[THE MEDIA] Edward R. Murrow and the Modern Day News

I like the Economist's reporting and I'm thinking of subscribing to Mother Jones. Both have their inherent biases, but I don't get the feeling they're trying to pander down. Financial Times has been solid as well.

Blogs have filled in a niche where the better ones can sustain a reader's awareness. The problem is getting a broader narrative that a newspaper or magazine can offer.

 

I can give you one example of how the media has changed, B-Bob. I have some Time magazines from the mid-late 1960's that I saved at the time because, for some bizarre reason, I thought they'd make for interesting reading years later, especially regarding the Vietnam War and the reaction to it, a reaction in which I had a small part. Forgotten in a box at the top of a closet, I found them a couple of years ago (I had stored them at the Family Compound in Southeast Houston). The difference between that magazine and what passes for the same rag today is stunning. Very long, in depth articles. Many, many more pages. Very few ads in comparison to content, and content that was excellent. While I enjoy looking at them, it is also a depressing reminder of just how far journalism has fallen today.

 

This is from the Pew Center for People & The Press. The original is much longer than the very long bit that I've included, but what I've included pretty much comprises the relevant bits:

If you want all the additional details, you can read it at the original source.

[rquoter]
Public Knowledge of Current Affairs Little Changed by News and Information Revolutions

What Americans Know: 1989-2007

Since the late 1980s, the emergence of 24-hour cable news as a dominant news source and the explosive growth of the internet have led to major changes in the American public's news habits. But a new nationwide survey finds that the coaxial and digital revolutions and attendant changes in news audience behaviors have had little impact on how much Americans know about national and international affairs.

On average, today's citizens are about as able to name their leaders, and are about as aware of major news events, as was the public nearly 20 years ago. The new survey includes nine questions that are either identical or roughly comparable to questions asked in the late 1980s and early 1990s. In 2007, somewhat fewer were able to name their governor, the vice president, and the president of Russia, but more respondents than in the earlier era gave correct answers to questions pertaining to national politics.

In 1989, for example, 74% could come up with Dan Quayle's name when asked who the vice president is. Today, somewhat fewer (69%) are able to recall Dick Cheney. However, more Americans now know that the chief justice of the Supreme Court is generally considered a conservative and that Democrats control Congress than knew these things in 1989. Some of the largest knowledge differences between the two time periods may reflect differences in the amount of press coverage of a particular issue or public figure at the time the surveys were taken. But taken as a whole the findings suggest little change in overall levels of public knowledge.



The survey provides further evidence that changing news formats are not having a great deal of impact on how much the public knows about national and international affairs. The polling does find the expected correlation between how much citizens know and how avidly they watch, read, or listen to news reports. The most knowledgeable third of the public is four times more likely than the least knowledgeable third to say they enjoy keeping up with the news "a lot."

There are substantial differences in the knowledge levels of the audiences for different news outlets. However, there is no clear connection between news formats and what audiences know. Well-informed audiences come from cable (Daily Show/Colbert Report, O'Reilly Factor), the internet (especially major newspaper websites), broadcast TV (NewsHour with Jim Lehrer) and radio (NPR, Rush Limbaugh's program). The less informed audiences also frequent a mix of formats: broadcast television (network morning news shows, local news), cable (Fox News Channel), and the internet (online blogs where people discuss news events).

Aside from news media use, demographic characteristics, especially education, continue to be strongly associated with how much Americans know about the larger world. However, despite the fact that education levels have risen dramatically over the past 20 years, public knowledge has not increased accordingly.

These are the principal findings of an in-depth Pew Research Center survey that interviewed a representative national sample of 1,502 adults between Feb.1-13, 2007. Respondents were asked to identify public figures who had recently been in the news. They also were asked questions that measured how much they knew about important and widely covered news events. Awareness of public figures varied widely.



More than nine-in-ten Americans (93%) could identify Arnold Schwarzenegger as the California governor or a former action-movie star - both responses were counted as correct in the scoring. An equally large proportion of the public identified Hillary Clinton as a U.S. senator, a former first lady, a Democratic leader, or a candidate for president. Clear majorities can also correctly identify Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (65%) and Sen. Barack Obama (61%). House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is recognized by about half of the public (49%).

Other prominent national figures and world leaders are not as well known. When asked to name the president of Russia, just 36% recalled Vladimir Putin. Only about three-in-ten (29%) could correctly identify former White House aide Scooter Libby; the survey was conducted during Libby's trial - but before his conviction - on perjury and obstruction of justice charges.

Public knowledge of news events also varies widely. Nearly nine-in-ten (88%) knew that as part of his revised Iraq strategy, President Bush planned to increase U.S. military forces in the country. But only one-in-four Americans (24%) are aware that both houses of Congress passed legislation to increase the minimum wage and 34% knew that Congress voted to raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour.



Distinct patterns emerge when these results are analyzed by key demographic groups. Education proves to be the single best predictor of knowledge. Holding all other factors equal, levels of knowledge rise with each additional year of formal schooling. At the extremes, these educational differences are dramatic: People with postgraduate degrees answer, on average, about 17 of the 23 questions correctly, while those who did not finish high school average only about eight correct answers.

Other demographic differences are also striking. Men, on average, knew more than women, all other factors being equal. Older Americans - particularly those 50 years old or older - did better than younger people. Whites scored better than blacks, while more affluent Americans knew more than those with lower household incomes.

...
[/rquoter]

I also calculated the percentage of the population who voted based on total population. Obviously not the perfect measure, but it seems to me that among other things, it reflects on the amount of the population that is interested in current events. One would imagine that if people were distracted by Paris Hilton "news", they'd be less likely to vote. Of course, there are other factors, like availability of polling stations and ease of voting, and the current economic climate, etc. But in some oblique way it might reflect something. It's also convenient because statistics are available to calculate long before people were polling on complex questions.

It turns out for the last hundred years the percentage of the population who actually votes in the general election has been going way up:

1900: 17.8%
1920: 23.7%
1940: 37.6%
1960: 37.8%
1976: 41.2%
2008: 42.6%

I can give you the actual figures I used to calculate this if you want.

But I just don't see anything beyond unreliable memories of the way things "used to be" in the "good old days" that shows any kind of trend. And I think there is quite a bit of evidence that in general (not specifically with respect to remembering the news), people tend to selectively remember old events - they remember all the Christmas dinners with the family, but they don't remember corporal punishment, or other bad things.

Another example would be the myth that current times are much more violent than things used to be:

<!--copy and paste--><object width="446" height="326"><param name="movie" value="http://video.ted.com/assets/player/swf/EmbedPlayer.swf"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="bgColor" value="#ffffff"></param> <param name="flashvars" value="vu=http://video.ted.com/talks/dynamic/StevenPinker_2007-medium.flv&su=http://images.ted.com/images/ted/tedindex/embed-posters/StevenPinker-2007.embed_thumbnail.jpg&vw=432&vh=240&ap=0&ti=163&introDuration=16500&adDuration=4000&postAdDuration=2000&adKeys=talk=steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence;year=2007;theme=the_rise_of_collaboration;theme=how_the_mind_works;theme=war_and_peace;event=TED2007;&preAdTag=tconf.ted/embed;tile=1;sz=512x288;" /><embed src="http://video.ted.com/assets/player/swf/EmbedPlayer.swf" pluginspace="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" bgColor="#ffffff" width="446" height="326" allowFullScreen="true" flashvars="vu=http://video.ted.com/talks/dynamic/StevenPinker_2007-medium.flv&su=http://images.ted.com/images/ted/tedindex/embed-posters/StevenPinker-2007.embed_thumbnail.jpg&vw=432&vh=240&ap=0&ti=163&introDuration=16500&adDuration=4000&postAdDuration=2000&adKeys=talk=steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence;year=2007;theme=the_rise_of_collaboration;theme=how_the_mind_works;theme=war_and_peace;event=TED2007;"></embed></object>

 

There's an adjustment to your very early voting numbers for people's whose votes were openly suppressed

On your Time example of how much more in depth articles were back then, I think there are others issues, particularly there is so much information out there, I believe the articles articles are probably fewer, but the there probably are more articles.

there just is a lot more content to pack into a Time more than 50 years ago I believe.

Also I remember in another thread, someone posted and article from Wilt Chamberlain's High School days I believe. It was unbelievable how poetic it was compared today's writing.

Now sports writers just give the straight dope, no time to be poetic in the espn age.

 

Two points:

First, African Americans make up 14% of the population, so if every African-American was suppressed in 1900, and every African-American voted in 2008, it wouldn't account for the sum of the difference, and we know that neither of these conditions is true.

Secondly, the claim of the thread is that we are in a fallen age - that we used to be more knowledgeable. Imagine that after adjustments for voter suppression and other things, the rise is completely accounted for and the numbers remain steady. One would expect that in an age of increasing ignorance, the numbers would drop significantly. A simple static percentage across time would contradict that initial argument. Anything less than a major decline doesn't support the thesis.

Again, as I said initially it sort of an indirect way to examine the issue, but for what it is, it doesn't support the thesis.

 

no I agree, obviously the general public is a lot more knowlegable than in 1900. How many people were even literate then.

I think the comparison of different generations starts post WWII. The soilders who went to school on GI Bills accomplished great things. The Civil Rights Movement accomplished great things. The women'ts rigtht movement, so forth and so on.

Its not a matter of knowledge I believe as much as it is a matter of opportunity, situation. The social changes of that era forced people to be aware of there surroundings