It was not unusual that movies set in the early twentieth century featured rag tag boys/girls hawking newspapers on street corners. Yelling the catch phrase of the above title, they held newspapers that included headlines that advanced the movie’s plot. The film’s hero might be the subject of a manhunt, an heiress may be missing or an explosion happened at a protagonist’s mansion. Putting out an extra edition of a newspaper was one way to increase readership. It was the era’s “breaking news.” Much of the energy to outsell a competitor arose from the Pulitzer vs. Hearst news wars that raged during the late ninetheeth century.
Both newspaper giants engaged in “yellow journalism.” The name was derieved from a popular comic strip character of the time. The papers raided each other’s journalists and features. Sentiational stories, true or not, ginned up readers’ interests/passions. Pleas for conflict in the Spanish/American War was greatly influenced with headlines urging that the sunken ship Maine be remembered. (Watch the movie “Citizen Kane” that has references to such newspaper competition. Sorry, black and white….but film has a big Wisconsin connection.)
As Papa has said before, it was easier to identify a newspaper’s slant in the 1950’s. We had both a morning (lean Republican) and evening (lean Democrat) newspaper. Reading each gave the reader a broader perspective. However, just like today, some readers in the 1950’s only consumed from one news source and steadfastly adhered to one slant. However, to me objective news seemed to be present in each publication. Editorials contained most of a newspaper’s “slant.”
It’s so much easier to piegon hole today’s news sources. There’s not much “slant” in today’s digital world. There often is not much objective news; cheerleading seems to be more the standard. There is growing evidence that outright political partianship has occupied many American news rooms/sources. Killing stories or moving items out of sight via analogues exists. Worse, there is evidnce that the government, not indiviuals like Hearst/Pulitzer, has become involved in manipulating//suppresing first amendment rights. There are recent disclosures of the heavy thumb of federal agencies unduly pressuring Twitter/Facebook etc. To be sure big media is still in the business of yellow journalism for profit. Just like with Hearst/Pulitzer, doing so is their freedom as long as the government is not involved as a partner. That line apparently has been crossed. Continue to think long and hard aout “news” that is presented to you for consumption. Or, hidden.
For a really deep dive about the loss of objectivity in today’s media consider taking the time to read an exhaustive report from the Columbia Journalism Review. (Jeff Gerth) After not voting twice for President Trump, Papa still has a hard time understanding the visceral hatred of the man. (Demagogue? Smarmy? Belligerent? Hard to debate; but I’d wager one could name scores of past/current politicians who could be nominated as bad or worse. Another good movie on target…”All The King’s Men.” Black and white.) Some in today’s media actually promote setting aside objectivity if a report diminishes Trump. Somebody lost their bearing. After the charade of covering up/ignoring a sentational story for two years ( “Hunter’s laptop”) it will be interesting to see how many in the media can view their past reporting with a sense of introspection. I’m not holding my breath. Most did not have the curiosity to perk up even when given a red flag warning about Russia Gate. I suspect a one time journalistic hero doesn’t expect much looking in the mirror any more than Papa. (Also see movie “All The Presidnt;s Men.”) Your brain remains the best filter for what can be “garbage” masquerading as news/fact.