πŸ“‘ Why the β€œgolden age” of newspapers was the exception, not the rule

Bookmarked Why the β€œgolden age” of newspapers was the exception, not the rule by John Maxwell Hamilton (Nieman Lab)
"In our 'news' today we can see the tattler, the party pamphlet, the recondite journal of opinion, the yellow rag, the journal of commerce, the sob sister, the literary journal, and the progressive muckraker."
John Maxwell Hamilton and Heidi Tworek point out that the ‘golden years’ of newspapers between 1940 and 1980 was an anomaly in a longer, four-century history of news. In part this is a myth carried by a certain group in society:

The 1940s to 1980s were a golden age for newspaper owners to make money and journalists to make news. But they were only a golden age for a certain group of people. Many citizens β€” women and African-Americans, to take just two examples β€” often did not see themselves in news reporting and had few opportunities to shape it. It is no surprise that most of those writing the laments for times gone by are white men. Those men have long practiced such lamentations. Even in the 1980s, discussions at the American Society for Newspaper Editors were filled with a β€œpersistent nostalgia for a mythic golden age when news was better made and better respected by the public.”

Cory Doctorow touches upon the association between newspapers and advertising in a recent interview for …

3 responses on “πŸ“‘ Why the β€œgolden age” of newspapers was the exception, not the rule”

Mentions

  • Aaron Davis
  • Aaron Davis
  • Aaron Davis

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

To respond on your own website, enter the URL of your response which should contain a link to this post's permalink URL. Your response will then appear (possibly after moderation) on this page. Want to update or remove your response? Update or delete your post and re-enter your post's URL again. (Learn More)