Myths of the Golden Era -- Exploded!

[V.C. Brunswick]

My problem with the Media is not as much that they are biased -- that's a given -- but that they go through the pretense of being objective.

 

[LizzieMaine]

And modern-day alternative media is even worse than the mainstream if such a thing is possible. If every news blog were to be silenced tomorrow the global IQ would jump thirty points. Intelligent people can't afford to go into journalism anymore because the online bottom-scrapers have made it next to impossible to earn a decent living at it. Whenever a kid tells me they'd like to major in journalism, I tell them I'll have a popcorn-selling job waiting for them when they graduate.

 

[Edward]

And of course, now we've gone from the idea of a standard of journalistic truth to the belief that some truths are truthier than other truths. This was true *before* the Golden Era of journalism and is true again. The days of Edward R. Murrow and his disciples was nothing but the brief surfacing of an island in a sea of sewage.

Certainly, there are plenty of press interests which will manufacture the news that suits their editorial agenda - as you say, this is nothing new.

What I think is especially sad about the way Vietnam veterans were treated when they came back was that many of them were drafted. They didn't want to go, and may not have agreed any more with the war than those spitting on them.

Quite. The old adage of "fight the real enemy" springs to mind. The king, not the pawn.

I know of a significant number of Vietnam-era veterans that enlisted because it was likely that they would be drafted, and at least wanted some say in the branch of the military they were in. My father-in-law and my uncle both are among that group. My father-in-law was a submariner, and my uncle was in the Marine Corps.

Certainly true. Jimi Hendrix was another who did this, though if memory serves he was honourably discharged with a back injury before he ended up in Vietnam.

When I was considering joining the Army in 1991, my uncle was the most vocal in opposition to me serving in the military. My father, who was medically disqualified from service, was second in his dissent. I had a very Hollywood idea of what military service was like, and sincerely believed that I would not see combat duty. Had I done what I had hoped at the time, 101st Airborne combat medic, odds are good that I would have been in Mogadishu, Somalia. While in college, I had a friend that had been medically discharged from the 82nd Airborne and he frequently discouraged my volunteering to join the military, but encouraged me to stay in shape and be prepared to enlist were a draft imposed.

Indeed, it seems to me to be an almost universal truth that those with romantic ideals about the military and patriotism more often than not have never been exposed to the reality of it all.

My problem with the Media is not as much that they are biased -- that's a given -- but that they go through the pretense of being objective.

I'm very grateful for our laws on that score over here. The broadcast media are obligated by law to be objective, and while there are some glaring exceptions (currently, coverage of the looming royal jamboree), for the most part they actually do this very well. The print press is, of course, free to editorialise - and I have no quarrel with that. Broadcast media are, however, much more pervasive, in a medium which is a scarce resource (moreso in the past) and which it is extremely expensive to enter. Of course, this also hinges on differing interpretations of free expression, Article 10 as opposed to the First Amendment, arising from very different cultural experiences, especially of the mid Twentieth century. But that's a long story.

And modern-day alternative media is even worse than the mainstream if such a thing is possible. If every news blog were to be silenced tomorrow the global IQ would jump thirty points. Intelligent people can't afford to go into journalism anymore because the online bottom-scrapers have made it next to impossible to earn a decent living at it. Whenever a kid tells me they'd like to major in journalism, I tell them I'll have a popcorn-selling job waiting for them when they graduate.

The internet "challenge" to "the man" has, as ever, been rather over-exaggerated in the popular discourse, IMO. What the traditional media can offer is a trusted band, or at least a known quantity. I might not agree with, say, Fox News or the Daily Mail, or CNN or the Guardian, but they are a known quantity - I know which filter they have applied, and how to read them. Independent bloggers, not so much. An identifiable, professional journalist can be held to account by union, by employer, by regulator, by law. An anonymous blogger...... nah. While certainly the culture of "content for free" that has predominated in the digital environment presents a threat to traditional journalism, I do believe that eventually the tide will turn towards known and trusted brands again. That and new funding models will arise. I don't share the editorial line of the Evening Standard, but it is a good read for the most part, a decent newspaper. That has done well since it went to being a freesheet funded by advertising revenue. The Murdoch press, whatever their other woes, seem to be making a reasonable fist of charging subscription for their online content. On this score, I do believe Murdoch himself was right when he said that the web will not kill journalism, but journalism will have to evolve if it is to succeed in this new world. Fascinating cultural shifts, certainly from the perspective of regulating the same, which is my area of professional interest.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Getting back on topic...

MYTH: During the Era, contraceptives were illegal in the United States.

The Facts: In 1965 the Supreme Court in the case of Griswold vs. Connecticut overturned a state law prohibiting the sale of contraceptive devices, thus ensuring the legality of such devices thruout the US. But Connecticut was actually one of only a few states to have such a law, and that law was rarely enforced. The only Federal law referring to contraception was the Comstock Act of 1874, prohibiting the distribution of "obscene matter" thru the mails, which included birth-control information -- however, by the 1930s that aspect of the law was widely ignored, and finally dealt a death blow by a Supreme Court ruling in 1936. Most individual states *did* restrict the sale and distribution of birth control devices, making them available only thru registered pharmacists -- and until 1936 it was illegal to mail birth control devices across state lines. But that year, a test case before the Supreme Court ("The United States vs. One Package Of Japanese Pessaries") threw out that law, and birth control devices and information have passed freely across state lines ever since.

THere were also loopholes. Under most state laws, devices normally used for contraceptive purposes -- condoms and diaphragms specifically -- could be sold "for prevention of disease." So even in those states where contraceptives were supposedly illegal, they could easily be obtained -- over the counter in the case of condoms, and with a doctor's prescription in the case of diaphragms.

Spermicidal jellies were sold in every drugstore in the Era, described as "antiseptics for feminine hygeine," but women knew exactly what they were and could obtain them freely, with no need for any prescription. Such products were in such common use that they were openly sold in the Sears catalog thruout the Era. The two most popular brands of contraceptive jelly in the Era, Koromex and Ortho-Gynol, are still around today.

Myth exploded.

 

[Atticus Finch]

Well...I served in the US Army 1970-72. I was spit on..berated..called 'Baby Killer'...yelled at...and more..as were many of my brothers who were serving or had recently served. All from protestors and hippies around my same age and younger. Older folks would shake my hand..congratulate me...buy me a beer....move me up in line...and thank me for my service and risking my life. This IS first hand 'my say'...and was definately 'the norm'.
HD

Van, in 1970 through 1972, while you were serving in the Army, I was a hippie. I didn’t dodge the draft, but I openly opposed the war. I never spit on any person, and I never berated anyone who served in Vietnam. And I never personally saw anyone else do that sort of thing.

But I know it happened. I know because I know people who experienced it and, I’m sad to say, I know people who did it. I don't know that it happened everywhere all the time...so as to be a norm...but I know it happened, and it happened with way too much frequency.

So...as a former hippie...and as a person who opposed the war...and hopefully without too much drama…please let me offer my sincere apology to you and any other person who served our country during that turbulent time. The crap you’ve described in your post was simply wrong and it should have never happened...to you or to anyone else.

Geoff

 

[Atticus Finch]

deleted double post.

 

[1961MJS]

I stopped watching the news almost 15 years ago. I have since realised that it is about as unbiased and real as Keeping Up With the Kardashians. Journalism at its best is more about entertainment than having an informed citisenry.

Hi, I picked this post to reply to since it was shorter than Edward's. Look up "Yellow Press" or "Yellow Journalism" to find out what real biased news reporting is. Hearst versus Pulitzer, they competed by creating more and more hype about nothing. Basically, this is how we ended up in the Spanish American war.

Later

 

[KayEn78]

I once read that in the 1930s and 1940s, if a young woman got married, she was then allowed to go to the doctor and get a "novice-size" diaphragm. After that, she could be fitted for a "regular" one. Not sure how true this is, but it was fascinating to read!

I've only ran into a small handful of blogs that are actually worth reading from time to time. Most of the blogs that I've seen are just people typing garbage to see how far they could go, or ranting and raving over the stupidest, most mundane things. Do we really need to know that Barnes and Noble screwed up your order again? Do we really need to know how many migraines you've had or how sick you feel? I think not.

-Kristi

 

[LizzieMaine]

I once read that in the 1930s and 1940s, if a young woman got married, she was then allowed to go to the doctor and get a "novice-size" diaphragm. After that, she could be fitted for a "regular" one. Not sure how true this is, but it was fascinating to read!

Most "family practice" doctors would so far as the public was concerned only prescribe diaphragms to married women, but there were places you could go and people you could see who didn't observe such a restriction. The first Planned Parenthood clinic was opened in 1942, and there were "birth control" clinics in operation in some states as far back as 1916. So if you couldn't get what you needed to suit your circumstances the first place you tried, it wasn't hard to find alternatives.

 

[Flicka]

I've only ran into a small handful of blogs that are actually worth reading from time to time. Most of the blogs that I've seen are just people typing garbage to see how far they could go, or ranting and raving over the stupidest, most mundane things. Do we really need to know that Barnes and Noble screwed up your order again? Do we really need to know how many migraines you've had or how sick you feel? I think not.

-Kristi

Whenever people say things like that I'm always curious what they talk about with their family and friends. My experience is that very few conversations are all that world-changing. I mean, sure me and my friends or sisters sometimes talk about the meaning of life or exchange important info but mostly we talk about books we read, sympathise over the number of migraines one of us had or how sick one of us may feel. I don't know if that means my conversations are infinitely more light-weight than others, but honestly, I don't think so. If I look at the vast number of letters I've read - mostly 18th century ones I admit - they tend to be about such things too. The first Duke of Marlborough complaining of his migraines, John Wilkes making slippery jokes or Horace Walpole being dismayed over some work done on Strawberry Hill... They sound a lot like me and my friends, actually.

I think the thing is more that for some reason electronic communication, such as blogs or twitter, is held to a different standard than other forms of communication such as face to face conversation, letter-writing or phone calls. I really, genuinely don't understand why that should be.

 

[KayEn78]

Writing a letter to someone or even an e-mail telling them you don't feel well is one thing. But when you constantly post about your ailments on a blog that thousands of people can see. Or you post your ultra liberal/conservative views on things, or say how you hate religion, then you wonder--why are people writing about this to thousands of people. It's different when you're writing to one person, not the entire Internet population.

-Kristi

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

I've only ran into a small handful of blogs that are actually worth reading from time to time. Most of the blogs that I've seen are just people typing garbage to see how far they could go, or ranting and raving over the stupidest, most mundane things. Do we really need to know that Barnes and Noble screwed up your order again? Do we really need to know how many migraines you've had or how sick you feel? I think not.

-Kristi

In short, fifteen-year-olds are only interested in what other fifteen-year-olds are saying.

 

[scottyrocks]

That's fer sure.

 

[Edward]

In short, fifteen-year-olds are only interested in what other fifteen-year-olds are saying.

Other fifteen year olds?

Here's one I think might be a myth: Chamberlain was an appeaser. Seems to me that he might have been unfairly treated, and that rather than appeasing Hitler, he actually bought Britain some very necessary time as they weren't ready for war in 1938... Does this stack up (I don't hold myself out as an expert on the war itself or the military of the period specifically.

 

[Angus Forbes]

Other fifteen year olds?

Here's one I think might be a myth: Chamberlain was an appeaser. Seems to me that he might have been unfairly treated, and that rather than appeasing Hitler, he actually bought Britain some very necessary time as they weren't ready for war in 1938... Does this stack up (I don't hold myself out as an expert on the war itself or the military of the period specifically.

I am not an expert either, by any means, but I love the movie "Remains of the Day." Therein, Chamberlain (I think), Lord Halifax, von Ribentrop (sp?), and other dignitaries visit Lord Darlington at his home one night to discuss peace. Von Ribentrop privately tells his aides to make note of Lord Darlington's artwork for appropriation after the war.

 

[KayEn78]

Unfotunately, not all of them are fifteen year olds. Disturbingly enough, I've seen blogs by people who were in their late '30s and early '40s. Yep, we really want to read raunchy dialogue that you put in, spoken by characters from TV shows that went off the air over 40 years ago. Or we really wanted to hear that fart joke for the upteenth time.

-Kristi

 

[KayEn78]

Here's something that could be considered a myth. Many housewives took "mothers little helpers" because they were dissatisfied with their role of cleaning, cooking, and taking care of the children.

-Kristi

 

[dhermann1]

Regarding the Chamberlain business. Yes, he did buy Britain a little time to build up its military, but Germany was still building up faster during the same period.
The basis of the appeasers' thinking was that Germany had been badly mistreated after the first war, which it had, and that therefore some consideration should be given to her, in compensation.
Chamberlain's mistake was ever thinking that Hitler would keep a single promise. But beyond that, he cut his foreign minister, Anthony Eden, out of the whole diplomatic process altogether, leading Eden ultimately to resign his position.
One can feel pity for Chamberlain, one can appreciate his many accomplishments in the domestic area before the rise of Nazism, but he really can't be let off the hook for his utter folly in allowing Hitler to bamboozle him as much as he did. And you really can't argue that "buying time" was Chamberlain's true objective all along. He totally believed he had achieved "peace in our time". Ha.
Anyway, that's my take on the issue.

Ah! Here's a major myth: The Hindenburg was destroyed by the hydrogen blowing up. In actual fact, it was the incorrectly formulated dope (i.e. paint) on the surface of the ship that caused the conflagration. There was an excellent documantary on the subject a few years ago that proved it beyond any doubt. And they made a convincing case that the Graf Zeppelin Company knew it was the cause from day one, but kept it hush hush to avoid liability.

 

[KayEn78]

Wow, that's sure fascinating about the truth of how the Hindenburg blew up. I never know that and just thought it was the caused by the hydrogen inside.

-Kristi

 

[LizzieMaine]

The most bizarre speculation on the fate of the Hindenburg I've ever heard claimed that the zeppelin was done in by a high-powered rifle shot fired from the brush around the Lakehurst naval base by an operative of a secret US spy cabal headed by Boston Red Sox catcher Moe Berg, in an effort to provoke a Nazi attack on the US -- the only thing, at the time, that could have turned public sentiment toward strong support for a war with Hitler. Berg supposedly told this story to a close friend -- one Tim McAuliffe, a Boston sporting-goods salesman who fitted the ball club with its uniforms -- and McAuliffe never told a soul until the 1970's after, he claimed, receiving a warning from Secret Service agents to keep his mouth shut. The story started making the rounds of pre-internet conspiracy buffs and attracted some attention when the truth of Berg's actual involvement with spy activities during and before World War II came to light. Berg had been in the New York area the week before the disaster, with the Sox playing the Yankees at Yankee Stadium, but on the actual date of the explosion, the team had moved on to St Louis to open a series with the Browns. Berg did not play on May 6th, however, and there's no way to confirm if he was actually in St. Louis with the club on that date, or if he might have remained behind in New York for reasons of his own.

Of course, if Berg's aim was anything like his batting average, they'd never have let him actually shoot the gun.