History and Structure of the News Media in the U.S.[*]
From Party Press to Popular Press:
In the early years of the American republic, political parties established, sponsored, controlled and sometimes provided government support for newspapers. During Washington’s administration, both Federalists and Democratic-Republicans created their own newspapers. Naturally, the papers were intensely partisan, and rarely could a reader find a paper that presented both sides of an issue. Primitive technology made newspapers slow and expensive to print, so only elite levels of society were able to afford to read them
Changes in society and particularly in technology created the “popular press.” The invention of the high-speed rotary press and subsequent discovery of the telegraph in the mid-19th century meant news could travel long distances almost immediately and be printed quickly and cheaply. And the creation of the Associated Press meant newspapers everywhere had access to information on a systematic basis: stories printed in Charleston were similar to those printed in Boston or Philadelphia. And since the AP provided stories to newspapers across the country, the content couldn’t be partisan, and stories became shorter and objectively written. As the nation became more urban, daily newspapers sprang up, subsidized by advertisers rather than political parties.
The newspapers of the late 19th century were not, however, entirely non-partisan. But the partisanship they displayed reflected the politics of their owners, not of the political parties. In order to attract large numbers of subscribers, these newspapers stressed “violence, romance, patriotism,” and exposed wrongdoing in business and government. Publishers such as Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst created powerful publishing empires that sometimes shaped public opinion as well as reporting on it. More important, they helped create a “common national culture [and] to establish the feasibility of a press free of government control or subsidy….” Slowly, in the first decades of the 20th century, the more successful papers “bought up of eliminated their competition.” This and the growing sophistication of the American public reduced the need for “more extreme forms of sensationalism.”
Electronic Media and the Internet:
Electronic journalism emerged in the 1920s with radio and continued with the spread of television in the late 1940s. This represented a “major change in the way news was gathered and disseminated.” Now politicians could speak directly to the public, without having a newspaper filter their message; the bad news for politicians was listeners and viewers could easily ignore them and their messages. This placed “great stress on the personal characteristics of politicians—whether they were attractive, spoke well, or behaved in a manner sufficiently colorful to justify inclusion in newscasts that had to hold audience attention.” One wonders whether a tall, gangling scruffy-bearded man with large ears and a squeaky voice, Abraham Lincoln, could get the attention of today’s news media, much less get elected….
But the advent of electronic media had other effects on political reporting as well. Because time was more limited on radio and television broadcasts, only well known politicians or those with provocative messages got air time. And the shorter soundbites on the nightly news made it more difficult for candidates and officeholders to convey their messages. “The average soundbite—a video clip of a candidate speaking—dropped from about forty-two seconds in 1968 to 7.3 seconds in 2000.” Even so, enhanced cable and satellite systems now give politicians more ways to reach viewers, while providing viewers with more opportunities to get information.
Finally, technological and ideological changes may revolutionize the way news and information are disseminated and “consumed.” The implications of access of politicians to electronic media for campaigns, elections and, indeed, governing will change who becomes candidates and how they are elected, and who influences public policy and how that influence is felt. “Nor…is there yet any significant research on the broader societal consequences of so-called narrowcasting—the proliferation of television and radio stations that target highly segmented listening and viewing audiences, and the relative decline of electronic and print media that reach large and heterogeneous populations.”
With the exception of newspapers and limited-circulation political journals, most media programming today is entertainment, not news. This includes the most recent form of media, the Internet and the World Wide Web, though “information” that masquerades as news figures prominently.
“The political news that is found there ranges from summaries of news stories from newspapers and magazines to political rumors and hot (but often unverified) news tips. Users can get gossip before it is printed or broadcast, learn about (or even join) political organizations, and participate in chat rooms with people who have similar political views. The Internet is the ultimate free market in political news: no one can ban, control, or regulate it, and no one can keep either facts or nonsense off of it.”
Now people don’t need intermediaries to bring them news and information. Instead, they choose the medium that suits them—cable and satellite networks allow more choice and the phenomenon of narrowcasting, while Internet and cellular technology allow politicians and interest groups to address people “individually,” and people to talk to each other 24/7. Indeed, though most people still say they get most of their news and information from television, it is a safe bet that they really get it from each other.
1
[*]Excerpted with permission from: Wilson, James Q and John J. DiIulio, Jr. American Government, 9th edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2004.