Back in the 50s and 60s, news operations weren't expected to generate profit. Excellent news coverage enhanced the prestige of the station/network/paper, and if the coverage happened to generate a profit that was a nice surprise.
Back in the 50s and 60s, news operations weren't expected to generate profit. Excellent news coverage enhanced the prestige of the station/network/paper, and if the coverage happened to generate a profit that was a nice surprise.
Any newspaper or magazine that didn't generate a profit in the 50s and 60s went out of business. You're thinking only of 3-network television news departments, which were considered "loss leaders". And, not necessarily coincidentally, not taken all that seriously as journalistic enterprises. Certainly the time between Cronkite joining the anti-war movement and Watergate was a Golden Age, a high point of "the news industry". It was also when the checkout counter tabloids had their hayday as well, though.
Everyone wants simple, easy, "good guys and bad guys" narratives. That is the problem, though, not the solution.
I thought network news coverage of the marches in the South and violence against protesters was outstanding. Those images were seared in my soul and the reporters did not "both sides" what they saw. I would be interested in hearing the perspective of an African American who viewed the the events.
Alas, nostalgia and rose-colored rear-view mirrors are comforting but not actually informative. The truth is always more complicated. The Internet makes that no less true, or much less obvious, but yet somehow harder for anyone to accept.
All true. Perhaps borrowing from history to inform the present can provide us with a good perspective from which to learn, sans colored mirrors nor glasses.
Back in the 50s and 60s, news operations weren't expected to generate profit. Excellent news coverage enhanced the prestige of the station/network/paper, and if the coverage happened to generate a profit that was a nice surprise.
Any newspaper or magazine that didn't generate a profit in the 50s and 60s went out of business. You're thinking only of 3-network television news departments, which were considered "loss leaders". And, not necessarily coincidentally, not taken all that seriously as journalistic enterprises. Certainly the time between Cronkite joining the anti-war movement and Watergate was a Golden Age, a high point of "the news industry". It was also when the checkout counter tabloids had their hayday as well, though.
Everyone wants simple, easy, "good guys and bad guys" narratives. That is the problem, though, not the solution.
I thought network news coverage of the marches in the South and violence against protesters was outstanding. Those images were seared in my soul and the reporters did not "both sides" what they saw. I would be interested in hearing the perspective of an African American who viewed the the events.
Well said Charlie! Those were the days.
Alas, nostalgia and rose-colored rear-view mirrors are comforting but not actually informative. The truth is always more complicated. The Internet makes that no less true, or much less obvious, but yet somehow harder for anyone to accept.
All true. Perhaps borrowing from history to inform the present can provide us with a good perspective from which to learn, sans colored mirrors nor glasses.