This generation of kids...

[StetsonHomburg]

You tell them that? Hopefully they don't know what condescending means.

Well alot either read like a three year old or don't know what condescending means :eusa_doh:

 

[LizzieMaine]

One positive is that we can all talk back to Joe Blowhard. It used to be that such a person could claim immense power by learning to channel his own personal obsessions into action. And because of our ingrained respect for institutions, no one could say or do a thing about it without running the risk of ostracism or worse.

Joe Blowhard wasn't always some moax sitting on a keg of nails down at the hardware. He was Joe Breen, and Joe McCarthy, and Comstock, and Anslinger, and Hoover. He was a very important man in this country once. He still is, but he's not invincible anymore.

On the other hand, though, you didn't have to worry about Walter Lippmann or Raymond Gram Swing or Elmer Davis or H. V. Kaltenborn or Dorothy Thompson being shouted into insignificance by an infinite number of Joe Blowhards, either. If the equivalent of such commentators can be found on blogs today, I'm not finding them. About the closest I can get are bloggers who might make the cut on a Hearst rag, if the regular guy was out sick.

The difference between a real journalist, a *qualified* journalist, and just some guy who likes to run his yap, is training, experience, and background in the subjects discussed. To assume, as modern blog culture does, that all opinions are created equal is to deny that reality. I think the level of discourse we currently see around us is evidence that this kind of "equality" is pure bunk.

You're quite right about the Joe Blowhards of the past -- but keep in mind that it wasn't random guys on the street who brought, say, McCarthy down. It was a cross section of his fellow senators, some tough Army lawyers, and several genuine journalists -- "establishment" figures to the core. The Average Man In The Street, by and large, loved the old Tail Gunner -- a mob mentality that would have been quite at home on today's Internet.

 

[Lincsong]

When you have people under the age of 40, who have no idea of history, but attempt to act as though they lived in the era in discussion, whether it be the 1940's, 1950's or 1920's a distorted view ensues. We see it in discussion of Europe during World War II in the World War II section. You'd think there were dozens upon dozens of people on this forum who were actual victims of the Nazi's but in reality they were born in 1975.

 

[AtomicEraTom]

It just concerns me deeply, these are the people that will be running this country someday.

 

[Lincsong]

History today is being taught with a greater sensitivity to other cultures, and political correctness in general. Sometimes, this is a good thing. For example, it knocked Christopher Columbus off his pedestal and portrayed him as the less than admirable figure he was. That change occurred during my time in grade school. In grades k-7, he was the heroic explorer who discovered the new world. By the time I graduated college, he was an inept explorer that led a band of rapists to spread STDs to the western hemisphere which was clearly already discovered, and had already been rediscovered by vikings 400 years prior. How things change. I agree with you in that the best way to teach is to present multiple views and encourage students to draw their own conclusions and support them.

Really? Wasn't it the Indians who gave syphyllus to Columbus' crew?

 

[Pompidou]

Really? Wasn't it the Indians who gave syphyllus to Columbus' crew?

That is one of the more plausible explanations of the syphilis outbreak in Europe shortly after the voyage. Syphilis can't really be traced to an origin in any one culture. There's archaeological evidence of Syphilis from skeletons in London, predating Columbus' voyage, as well as in Pompeii, I believe. Odds are, scores of new diseases were exchanged both ways.

 

[Tiller]

On the other hand, though, you didn't have to worry about Walter Lippmann

Lizzie your my favorite poster here, but guys like Walter Lippmann is one of the reasons I have so little faith in traditional media. Woodrow Willson's boy allowed his politics to spin everything he did in media. He was a man that argued completely from his own viewpoint, and attempted to pass it off as unbiased opinion. To claim that Lippman was a good journalist is to claim that Mencken was, when they were both blow hardss who argued for their own opinions in different ways.

Is the modern blogspher any better? Maybe not, but Lippman is hardly a man who should be emulated in anyway, and the fact the so many journalist students are taught that he is a great example of a journalist integrity further hurts the entire class.

The only journalist I respect today is Brian Lamb.

 

[Lincsong]

That is one of the more plausible explanations of the syphilis outbreak in Europe shortly after the voyage. Syphilis can't really be traced to an origin in any one culture. There's archaeological evidence of Syphilis from skeletons in London, predating Columbus' voyage, as well as in Pompeii, I believe. Odds are, scores of new diseases were exchanged both ways.

I believe diseases introduced into Polynesia by sailors decimated the natives in the South Pacific.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Lizzie your my favorite poster here, but guys like Walter Lippmann is one of the reasons I have so little faith in traditional media. Woodrow Willson's boy allowed his politics to spin everything he did in media. He was a man that argued completely from his own viewpoint, and attempted to pass it off as unbiased opinion.

Lippmann was a commentator, not a reporter. His opinions, naturally, were biased -- *all* opinions are biased. That's the nature of opinion -- and I don't argue that a proper journalist "has no biases." The only person who "has no biases" is an illiterate fool.

Lippmann was a man of *informed* opinions -- his strongest belief, in fact, was the need to assemble all available relevant facts *before* drawing a conclusion and forming an opinion, instead of beginning with an opinion and then accepting or rejecting facts to fit it. I submit that by following this process he actually did more to promote thoughtful, informed discussion on the editorial page than any other writer of his time. His writings were never polemical -- he didn't condemn you to hellfire and damnation if you disagreed with him, and he didn't beat you over the head with pickled catchphrases. Whether you agreed with what he wrote or not, he insisted only that you *think* about what he said. That, to me, is the way commentators should be, and the way they haven't been for the better part of the last thirty years. The last mainstream commentator who struck me as following this process was Eric Severeid, and he's been dead a long time.

 

[martinsantos]

The 60s and 70s were times of big changes in historical vision... Like this one you put about Columbus. Some are very interesting, specially when the teachers wanted to discuss the facts. Sad that a lot usually just got a "socialist" vision about history, and I saw much more about "desconstructing the official heroes" (as they used to say) than really good discussions about.

Personally I can't agree with this kind of vision about Columbus, for example. Or about Fernão de Magalhães. To do what they did is necessary a VERY LARGE amount of courage. Much more than I would have... (but I'nm suspect to say this. I like too much Stefan Zweig's version of history!)

History today is being taught with a greater sensitivity to other cultures, and political correctness in general. Sometimes, this is a good thing. For example, it knocked Christopher Columbus off his pedestal and portrayed him as the less than admirable figure he was. That change occurred during my time in grade school. In grades k-7, he was the heroic explorer who discovered the new world. By the time I graduated college, he was an inept explorer that led a band of rapists to spread STDs to the western hemisphere which was clearly already discovered, and had already been rediscovered by vikings 400 years prior. How things change. I agree with you in that the best way to teach is to present multiple views and encourage students to draw their own conclusions and support them.

 

[Lincsong]

Martin without the courageness of Columbus and the other explorers there would be no history. To set sail in three small boats into unknown waters and write in great detail the entire voyage is a lot more historically correct than tales told by elderly men around a campfire in a cave.

 

[Harp]

The last mainstream commentator who struck me as following this process was Eric Severeid, and he's been dead a long time.

A stilled voice that echoes through youthful memory.
Robert Trout; Charles Collingwood; and Eric Severeid-and others....
Professionals in their trade and gentlemen whom served and earned the public trust.

 

[sheeplady]

One thing that frustrates and concerns me about this generation is that people my age seem to remember little that happened before the 1990's. At first, I thought it was just pop culture (which is important, but not as much as other things), but also the fact that there's little knowledge about history. The only thing that seems to be known much about is wars and not much else. I started discussing this with some of my coworkers, all my age and they didn't even know about the Korean War period, one thought the Civil War was after WWI and of course no dates were known. It just drives me nuts.

Although this isn't the entire root of the problem, at least in the US, there are dramatic differences in educational quality across school districts. I grew up in a rural school district (graduated in the late 90s), and our U.S. history course ended before Vietnam (textbooks published in the 1970s), our English lit ended in 1952 (rebound books with pages missing), and our biology ended in 1972 (didn't mention a thing about DNA). You can guess how good (most of) our teachers were, based upon how much money my school had for books.

Well, ok, in tenth and eleventh grade we did have 10 BRAND NEW sample textbooks, which one of the English teachers conned a textbook dealer into providing for the school. We had classes of about 35, so 3-4 of us would gather around each textbook to read it during class, and then we put it on the cart to push to the next classroom, where they did the same thing.

Resources aren't equal. I don't imagine that all your coworkers came out of a similar school environment, but such academically underfunded educational environments are part of the problem. (I do have to add, that we did have a well-paid full administration, just no books.)

 

[AtomicEraTom]

I very much understand that some schools are very under-funded. It is a crying shame. There were 4 of us talking, 3 of us graduated from Portage High School, 2 of us in 09 and the other in 08. We all had similar classes, all were best friends in school and had great resources. So, the demographic that was 'being surveyed' was very similar, but yet the knowledge of each individual was so contrasting, it just shocks me.

Although this isn't the entire root of the problem, at least in the US, there are dramatic differences in educational quality across school districts. I grew up in a rural school district (graduated in the late 90s), and our U.S. history course ended before Vietnam (textbooks published in the 1970s), our English lit ended in 1952 (rebound books with pages missing), and our biology ended in 1972 (didn't mention a thing about DNA). You can guess how good (most of) our teachers were, based upon how much money my school had for books.

Well, ok, in tenth and eleventh grade we did have 10 BRAND NEW sample textbooks, which one of the English teachers conned a textbook dealer into providing for the school. We had classes of about 35, so 3-4 of us would gather around each textbook to read it during class, and then we put it on the cart to push to the next classroom, where they did the same thing.

Resources aren't equal. I don't imagine that all your coworkers came out of a similar school environment, but such academically underfunded educational environments are part of the problem. (I do have to add, that we did have a well-paid full administration, just no books.)

 

[John in Covina]

Resources aren't equal. I don't imagine that all your coworkers came out of a similar school environment, but such academically underfunded educational environments are part of the problem. (I do have to add, that we did have a well-paid full administration, just no books.)

A problem with most schools is the growth in positions in admin. I would love to be able to show some type of chart for the LA school district that would show for the past 40 years the ratio of administrators to teachers.

 

[Tiller]

Lippmann was a commentator, not a reporter. His opinions, naturally, were biased -- *all* opinions are biased. That's the nature of opinion -- and I don't argue that a proper journalist "has no biases." The only person who "has no biases" is an illiterate fool.

I think Brain Lamb does the best job at presenting "just the facts ma'am" style of reporting. He quotes statistics, and studies, states facts and doesn't try to make the news emotional. I'm sure he does have his biases, but I think he and the men and women who work for him, do their best to present a program that is about the news of the day, and not the people reporting the news of the day. When Lamb/ one of his reporters interview someone they ask questions, let people answer, and forces them to explain further if they think they are trying to drag them up the garden pass, which inevitably always happens. He doesn't yell, he doesn't play "hard ball", he understand most news is a "spin zone", he just attempts to slow it down and get out what facts he can to the audience. He doesn't stop facts that may disagree with his views from being reported.

I don't have any nostalgic feelings for Lippman or any of his kind, because I feel the only differences he has with today's columnist and talking heads is his style. I know he wasn't like Ann Coulter, but he had the same goal she does, which is to make the issues of the day work towards his goals. Admittedly I didn't grow up threw that age, but every history book I've ever read that has quoted Lippman's shows that men like him, and Mencken where playing the same game that modern talking heads do. I don't think someone has to be Rush Limbaugh, or Keith Olbermann to be a bit to blinded by their views, to the point where it brings into question their very columns. You have a general idea what their views are going to be ahead of time, if you know which way they bend on the political spectrum. Glenn Beck also claims that he wants his viewers to do their own homework, and make up their own minds, and to "Study for yourself. Don't take my word for it". I would suggest that Beck and Lippman are on the same level, with only their styles being the big difference. I simply would rather have a "just the facts ma'am" style of reporting.

Obviously, if ratings and newspaper circulations are any sign, for many people it's boring for simple statistics and information to be expressed, but I'd rather have a news source that avoids the emotional slants/ political goals, the best that they can. Although I can understand the desire to try to change public opinion to your side. For one it creates a market and you can sell your product easier, and secondly I imagine that it simply feeds one ego to have such power.

With that said I don't look fondly back at anyone else either when it comes to journalism. From what I've seen this country has followed similar trends in journalism since Franklin opened his first print shop. You print/report on exactly what the owner wants. From the Jefferson/Hamilton papers fighting each other, to the yellow journalism of William Randolph Hearst, to Harding vs Cox in Ohio, to Murdoch vs Turner today you have the same results with only styles changing over time. The way insults are hurled, and the reasons some stories maybe covered over others may change, but the results seem to follow the same general idea over and over. Meanwhile you as a consumer picks the news source you like, and then you shake your head up and down when they give you the world view you prefer.

Today with modern 24 hours news cycles things may have been lowered to the lowest common denominator, but what is being done is hardly anything new. Now the pacing has been increased, and the language has been simplified, but the drive of the personalities behind the media are mostly the same. Quite honestly I don't see much difference between "Jefferson's papers" using the almost poetic language of the late 18th/ early 19th century to insult the Hamiltonian's/Federalist, and today's media heads insulting each other. Today it's just more crass, but when you boil it down using three hundred and fifty words to make the point that people who don't think like you are moronic, is the same result as someone simply stating that people who follow "opinion X" are morons, and "just don't get it/ aren't seeing the big picture/ whatever cliche line you want to use to make you and your readers/viewers feel good about themselves".

Are modern bloggers any better? No, but they do have the same saving grace of those earlier newspaper, in that they simply state just how they are going to lie to you, and they don't pretend that they are unbiased. In the past you bought the Journal and Republican, or the Daily Democrat in your town, depending on the view you hold. Today people go to the blog that shares your view. Modern bloggers may not have the writing talents of past "journalistic legends", but they are doing the same thing.

Now my cousin claims he "studies" everything from Fox News and MSNBC, to the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, and multiple blogs daily. The thing is I don't think keeping up with the news of the day should be a part time job that takes four hours of your time every single day. I'd rather simply be told that a no fly zone has been set up by France/UK/USA over Libya, without having to read threw how this event is either a great crusade for freedom, or proof of further neo-colonial imperialism. I also don't enjoy having to wait for a panel to discuss the obligatory question of "How does event X of the day effect President Obama? Does it hurt his chances of winning reelection in 2012?" for a half hour, before the events of the world are stated.

I'm very much a cynic when it comes to media though, and I have no doubt that, that cynicism blinds my view, and limits my appreciation for the hard work that some people have put behind their profession. I'll get off my soapbox now though. I really don't like being on the opposite side of someone I admire lol.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I think the biggest difference between Lippmann and his contemporaries like Davis, Thompson, Kaltenborn, et. al. and the modern cable-tee-vee "news" figures is that the old timers actually practiced what they preached -- they really *did* do their own legwork, their own research, their own assembling of facts, and because they had direct first-hand knowledge of what they were talking about, they were able to present opinions that, even if you didn't agree with them, you had to *respect* them.

Like you, I find very little to respect in modern "journalism," but I think the news bloggers, with their half-baked pronouncements and their cut-and-paste "research" only make it worse -- and the people who *comment* on blogs and news-sites are even below them. If the news-blogosphere is an intellectual cesspool, the comment sections are the leach field.

 

[Yeps]

A problem with most schools is the growth in positions in admin. I would love to be able to show some type of chart for the LA school district that would show for the past 40 years the ratio of administrators to teachers.

This is an interesting thing to look at. My high school had no dedicated administrators: the headmaster and president both had full teaching schedules in their respective fields. The only people who did not teach were the front office ladies who actually ran the school.

 

[John in Covina]

As to the news thing, it is very evident that the news today mixes bias opinion with fact and reports it as the news and not in the opinion column. News is supposed to be neutral. The bias comes in and can be subtle as to the writing style and using words to indicated the writer likes and dislikes. The news can create controversy and fan the flames of controversy but they don't do it in a neutral fashion and do not apply the same scrutiny for the side they have chosen. The news will play down and omit from publishing things that are news that hurts their side. They will give a pass to those they like and will take at face value the press releases and statements of their side, where those on the opposing side are challenged on every thing they say and given a rectal exam.

Now top it off with the fact that the people writing the news don't know history or came out of indoctrination mills posing as schools and you have a news force that is bordering on Pravda. Even the Russians knew there was no pravda in Pravda.

 

[John in Covina]

This is an interesting thing to look at. My high school had no dedicated administrators: the headmaster and president both had full teaching schedules in their respective fields. The only people who did not teach were the front office ladies who actually ran the school.

Most schools have an office with principals and such, but in LA there are tons of people working for the school district administration that don't work in any school.