History of the media in the US

Votto

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
28,768
Reaction score
12,877
Points
1,090
Most have no idea what the history of the press is in the US. They really believe that the media at one time, was a wholesome group whose job it was to provide the truth to the American people in order to persevere the democracy which depends upon it. But as with most things presented to us by the Left, this is but a myth.

In 1810, Isaiah Thomas, a printer, newspaper publisher, and witness to the American Revolution, published a book called, "The History of the Printing in America". It was one of a very few works that helped preserve the records of printers during the Revolutionary war period.

A printing press was first established in 1638 at Cambridge, Massachusetts. And as it turns out, the earliest printing press in America mostly debated about religion, and later, promoting the gospel and other books to Native Americans. However, these works were censored. Thomas wrote, "The fathers of Massachusetts kept a watchful eye on the press; and in neither a religious nor civil point of view, were they disposed to give it much liberty. Both the civil and ecclesiastical rulers were fearful that if it were not under wholesome restraints, contentions and heresies would arise among the people"

In 1662, the government of Massachusetts appointed licensers of the press, and afterward, in 1664, passed a law that 'no printing should be allowed in any town with the jurisdiction, except in Cambridge; nor should anything be printed there but what the government permitted through the agency of those persons who were empowered for the purpose. No printing was free from legal constraints until about the year 1755. Thomas wrote, "no pressers were set up in the colonies till near the close of the 17th century." Before 1775, printing was confined to the capitals of the colonies, and the press no longer focused on spreading the gospel, rather, their focus shifted towards spreading revolution. Thomas gives praise to the early printing press for the success of the Revolution, saying that without it, the revolution would probably have never come to be. Perhaps Thomas Pain's Common Sense was the most effective work to gain support for the Revolution. In fact, by the last half of the 1760's, the press had become mostly a partisan tool for the Revolution. Writers regularly proclaimed the virtues of a free press that was needed to have a free society; however, those same writers did their best to silence their opposition, that is, those who were loyal to the King of England.

So was there a free press in the colonies if most, if not all, of the press was controlled by those promoting Revolution against the King of England? And if the press is needed for such political endeavors, does this mean that whoever is best able to use the press as a partisan mouthpiece will be the victorious party?

Exactly how much does the press control us? And is this concerning since there are no unbiased news sources, since there are no unbiased human beings? The printed word takes a great deal of time and money to provide people, so only those with a great deal of time and money can provide it. So what money is funding it, and what are their political views? These are the only questions we should ask and investigate.
 

AFrench2

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2021
Messages
3,350
Reaction score
2,551
Points
1,893
Location
Fort Worth, TX
They control you by putting out the stories and the outrage for you, and telling you how to feel about stuff. On Tuesday you have no idea about the Mr. Potato Head story, and by Wednesday you are being told to be angry about it and it is the worst thing in the world.

You take it hook, line and sinker, bro. They manufacture your outrage.
 
OP
Votto

Votto

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
28,768
Reaction score
12,877
Points
1,090
After the Revolution, historians write of the “party-press era”, that is, from the 1780’s to the 1860’s. It was a time when most newspapers aligned themselves with a politician, campaign, or party, and did so openly. Charles L. Ponce De Leon, an associate professor at California State University said, “Sparked by divergent plans for the future of the new republic, competing factions emerged within George Washington’s administration and Congress, and by the mid-1790’s, each faction had established partisan newspapers championing its point of view. These publications were subsidized through patronage, and, though they had a limited circulation, the material they published was widely reprinted and discussed, and contributed to the establishment of the nation’s first political parties, the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans. And it did not take them long to learn how best to steer public views”. De Leon continues, “Newspapers like Philip Freneau’s National Gazette, writes the most prominent Democratic Republican organ, crafted distinctly partisan lenses through which readers were encouraged to view the world. Specializing in gossip, innuendo, and ad hominem attacks, these newspapers sought to make readers fearful about the intentions of their opponents. The strategy was quite effective at arousing support and mobilizing voters to go to the polls, after all, the fate of the Republic was a stake.” Thomas Jefferson was attacked by a Federalist newspaper as being a godless Jacobin who would unleash the forces of bloody terror upon the land. There would be murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest that will be openly taught and practiced. The air will be rent with the cries of the distressed, the soil will be soaked with blood, and the nation black with crimes.
 
OP
Votto

Votto

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
28,768
Reaction score
12,877
Points
1,090
It is noteworthy to mention that the history of the US took a dark turn at this time. The Federalists lead by John Adams did not like men like Thomas Jefferson and his Democrat Republicans creating news stories that attacked them politically. As a result, the Alien and Sedition Acts were created by the Federalist party, which among other things, made criticizing the government openly punishable by such things as imprisonment. Despite the Founding Fathers just having fought a bloody war to be free, and to make others free and risking their lives to do so, they inexplicably turned right around and imposed a far more oppressive law on the freedom of speech than King George had ever thought about doing. But such is the role of the corrupting power of human nature. But as with most other things, there is more to the story.

While France was embroiled in its continuing domestic social and political revolution, England continued to war with France in the Caribbean and along the French coast. America remained neutral, but both England and France preyed upon American ships engaged in overseas trade.

George Washington was concerned that the continued warfare between England and France would lead to insurrection in the US. There was widespread belief that the French were trying to manipulate the American government. The Jay Treaty in 1795 brought further controversy and mistrust and a year later James Monroe was recalled as minister to France and John Adams was elected President.

Two years later, it became public knowledge that the French had tried to bribe an American diplomatic delegation in the notorious XYZ affair. Elements in Congress believed that French influence had infiltrated Republicans and they were trying to separate America into factions. There was also fear of invasion by France for several years, a state of “quasi-war” existed.

Congress responded by setting restrictions on aliens and defining seditious conduct. In what came to be called the Alien and Sedition acts, Congress required a residence of 14 years for nationalization, and gave the president the power to deport aliens. Subversive conspiracies were defined, and written publications against the legislature or the president could be punished. 20 Republican editors were jailed. The laws were grounded in the belief that opposition to the government and its policies amounted to a division of the people, which would collapse the union.

To make a long story shorter, Jefferson was elected President in 1800 and overturned most of the Alien and Sedition acts he ran to overturn. Interestingly, what was left of the Alien and Sedition act was used by FDR to lock up innocent Japanese Americans during WW2. But where the laws all bad? Concerns seemed valid which was foreign attacks, insurrection within the Republic, disunity and untruth being spread, etc. At the same time, the freedom of the press was crushed as the Republic would have had a much darker future than what it did had liberty not been restored. So, the press was restored.

But today instead of the government censoring speech, we have corporations doing it for them. And now our courts tell us that this is 100% Constitutional. Now the government need not play the bad guy, the despot that destroys our free speech. Now corporate America does it for them.

The government/corporate relationship is a symbiotic one. The corporations lavish government with money and praise and censors speech for them, while the government turns it's head and looks the other way while they violate our First Amendment rights, among other things. Just so long as corporate American gives them their money and allegiance, government will let them do as they please. A pretty good deal if you ask me.
 
OP
Votto

Votto

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
28,768
Reaction score
12,877
Points
1,090
Then came after the Revolution.


Newspapers emerged as a driving force in American life and had little to do with objective news. The press became even more corrupt under President Jackson. Editors of newspapers owed their jobs directly to Jackson as he appointed numerous ones to do his bidding. He also appointed numerous editors to salaried political positions, including many postmasters, while nationally it is estimated that 50 to 60 editors had been given plum political jobs. But rewarding political friends was nothing new in politics, as the Federalists appointed nearly 1000 editors to postmaster positions over a 12-year period, but Jackson transformed the hap hazard approach into more of an organized strategic plan to try and obtain votes.

A Historian by the name of Harold Holzer describes the impact of the power of partisan journalism on voters in the years leading to the Civil War. “By the 1850’s, almost no independent voters were left in America, only Democrats and Whigs, and nearly all of them avid readers of newspapers. They were kept in a perpetual state of political arousal by journalism, and further stimulated by election cycles that drew voters to the polls several times each year, not just on the first Tuesday of November, the overwhelming majority regarded politics with a fervor that approached religious awakening, evoking interest characteristic of modern sports or entertainment. With only a few notable exceptions, few unaligned newspapers prospered.”
 
OP
Votto

Votto

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
28,768
Reaction score
12,877
Points
1,090
They control you by putting out the stories and the outrage for you, and telling you how to feel about stuff. On Tuesday you have no idea about the Mr. Potato Head story, and by Wednesday you are being told to be angry about it and it is the worst thing in the world.

You take it hook, line and sinker, bro. They manufacture your outrage.
If you read what I wrote, you will see how nothing has ever changed.

It's simply who and what we are.

Human nature is very dark
 

toobfreak

Tungsten/Glass Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
36,635
Reaction score
21,771
Points
1,915
Location
On The Way Home To Earth
They control you by putting out the stories and the outrage for you,
and telling you how to feel about stuff.
by Wednesday you are being told to be angry about it
You take it hook, line and sinker, bro.
They manufacture your outrage.

 
OP
Votto

Votto

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
28,768
Reaction score
12,877
Points
1,090
They control you by putting out the stories and the outrage for you,
and telling you how to feel about stuff.
by Wednesday you are being told to be angry about it
You take it hook, line and sinker, bro.
They manufacture your outrage.

They are truly the dregs of society
 

Concerned American

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2020
Messages
5,113
Reaction score
5,306
Points
1,893
Location
In your head
Most have no idea what the history of the press is in the US. They really believe that the media at one time, was a wholesome group whose job it was to provide the truth to the American people in order to persevere the democracy which depends upon it. But as with most things presented to us by the Left, this is but a myth.

In 1810, Isaiah Thomas, a printer, newspaper publisher, and witness to the American Revolution, published a book called, "The History of the Printing in America". It was one of a very few works that helped preserve the records of printers during the Revolutionary war period.

A printing press was first established in 1638 at Cambridge, Massachusetts. And as it turns out, the earliest printing press in America mostly debated about religion, and later, promoting the gospel and other books to Native Americans. However, these works were censored. Thomas wrote, "The fathers of Massachusetts kept a watchful eye on the press; and in neither a religious nor civil point of view, were they disposed to give it much liberty. Both the civil and ecclesiastical rulers were fearful that if it were not under wholesome restraints, contentions and heresies would arise among the people"

In 1662, the government of Massachusetts appointed licensers of the press, and afterward, in 1664, passed a law that 'no printing should be allowed in any town with the jurisdiction, except in Cambridge; nor should anything be printed there but what the government permitted through the agency of those persons who were empowered for the purpose. No printing was free from legal constraints until about the year 1755. Thomas wrote, "no pressers were set up in the colonies till near the close of the 17th century." Before 1775, printing was confined to the capitals of the colonies, and the press no longer focused on spreading the gospel, rather, their focus shifted towards spreading revolution. Thomas gives praise to the early printing press for the success of the Revolution, saying that without it, the revolution would probably have never come to be. Perhaps Thomas Pain's Common Sense was the most effective work to gain support for the Revolution. In fact, by the last half of the 1760's, the press had become mostly a partisan tool for the Revolution. Writers regularly proclaimed the virtues of a free press that was needed to have a free society; however, those same writers did their best to silence their opposition, that is, those who were loyal to the King of England.

So was there a free press in the colonies if most, if not all, of the press was controlled by those promoting Revolution against the King of England? And if the press is needed for such political endeavors, does this mean that whoever is best able to use the press as a partisan mouthpiece will be the victorious party?

Exactly how much does the press control us? And is this concerning since there are no unbiased news sources, since there are no unbiased human beings? The printed word takes a great deal of time and money to provide people, so only those with a great deal of time and money can provide it. So what money is funding it, and what are their political views? These are the only questions we should ask and investigate.
Publishers have always used the newspaper to promote their own agenda, but never quite to the level of today. In good 1984 fashion though, actual print news is disappearing as rapidly as I type. It is easier to change, remove or censor digital news than it is to try to recover news papers.
 
OP
Votto

Votto

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
28,768
Reaction score
12,877
Points
1,090
Most have no idea what the history of the press is in the US. They really believe that the media at one time, was a wholesome group whose job it was to provide the truth to the American people in order to persevere the democracy which depends upon it. But as with most things presented to us by the Left, this is but a myth.

In 1810, Isaiah Thomas, a printer, newspaper publisher, and witness to the American Revolution, published a book called, "The History of the Printing in America". It was one of a very few works that helped preserve the records of printers during the Revolutionary war period.

A printing press was first established in 1638 at Cambridge, Massachusetts. And as it turns out, the earliest printing press in America mostly debated about religion, and later, promoting the gospel and other books to Native Americans. However, these works were censored. Thomas wrote, "The fathers of Massachusetts kept a watchful eye on the press; and in neither a religious nor civil point of view, were they disposed to give it much liberty. Both the civil and ecclesiastical rulers were fearful that if it were not under wholesome restraints, contentions and heresies would arise among the people"

In 1662, the government of Massachusetts appointed licensers of the press, and afterward, in 1664, passed a law that 'no printing should be allowed in any town with the jurisdiction, except in Cambridge; nor should anything be printed there but what the government permitted through the agency of those persons who were empowered for the purpose. No printing was free from legal constraints until about the year 1755. Thomas wrote, "no pressers were set up in the colonies till near the close of the 17th century." Before 1775, printing was confined to the capitals of the colonies, and the press no longer focused on spreading the gospel, rather, their focus shifted towards spreading revolution. Thomas gives praise to the early printing press for the success of the Revolution, saying that without it, the revolution would probably have never come to be. Perhaps Thomas Pain's Common Sense was the most effective work to gain support for the Revolution. In fact, by the last half of the 1760's, the press had become mostly a partisan tool for the Revolution. Writers regularly proclaimed the virtues of a free press that was needed to have a free society; however, those same writers did their best to silence their opposition, that is, those who were loyal to the King of England.

So was there a free press in the colonies if most, if not all, of the press was controlled by those promoting Revolution against the King of England? And if the press is needed for such political endeavors, does this mean that whoever is best able to use the press as a partisan mouthpiece will be the victorious party?

Exactly how much does the press control us? And is this concerning since there are no unbiased news sources, since there are no unbiased human beings? The printed word takes a great deal of time and money to provide people, so only those with a great deal of time and money can provide it. So what money is funding it, and what are their political views? These are the only questions we should ask and investigate.
Publishers have always used the newspaper to promote their own agenda, but never quite to the level of today. In good 1984 fashion though, actual print news is disappearing as rapidly as I type. It is easier to change, remove or censor digital news than it is to try to recover news papers.
Trump said the the press was the enemy of the people. Although that may be going overboard a bit, I think this quote is more reflective of the truth

‘TO LEARN WHO RULES OVER YOU, SIMPLY FIND OUT WHO YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO CRITICIZE’?

Currently not even Trump can post on social media.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top