM: Pull up some posters and handbills produced before the telegraph and see if they also follow the “pyramid style.”

    Quote
    Tom Mason
    6/3/2009 at 1:02 pm

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

Leave a Reply