[78-L] Norman Corwin^

[Steven C. Barr]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Biel" <mbiel at mbiel.com>
> From: soundthink at aol.com
>> I did get a chance to ask Corwin about the preponderance of demagogic
>> television broadcasts that masquerade as news shows: i.e. Hannity and
>> O'Reilly on the right and Olbermann and Maddow, Hardball, etc. on the 
>> left.
>> He said that a lot of people get fooled by those shows; that they are
>> masquerading as newscasts, but he couched this by saying that we still
>> have a first amendment and that there is a blurring between news,
>> partisan politics, and entertainment- it's a caveat emptor situation
>> when people choose to use local television newscasts or Rush Limbaugh
>> to get their "news."   Cary Ginell
> Of course that could also be said of many of the great news commentators
> of the Old Time Radio days of Fulton Lewis, Jr. on the right and some
> would (and did) say Edward R. Murrow on the left.  And Gabriel Heatter,
> H.V. Kaltenborn, Elmer Davis, William L. Shirer, and (heaven help us)
> even Walter Winchell.  What is different is that back then, with the
> possible exception of Winchell, these commentators did not comment on
> and lie about their competitor commentators' opinions and veracity!  In
> the U.S. during the 20th century we developed an expectation that the
> news pages of the newspapers -- and therefore the newscasts of
> broadcasters -- were to be unbiased, but the editorial pages and words
> of commentators are expected to be biased and would be labeled as such.
> This is not necessarily true in many other countries where there are
> Labour Party papers, and Conservative Party papers, and Liberal Party
> papers, and Socialist Party papers, etc. etc. and people expect the news
> pages to express their values.  Rupert Murdoch comes from that
> background, and feels it natural for his papers and his "news" network
> to express a philosophy rather than be neutral.  But what is also
> different is that in the past it was expected that all editorials and
> commentaries be based on FACT and truth.  Murdoch has expressly said
> that the opinions of commentators on his network and papers are their
> own opinions and thus do not have to be based on fact nor truth.  (This
> is part of the interview Brian Lamb did of Murdoch on C-SPAN, and it is
> on their web site if you need proof.)  I know of no other news
> organization which would tolerate opinion and comment that could not be
> verified with facts, and THAT is what makes today's situation different
> from the days of yore.
>
It ain't neccesarily so...as the 78-era song goes! Going back AT LEAST into
the 19th century, newspapers were founded to disseminate politically-slanted
information (as they STILL are...?!). The Toronto Star was founded c.1892,
with the intention of it being a "mouthpiece" for the Liberal party...and, 
in the
US Of A, the Chicago Tribune was noted for views somewhere to the right
of Senator McCarthy (as well as being relentlessly ANTI-British...!).The 
idea
was...and is...that if you had the money to create and support a 
newspaper...
well, it was YOURS, and you could endorse your own political views...!

Further, every "news organization" prints, and posts, the "opinions" which
it believes to be the absolute truth! If you visit the KKK web site, you 
will
be presented with "fake science," supposedly proving that Negroes are an
inferior, possibly non-human, form of life...while the Orange Lodge web site
will inform you, in great detail, of the inherent error in the beliefs of 
the Roman
Catholic Church...?!

Here in Toronto, we have "The Star" (a Liberal-Party paper)...the "Globe and
Mail" (nominally non-partisan, but as a "spokespaper" for older and more
traditional Ontarions it leans rightwards...?!)...the Sun (enthusiastically
neo-populist...hates the rich, the poor (they cost too much to support!),
non-caucasians (carefully, since they make up a large portion of their
readership...?!)...and uses s*x to sell their journal...?! and our right-
wing "newspaper," the National Post...!

The harsh and bitter reality is the fact that right-wing "conservative"
thought naturally appeals to the non-thinking portion of our species!
We "come equipped" with an inherent and instinctive Dominace
Hierarchy...which drives us to somehow be "superior" to all the
other humans we are aware of! Since our "wealth," in monetary
terms, is easily compared (I got $230,000.00 and YOU only
got $94,357.45!!)...we cheerfully welcome any system which
allows us to keep more of our money...this is the same idea as
increasing the dimensions of our phallus (IF, of course, we are
male...?!).

Na und?!

...stevenc