Issues & Insights
New York subway news stand. Source: Zach Korb, via Flickr. Licensed under Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/).

The Myth Of A ‘Mainstream’ Media

The media does not enjoy an exalted position in public opinion.  Polls continue to show an eroding confidence in the American media.  Without question, the media deserves much of the mistrust directed toward it. 

However, just as the media has become more divisive and biased in one respect, it has also acquired a certain positive trait.  In one respect, the current media resembles the eighteenth-century press that reflected and energized American democracy.

The American press during the eighteenth-century, and particularly during the revolutionary era, was a highly competitive press that actively engaged its public audience.  It was highly partisan and intensely opinionated, but also very much participatory, in terms of involving the public in the political debate.  Readers of the pamphlets and newspapers often published their own views in the pages of the colonial press.

Objectivity was not a characteristic of the eighteenth-century press.  One single newspaper could not be relied upon to give all sides of a debate.  Instead, the newspapers were often affiliated with political movements and groups.  These newspapers essentially became media organs for a particular political viewpoint or party.

If someone wanted to read all sides of a debate, that person would have to read the newspapers associated with all the different sides of that debate.  But what the newspapers lacked in objectivity, they compensated for in igniting public participation in the political debate.

The eighteenth-century press never claimed to be objective.  It never claimed to be anything other than what it was: a mouthpiece for a partisan movement.  The modern mainstream media has likewise abandoned objectivity in favor of partisanship, but it has failed to openly admit that transition.

 Mainstream – that is how the large media entities describe themselves. But what does that word mean?  It cannot mean objective or truthful or reliable. The media has given up on those ideals.  Newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post long ago deleted “objective” from the goals to which they are committed. 

They claim they are “fair” or “probing” or “representative of diverse communities,” but they never claim to be objective.  Indeed, in the modern liberal mindset, there is no such thing as objective truth, just viewpoints of diverse constituencies.

So when the modern media decries the downfall of the “mainstream media,” what can be meant of that term?  What sets the “mainstream media” apart from other media?  What sets CBS apart from Fox News?  What sets MSNBC apart from CNN?

It is not objectivity.  Indeed, the so-called mainstream media appears just as partisan as the eighteenth-century press.  Many in the mainstream media, for instance, lamented that the reason President Biden’s Build Back Better spending program did not pass into law was that the media did not promote it well enough.  This statement alone provides evidence that the media sees itself more as a political actor than a messenger of objective news.

Given that objectivity does not characterize the mainstream media, there seems only two traits that in fact do distinguish the mainstream media: age and honesty.

CBS is a lot older than Fox News.  CBS came into being at the dawn of the American broadcast industry.  CNN existed long before MSNBC.  Consequently, mainstream must mean old … or older.  But it also means something else: dishonesty.  MSNBC is honest about what viewpoint it expresses.  Fox News does not hide its perspectives.  Talk radio does not pretend to be encyclopedias of information.  They all admit to their purpose and perspective, just as did the eighteenth-century press.

It is the “mainstream media” that insists on existing in a vacuum of honesty.  It is only the mainstream media that tries to claim it is something it is not, that tries to peddle its message beneath the cover of deception.  Should anyone care about the decline of such a media?

Patrick M. Garry is a professor of law with a Ph.D. in constitutional history at the University of South Dakota Law School. He is also senior fellow at the Center for Religion, Culture & Democracy.

We Could Use Your Help

Issues & Insights was founded by seasoned journalists of the IBD Editorials page. Our mission is to provide timely, fact-based reporting and deeply informed analysis on the news of the day -- without fear or favor.

We’re doing this on a voluntary basis because we believe in a free press, and because we aren't afraid to tell the truth, even if it means being targeted by the left. Revenue from ads on the site help, but your support will truly make a difference in keeping our mission going. If you like what you see, feel free to visit our Donations Page by clicking here. And be sure to tell your friends!

You can also subscribe to I&I: It's free!

Just enter your email address below to get started.

Share

5 comments

  • One might say that the media’s experiment with goals of delivering objectivity has come to an end. And I’m OK with that – partisanship is preferable to attempting to cull opposition dissent.

    We lived with pamphlets before, we can do it again. We shouldn’t forget that both the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, in essence, are pamphlets and they’ve served us well.

    • The difference lies in the “suppression ” of all dissenting opinions, as with the Social media giants. The enormous power lying in the hands of a few very rich, very partisan “insiders” removes the opportunity for healthy debate. Their supportive administration endorses this, with censorship laws. A healthy , open press is indicative of a healthy , open society.The reverse is also true. What we have now is a society in sick decline.

  • An interesting article. But curiously detached from today’s reality, where the major media are a propaganda echo chamber tasked with eradicating opposing views. Perhaps the 18th century press smashed and burned (canceled) opposition printing presses into silence, I don’t know. Living in California in early 2020, I would tune in to President Trump’s daily pandemic briefings to hear what Fauci and the Surgeon General had to say. Then every major media channel “disappeared” the President of the USA from the air waves. In place of Trump, Fauci and the surgeon general, we got daily lectures on race, gender, Marxism etc. from a numbskull governor and assorted local tyrants. In 2022, tried to find something on the Durham Report on public broadcasting, but NPR (National Propaganda Radio) and PBS (Propaganda Broadcasting System) only gleefully cheered on the NY AG & Manhattan district attorney persecuting Trump businesses. What was the 18th century press equivalent of teaming up with Silicon Valley high-tech and social media oligarchs to destroy, deplatform, demonetize and cancel opposition viewpoints? It may have started with Alex Jones and InfoWars, but it has rapidly expanded to include Nobel Prize immunologists with contrary COVID views. The 18th century USA may have celebrated democracy and freedom of the press, but not today.

  • An excellent article that hits the nail squarely on the head.
    Objectivity as a dictum has to be the true measure of press integrity.

  • The mainstream media is no myth. Everything that isn’t the truth or is lies and propaganda is the main stream media…no matter the source. They all have the same leftist radar guiding them as well as the same crappy old leftist agenda.

We Could Use Your Help

Help us fight for honesty in journalism and against the tyranny of the left. Issues & Insights is published by the editors of what once was Investor's Business Daily's award-winning opinion pages. If you like what you see, leave a donation by clicking on the Tip Jar image above. You can also set up regular donations if you like. Ad revenue helps, but your support will truly make a difference. (Please note that we are not set up as a charitable organization, so donations aren't tax deductible.) Thank you!

About Issues & Insights

Issues & Insights is run by the seasoned journalists behind the legendary IBD Editorials page. Our goal is to bring our decades of combined journalism experience to help readers understand the top issues of the day. We’re doing this on a voluntary basis, because we believe the nation needs the kind of cogent, rational, data-driven, fact-based commentary that we can provide. 




Share
%d bloggers like this: