Hacker News Reader

Comment by shadowprofile77 | Hacker News Reader

> Over the last three decades, news organizations have traded in their neutrality and integrity for political and "narrative" influence.

Have you ever actually read examples of newspapers and news reporting from the earlier parts of the 20th century? The dishonest, mendacious bias in favor of any media source's ideological preference was extreme to a degree that even today isn't readily visible. Certain media empires were absolutely ruled by their owners and even major papers like the New York Times were often loaded in slant towards certain ideological narratives. Just to name one example: Read about Walter Duranty. Things were even more vicious in the 19th century.... I have no idea where this notion of once fair, objective news sources comes from but it's certainly not rooted in the practical reality (referring in all of this to U.S media and politics, regarding other countries things get more ambiguous and complciated probably).

View on HN

I think you and GP are talking about different time periods. Walter Cronkite is 50s to 70s, the postwar figurehead when there were like 3 TV channels. That's where the notion of a shared reality comes from. And I guess this was still pretty strong into the 90s, everyone watched gulf war I on CNN right?

Whereas Walter Duranty was a big deal in the 20s & 30s, in much more fragmented & volatile times. Although how much their fragmentation resembles ours I don't know. They had many far-out newspapers but still only a few radio shows, and perhaps a larger role for shared institutions like churches & public schools?

> That's where the notion of a shared reality comes from.

Sure, but that reality was a top-down creation. How much airtime did dissidents get? Socialists? Women? Marginalised people? And I don't mean reporting on them, but stories by them.

I'm not sure this is your position, but one extreme is to describe this "shared reality" as being imposed by force on everyone by one privileged group.

But I'd like to highlight other forces. One was technological, 3 TV channels or whatever was all they could do, and this implied that there was going to be a pretty high degree of conformity. You couldn't broadcast weird Italian movies because only a few percent were interested. The 4 big car companies who bought the ads which paid the bills really didn't want to be associated with anything partisan, they all needed to sell to everyone.

Another was historical / emotional. The nation had just emerged from this gigantic world war, and it was a spectacular victory, which gave enormous prestige to the huge centralized machines built to fight it. They built a lot of similar machines back home, big corporations with a commander-in-chief who wasn't a self-made robber barron, he was promoted up the ranks. Big unions, and big regulation.

This experience also squashed a lot of earlier differences. You say "Women? Marginalised people?" but this seems like a modern take, I think they would have said "Irish? Polish? Jewish?". These earlier identities and divisions were eroding in favor of this shared one, I mean, a Catholic could be elected president, that was a big deal.

But all of these are gone now. So perhaps 100 years ago is a better guide than 50 years ago.

Perhaps "creation" was too strong a word. So no, it wasn't so much being imposed as it was a natural (albeit unfortunate) consequence of technology, which you point out, and post-war sentiment, which you also point out! I agree with you, I'm just saying it wasn't a good thing. When there's so few voices, there's only so much they can say.

> These earlier identities and divisions were eroding in favor of this shared one

Shared by white people, for the most part.

I'm not sure what you mean in your penultimate paragraph. "identities and divisions eroding" is only partly true, surely. You could certainly argue the opposite is true - see the women's lib and civil rights movements for examples of people fighting back against conformity.

Note that I try not to say this consensus was either a good or a bad thing, only that it existed. It had pros & cons, and trying to weigh them up overall seems a bit of a distraction. I'm glad I don't live under it, although perhaps those who did were also glad not to live under earlier systems. But we don't get to choose when to be born, so we are not obliged to reach a yes/no vote.

Right, the experience of black people was pretty distinct, 20s-60s-now, and those are really interesting stories. And there's a fractal of smaller group stories, too. But I think the story arc from hyper-partisan 19th C news-politics to Walter Cronkite to Twitter can be understood (to a large degree) before zooming in that far. Although once you do, then indeed, the present tendency to focus on smaller groups' stories does look like part of the same Cronkite -> Twitter arc.

> But we don't get to choose when to be born, so we are not obliged to reach a yes/no vote.

I wish more people thought this way. We think we're so smart!

In off to bed, but thank you for the reply, I understand more what you meant now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com