Was there a "Fox News" back in the day?

[PrettySquareGal]

I've noticed if someone mentions Fox News as a source of information in an online chat, that person is quickly pounced upon and the information dismissed without question. I'm now seeing people assuming that if they disagree with someone, that that person is getting their data from Fox News, even if it was never mentioned and dismiss/accuse them out of hand. It's quite crazy behavior and sad because there's a loss of independence of thought and unneeded hostility that shuts down open dialog. Also, I like to check many sources of news on all sides.

Was there a divisive media outlet like this back in the day, even if unintended? Did people make assumptions about others based upon the paper they read??

 

[LizzieMaine]

The Chicago Tribune. Col. Robert McCormick was perhaps the most fanatical of the anti-New Deal publishers in the thirties, and was borderline seditious during the war. If Mr. Roosevelt declared in a speech that the world was round, the Colonel would almost certainly editorialize the next day that it was quite flat.

The Hearst papers -- all of them, but especially the New York Journal-American and the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner. Agitation by the latter paper was, perhaps more than any other factor, responsible for the relocation of Japanese-Americans away from the West Coast during the war.

On the radio, George Sokolsky and Fulton Lewis Jr. The former was a paid shill for the National Association of Manufacturers, and the latter had close ties to the McCormick interests. The N. A. M. was very active in radio during the thirties and early forties -- in addition to Sokolsky's commentaries, they produced and syndicatied their own highly-politicized soap opera, "American Family Robinson," in which the New Deal was caricatured as a W. C. Fields-like con man called "Windy Bill."

All of this was extremely intentional. There was no pretense of any sort of "fair and balanced coverage." Newspapers were partisan, and that was only what was to be expected. Radio commentators were supposed to give their opinions/interpretations of the news, and you had everything from Sokolsky and Lewis on the right to Raymond Swing and Walter Winchell on the left. (Winchell moved hard to the right in the fifties, but so did most of the country.)

Not so much in small-town America, but in the big cities you could make a very accurate guess about the social class, the political and cultural views, and the general mindset of just about anyone simply by looking at the newspaper on their doorstep. In New York, moderate Republicans read the Herald-Tribune, conservative Republicans read the Evening Sun, hard-right-wing Republicans read the Journal-American and the Mirror, moderate Democrats read the Times, liberal Democrats read the World-Telegram and the Evening Post, left-wing Democrats read PM, and Communists read the Daily Worker. There was only one New York paper that consistently crossed all political and social boundaries, and that was the Daily News. Although, if an upper-middle-class person was caught reading it, he'd look flustered and claim he'd just found it on the subway or something.

 

[vintage68]

Wow! You're a fount of information Lizzie!

 

[LizzieMaine]

Well, I *have* done just a bit of research into media history, and the political biases of 1930s-40s media are a particular area of interest.

I should emphasize, along with what I wrote above, that radio was required -- by Federal law -- to provide equal time to all responsible groups for the discussion of controversial issues. There were individual commentators all along the spectrum, although most of them were fairly moderate -- but no network or station was allowed to take a definitive public stance in favor of one point of view or another. Even the Mutual network -- which was dominated by the McCormick interests, and had more right-wing-oriented commentators than NBC or CBS -- was required to present diverse opinions, which was made evident when, much to McCormick's disgust, a sponsor placed Elliot Roosevelt's commentary program on the Mutual net.

This meant that if a station or a network sold time to *any* political party, or invited any member of any political party to deliver a talk over its facilities, it was required -- by law -- that they offer equivalent time to all other parties. This didn't just mean Democrats and Republicans -- this meant *any* legally-recognized political party. You could hear Earl Browder, chairman of the American Communist Party, or Farrell Dobbs of the Socialist Workers' Party, or any number of other third-party candidates on NBC or CBS under the same conditions as you heard a Democrat or a Republican.

 

[Atticus Finch]

I certainly don't have the depth of knowledge about this subject that Lizzie has, but I've always been of the notion that mainstream news has historically been more politically bias than today...not less. The difference between then in now is the number of news sources.

Back in the last century, there were thousands of newspaper and magazines in America...and later, hundreds of radio stations. Those news sources were probably all philosophically slanted to some degree, but they were slanted in many different directions. By getting his news from several sources, a person could begin to get a balanced picture of what was actually happening in the world. Now, there are fewer news sources...yes, there's plenty of news commentary...but there are fewer primary sources. Thus, the opinions and philosophy of any one news mogul is felt in a much higher percentage of the news than ever before.

AF

 

[LizzieMaine]

As far as the broadcast media is concerned, the modern era only dates back to 1987, when the Fairness Doctrine was repealed. Stations were no longer required to offer equal time for the discussion of controversial issues, which led to the rise of the overtly-slanted talk-radio and TV panel shows. Couple this with the deregulation of radio station ownership in the 1990s, which led to an enormous consolidation of stations into corporate blocs, and you end up with a perfect recipe for one-sided media.

Cable TV, not being considered a broadcast medium by the law, was never subject to the Fairness Doctrine, so there was never any tradition of ensuring all sides have representation in controversies. Anyone who believes *any* cable TV outlet to be "fair and balanced" likely also believes in garden fairies, Santa Claus, and the World Champion Chicago Cubs.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

While political bias in the media is clearly nothing new, the thing about the Mainstream Media today that I find irksome is that they operate under a pretense of objectivity because when called on a particular instance of partisanship they vociferously deny it.

 

[31 Model A]

Love this thread and wealth of information provided by Lizzie. Thanks..............

I can't help to comment though, many of what Lizzie described....hasn't changed. If anything, it has become worse....IMO. But I wasn't around in the 30s and most of the 40s so what do I know.

 

[Haversack]

Atticus Finch wrote: "By getting his news from several sources, a person could begin to get a balanced picture of what was actually happening in the world."

I remember my grandfather, the rancher, telling me once that during the Second World War he would listen to both Allied and Axis radio broadcasts and average the announced casualty figures for a particular action to get what he felt was a more accurate picture.

Back in the '80s when I first began to be stationed overseas, I similarly listened to shortwave radio news broadcasts to supplement news from the Armed Forces Network and the Stars and Stripes. Although the World Service of the BBC became my primary news source, I would regularly tune in to several other countries' broadcasts to listen to other perspectives. I was amused to note that Radio Moscow had two separate English language stations. One was in American English and the other was in British English. The reporting on a particular story by these two would be more often than not be different. Radio Tirana out of Albania had an extremely strong signal and was in its way unbiased. It was anti-US, anti-USSR, anti-Chinese, anti-Yugoslavia, Anti-Italy, anti-Greece, etc.

 

[Atticus Finch]

This may be a silly question, but I ask it honestly. Are there Fox News reporters? What I'm asking is, does Fox News actually send reporters to far-flung areas of the world to gather news? If so, who are they? I don't watch Fox News very often and when I do , it seems to be mainly news commentary.

AF

 

[LizzieMaine]

While political bias in the media is clearly nothing new, the thing about the Mainstream Media today that I find irksome is that they operate under a pretense of objectivity because when called on a particular instance of partisanship they vociferously deny it.

As far as modern media is concerned, it's like I said -- anybody who believes any modern media is "fair and balanced" is either willfully ignorant or thoroughly deluded. There is no longer any legal obligation for the broadcast media to maintain any kind of neutrality, and a great deal of commercial pressure for them *not* to do so -- those talk shows are cheap to produce and distribute, and when nationally syndicated cost the local stations far less than any equivalent local programming, allowing maximum profits from commercial sales. And print media, as we've said, has never been neutral.

It's interesting to go back thru the print media of the thirties -- practically all of it was ardently opposed to the re-election of FDR in 1936. Right down the line, from the Luce magazines to the Hearst papers right down to the Mudville Picayune-Gazette, they all did everything they could to sink the socialist-fascist-communist-New Deal. And yet, FDR won reelection in the greatest landslide ever seen up to that time, suggesting that the publishers lived in a sealed-off world entirely alien to the people who actually bought their papers.

Ordinary people in the Era had no illusions about the press -- and most of them couldn't have cared less about the editorial pages anyway. They bought the Daily News for Dick Tracy, Little Orphan Annie, and the baseball scores, and they bought the Mirror for Joe Palooka and Walter Winchell. If they looked at the editorial pages at all, it was to make sure they were the right size to wrap up the fish guts and coffee grounds from last night's supper.

 

[Atticus Finch]

...If they looked at the editorial pages at all, it was to make sure they were the right size to wrap up the fish guts and coffee grounds from last night's supper.

To this day our local newspaper, The Carteret County News Times, is commonly referred to as "The Mullet Wrapper".

AF

 

[31 Model A]

This may be a silly question, but I ask it honestly. Are there Fox News reporters? What I'm asking is, does Fox News actually send reporters to far

Very much so....both around the world and local. Both Ch2 and 11 out of St Louis are Fox News Channels and all reports by reporters are sent to National Fox News agencies.

I think what you're referring to is the commentary hosts that have programs on Fox News, same at CNN and others.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I suspect the fustiest, mustiest, absolutely least-read editorial pages in the country during the Era were those of the Saturday Evening Post. Everybody loved the Post's fiction and its articles and "Post Scripts" and the cartoons -- but I don't think anybody of any persuasion or social class ever devoted more than thirty seconds to its editorial page, which thruout the tenures of George Horace Lorimer and Ben Hibbs seemed devoted to the idea that the entire nation went straight to hell the day William McKinley was shot. Most of the editorials read as though they were composed by a board made up of Daddy Warbucks, the Monopoly Man, and every movie character ever played by Edward Arnold.

Contrast this with the Post's sister magazine, The Ladies' Home Journal, which under the joint editorship of Bruce and Beatrice Gould had an outspokenly progressive editorial policy, and even featured Eleanor Roosevelt herself as a regular columnist. I imagine the Curtis Publishing Company's offices must've been quite an interesting place to work.

 

[Atticus Finch]

I know that the Fox affiliates send news to the Fox News Network...but does Fox News have national reporters in the way that CBS has Wyatt Andrews, Rita Braver, Jim Axelrod, etc. and ABC has Dan Abrams, Ann Compton, Ron Claiborne, etc. ?

AF

 

[31 Model A]

I know that the Fox affiliates send news to the Fox News Network...but does Fox News have national reporters in the way that CBS has Wyatt Andrews, Rita Braver, Jim Axelrod, etc. and ABC has Dan Abrams, Ann Compton, Ron Claiborne, etc. ?

AF

John Roberts, Catherine Herridge to name a couple. They have many reporters overseas. Like the other national news channels, NBC, CBS, they have their affiliate reporters reporting just like the Local News Channels have national news reporters reporting on local channels.

 

[LizzieMaine]

From what I understand they're mostly "stringer" based -- they get field reports from affiliate reporters, or reporters connected with other agencies, and pay them by the story. There's nothing inherently wrong with that model -- that's basically how the Associated Press works, and I was an AP stringer for this area for quite a while. But a lot depends on the quality of the individual stringer who's doing the stringing -- are they just digesting press releases, or are they out on the street doing actual coverage?

 

[Atticus Finch]

From what I understand they're mostly "stringer" based -- they get field reports from affiliate reporters, or reporters connected with other agencies, and pay them by the story. There's nothing inherently wrong with that model -- that's basically how the Associated Press works, and I was an AP stringer for this area for quite a while. But a lot depends on the quality of the individual stringer who's doing the stringing -- are they just digesting press releases, or are they out on the street doing actual coverage?

This is what I was thinking. Again, I don't watch the National Fox News very often although I frequently watch our local Fox affiliate. I just couldn't think of any national Fox reporters who weren't primarily commentators.

AF

 

[Harp]

Anyone who believes *any* cable TV outlet to be "fair and balanced" likely also believes in garden fairies, Santa Claus, and the World Champion Chicago Cubs.

Chicago Cubs 1907; 1908 World Series

 

[LizzieMaine]

I knew you'd notice that!