The Laughing Wolf

Do They Want Us To Lose? (Yes) Part III

As discussed in Part I and Part II, technology lies at the heart of the dilemma that is the Old Media. It was technology that gave rise to the modern publisher/media mogul, and it was technology that has helped shape the ideological landscape of those within this power structure.

Once again, we must look back to the time of the Founding Fathers, and even before, to get a better view of the situation. Commercial broadsheets began primarily as shipping schedules, then began to carry more information as people requested it. As technology advanced and markets grew, carrying news of the month/week/day became the key, and the shipping schedules and other information became secondary.

It is worth noting that copyright truly became an issue around this time, because of the need to fill space. Publishers looked for poems, stories, and other items to fill holes (hence the term filler) so that no space was wasted. Poets and others, understandably, wanted to be paid for the use of their work, so copyright became an important issue.

Early on, publishers were also usually the writers of many stories. The demands on their time, however, were such that they gradually turned over writing duties to others. During the days of the American Revolution, however, the broadsheets made full use of writings by the Founding Fathers. Indeed, much of the ideological battle between the various members and camps were fought in pamphlets and the broadsheets. Publishers loved this because they rarely had to pay for such text, and because a pamphlet or broadsheet by a major figure was bound to sell quite well.

As others began to take on writing duties, a new class of writer emerged: the reporter. Early on, writers were a specialized breed and highly regarded. They wrote books and papers of scientific or other import, and often were part of the nobility or upper classes. Reporters were (and sometimes still are) people who aspired to higher literary callings, but had no patrons and needed some form of income whilst they worked on their “real” writings. With a few notable exceptions, most reporters in the 1800s were quite fanciful and would cheerfully fudge the facts if it made for better literature. They shamelessly pandered to the public, and sought to become popular so that they could get better pay and other publishing deals.

The fact is, most reporters then (and many today) were woefully underpaid. The byline and the “fame” of being a reporter were the largest coin of payment for many. This is a fact that can remain true to this day, and is one of the many pitfalls awaiting the novice writer. Then, as now, the reporters who most often get paid a decent salary usually work at one of the major dailies. Smaller papers, particularly weeklies, still tend to pay very low salaries. Well after I got started, around the time I was getting my Master’s degree, the average starting reporter at a weekly was making about $8,500.00 a year.

While newspapers did provide a way station on “real” writers on their way through, those that stayed in the field were often not of high social standing. They were not well regarded by the public, who would not let them in the front door, or by the publishers. Their treatment was often rough. The image of the hard-drinking, often low-living, reporter that was a staple into the 1950s was often not far off the mark. It was not unusual for reporters to take bribes (or what are now considered same) or otherwise be “bought” by various interests.

This began to change by the late 1800s/early 1900s as technology changed. New press technology allowed papers to be produced in mass quantities, with the result of higher readership, which translated directly to higher profits from both readership sales and advertising sales. Some of that profit did get put back into staff, and into better writing. Social change also became a mainstay of the times, and that translated into the press of the day. What really changed things, however, was when social change merged with the new technology of the press.

This came about with the meatpacking scandals. Suddenly, it was not just the publishers who held power, it was reporters. The meat scandal was in many ways the first of modern investigative reporting, and it set several trends. Reporters went undercover to expose hazards to the health and well-being of the public. Papers trumpeted the results to an astonished (and sickened) world, and things changed. Federal and State governments took action because voters demanded it. Social engineering and the press discovered each other, and it was a marriage that rocked the world.

Suddenly, there were new avenues for exploration, corrupt politicians and judiciary to be exposed, and a public to be saved. Social engineers saw the power of the media to expose problems and affect change. Reporters saw that they had power now too, and that they could do much more. The result was an explosion of stories pointing out a number of very real problems and suggesting solutions to same. Where there were not enough real problems, others could be made and from this effort comes the derogatory term “muckraker.”

Reporters, and those that wanted to be reporters, now saw it as a profession with standing and power. It provided a chance to make changes in the world, and to gain some reward at the same time. Thus was born the concept of advocacy journalism. While some consider that an artifact of recent times, it traces its roots back to the meatpacking scandal. The fact is, however, that most people who want to change the world are also somewhat revolutionary in their thinking.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. The Founding Fathers, after all, were both revolutionary and radical by the standards of their time. As time marched on, however, revolution and radical thought took on a very different hue. As the power of the media continued to grow with the advent of new media, it continued to attract those who wanted to change the world. As more of these people rose in the ranks, there was a tendency to hire in similar-minded folk. The net result is that over the last 100 years, the media has both grown in power and has moved well into the radical compared with the so-called average person.

Part of the problem is that this is not recognized within the Old Media. When you surround yourself with those who think as you do, and such constitute the bulk of your friends as well, there is a tendency to see yourself as the norm. What has occurred is not fully a conspiracy of the willing, but an unconscious bias of philosophy. The problem is, however, that there are no self-correcting mechanisms in place and the Old Media has no reason to face the issue. Indeed, there is a strong incentive not to face it, for to do so threatens the power of the Old Media.

-30-

Part IV