Perspectives on Mass Communication History

Wm. David Sloan

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781136691256
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Communication Studies
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

This unique volume is based on the philosophy that the teaching of history should emphasize critical thinking and attempt to involve the student intellectually, rather than simply provide names, dates, and places to memorize. The book approaches history not as a cut-and-dried recitation of a collection of facts but as multifaceted discipline. In examining the various perspectives historians have provided, the author brings a vitality to the study of history that students normally do not gain. The text is comprised of 24 historiographical essays, each of which discusses the major interpretations of a significant topic in mass communication history. Students are challenged to evaluate each approach critically and to develop their own explanations. As a textbook designed specifically for use in graduate level communication history courses, it should serve as a stimulating pedagogical tool.

1

Perspectives on Mass Communication History

Two pasts exist side by side. One is the real past, the past as it truly occurred. The other is the past as explained by historians.

Let’s compare the two. The real past existed as reality and therefore was comprised of concrete, objective facts, dates, people, events, and other hard details. It existed not only in reality but in a specific time. That is, it took place in definite years, days, and hours. The historian’s past, on the other hand, is comprised of efforts to present the real past in a comprehensible form. Although it may draw on real facts from the real past and may bear some resemblance to the real past, it exists in the historian’s mind rather than in the objective world and occurs in the historian’s present rather than in the real time of the real past. It also is molded by the effort of the historian to organize selected details from the past into a coherent and cohesive structure.

For most of us, historians serve as mediators between us and the real past. Because most of us acquire most of our knowledge of the past from historians’ accounts, how they tell history is of utmost importance. What we know of the real past comes mainly from historians’ explanations. It is therefore important to us as students of history to understand the approaches that historians take to telling their accounts of history.

The purpose behind serious historical study should be to provide an account that closely resembles the real past. Historical study is foremost a search for truth about the past. To help assure that a historical account provides a reasonably accurate depiction of the past, the field of historical study has developed certain standard practices. These practices are discussed further in Chapter 2. Despite the standards, however, some historians’ accounts of the past provide a better resemblance to the past than other historians’ accounts do. One reason for the difference is the differing ability or rigor with which historians employ the practices. Some historians, quite honestly, are better at doing the job than others are.

Even among historians of equal ability, however, contrasting accounts of the past arise. One of the prime reasons is that historians write from particular points of view. These points of view are called “perspectives,” and historians’ explanatory frameworks that result from these perspectives can be referred to as “interpretations.”

It is clear enough to most students of history that historians do indeed provide differing interpretations. But why, one may ask, do interpretations and reinterpretations occur? There are a number of reasons that one may give in answer to that question. The most obvious is that historians are human beings; and, like other human beings, each one has his or her own, distinctive interests, attitudes, values, and outlooks. So, just as today there are both Republicans and Democrats among voters, there are historians with differing ideas and views. To expect human beings to divest themselves of their distinctive characteristics upon becoming historians would be to ask the magical. Historians, being human and though perhaps trained in the rigorous methods of historical research, bring to their study of the past their own views. It is natural, then, that they sometimes should provide different interpretations of the same subject matter. Although critics are tempted to claim that interpretations are merely artificial devices that distort the past, most historians earnestly think of an interpretation as the most legitimate way of providing a valid explanation of history.

Beyond the personal reasons for interpretations, however, there are others. One of the most important reasons is that new perspectives arise with new generations. Each generation, although it may be influenced by the views of its parents’ time, has its own attitudes and outlooks. Each holds to the views distinctive of its own age, the climate of opinion that holds sway in any generation. Those views influence the historians of that generation to look at the past from a particular perspective. Furthermore, each generation thinks it is more knowledgeable or advanced or sophisticated than the previous generation. That sense of superiority results in historians believing that they can provide a better explanation or interpretation of history than their predecessors did.

Other reasons for reinterpretations include the emergence of new research methods and the appearance of new sources of research material. As an example of the former, one may point to the use of statistical devices such as content analysis in media history. Such methods provide new ways to examine the past. As to the second reason, it is a common occurrence for new information to be unearthed that sheds new insight on an old subject. Newly opened private correspondence, for example, may add new details to an editor’s views or motivations and thus suggest a reassessment.

Changing interpretations of media history also have resulted periodically from changes within the history profession. The backgrounds and outlooks of historians have varied during different stages, and certain perspectives have been dominant at different times. Generally speaking, historians have written from three broad categories of perspectives: ideological ones, professional ones, and cultural ones.¹ Within each category, one may identify distinctive schools of interpretation. These schools will be discussed in detail in subsequent chapters, but at this point a brief overview of the most prevalent schools will be useful.²

Ideological Perspectives

A number of schools of interpretation have given preeminence to political and social issues and attitudes in explaining mass communication history. Because of journalists’ tendency to take an adversarial view of the relationship between the media and government, most ideological historians have been prone to adopt the conflict approach of the Progressive school. At various times, however, other ideological interpretations have been employed.

Nationalist School—The earliest histories of America’s mass media were written by Nationalist historians in the 18th century. Deeply patriotic, these historians displayed a strong pride in the accomplishments of the nation and the progress of its free institutions. They believed that the overarching theme in the history of civilization was the advance in human liberty. Contrasting the corrupt political system of Great Britain with that of their own country, they sensed that America, the cradle of liberty, was destined to lead the world to greater and greater freedom. They believed that the American press and its editors were influential and patriotic figures who contributed to the progress of the nation and its ideals of liberty. Influenced by the ideas of the Enlightenment, with its emphasis on natural rights and the people’s preeminent role in government, they nevertheless were generally conservative. Typically gentlemen from prominent New England families, they tended to side with established order and with Federalist and Whig politics against the Republican and Jacksonian opposition.

Romantic School—The primary characteristic of Romantic historians in the last half of the 18th century was not ideology. Nevertheless, they held views that were virtually identical to those of the Nationalist historians. Believing history to be the story of the unfolding advance of human liberty and the key player to be the United States, Romantic historians also held to the conservative ideology of their Nationalist predecessors. The distinguishing features of Romantic histories were their narrative style and their emphasis on the role of great men. Under the influence of the Romantic movement in the arts, historians such as James Parton wrote with a literary flair about the lives of individuals; and under their pens, history came to be viewed as a branch of literature.

Progressive School—Reacting to the Nationalist and Romantic view of America as a land of liberty for everyone, Progressive historians began in the early 20th century to substitute a concept of ideological conflict. The change in interpretation resulted in part from a change in the history profession. Replacing the gentlemen historians and amateurs were college-trained educators in the emerging departments of journalism at various universities. Because America’s public universities opened their doors to everyone, these new professional historians came from various levels of society. Representing various geographic regions, they began to shift some of the emphasis away from journalism in New York and New England to that in other sections of the country. Influenced by the Progressive reform movement and by Progressive historians from outside mass communication, these educators and many quasi-historians from the ranks of working journalists began to view the past as a struggle in which the liberal press was pitted on the side of freedom, liberty, democracy, and equality against the powerful forces of wealth and class. They argued that the history of America could be found in the conflict between the rich and the poor, the aristocratic and the democratic. The press, sometimes manipulated by America’s powerful self-interested conservative forces, was a key instrument in their ability to maintain control. Likewise, Progressive historians claimed, the press had been central to the successful efforts of liberals to bring about reform and progress. They believed the primary purpose of the media was to crusade for liberal social and economic causes—to fight on the side of the masses of common, working people against the entrenched interests in American business and government. The fulfillment of the American ideal required a struggle against those individuals and groups that had blocked the achievement of a fully democratic system. Progressive historians often placed the conflict in economic terms, with the wealthy class attempting to control the media for its own use. The picture they presented was clearly black-versus-white, good (that is, liberalism) against evil (conservatism). Despite its transparent ideological bent, the Progressive school has provided the premise for more works on mass communication history than has any school other than the Developmental, which is discussed later.

Consensus School—The Consensus interpretation originated just prior to World War II as a direct reaction to the Progressive interpretation. Whereas Progressives emphasized conflict as the key ingredient in American history, Consensus historians argued that history was marked not primarily by conflict but instead by broad agreement among Americans on fundamental principles. Although disagreements existed, they took place within a larger framework of agreement on such essentials as a belief in democracy, freedom, and constitutional law. Within the context of communication history, the Consensus interpretation attempted to refute the Progressive view that a natural animosity should exist between a liberal press and established institutions such as government and religion. Consensus historians argued instead that the media served best when they worked with the other institutions in American society in an effort to solve problems and improve conditions. Because journalists have tended toward liberal ideology and because they have held a conflict view of the media and government, the Consensus interpretation has not been employed as widely in mass communication history as in the broader study of American history. Nevertheless, it has lent itself to numerous studies on particular topics, especially those involving periods of great crises such as wartime.

Along with these major ideological schools, a number of others have provided substantial scholarship on particular topics. Among those worthy of mention are Feminist, Black Militant, Neo-Conservative, Marxist, and Business schools. Each has offered its distinctive assessment of various episodes and issues in mass communication history.

Professional Perspectives

Because most historians of mass communication have come out of a background in the media professions, they have tended to bring professional perspectives to their historical work. These perspectives have ranged over a wide spectrum, including, for example, libertarian views on freedom of the press, liberal views on political and social issues, and critical assessments of media performance. By far, however, most historical studies written from a professional perspective have employed certain central tenets associated with what are considered “proper” professional practices and outlooks. This perspective has accounted for approximately one-half of all works written about mass communication history and is therefore identifiable as a school to itself. It is the Developmental school, its name deriving from the concept that the key feature of mass communication history has been the origin, performance, and development of those “proper” practices.

Developmental School—The Developmental interpretation originated with Frederic Hudson’s 1873 work, Journalism in the United States, From 1690 to 1872. The interpretation grew out of changes that had taken place in the newspaper industry. In 1833 Benjamin Day founded the New York Sun, America’s first successful general-interest penny newspaper. It created a revolution in journalism, in attitudes about what the nature of newspapers should be, and in historians’ views about communication history. Following Hudson’s reasoning, historians began to think that proper journalism was that type associated with the Sun and other penny newspapers. They then reasoned that the history of journalism was essentially the story of how journalism had progressed to reach the point of development embodied in the penny press. Since Hudson’s time, the Developmental interpretation has provided the underlying assumptions of the majority of studies of American mass media history. Developmental historians’ primary concern was how the press became a journalistic instrument. Like other historians, they tended to view the past in terms of the present; but in contrast to historians from other schools who considered the media in relationship to issues and situations outside the mass communication environment, they attempted to explain and evaluate history by its contributions to present professional standards.

Hudson’s Journalism in the United States was greatly influenced by the practices of the penny press. Hudson had been managing editor of the New York Herald, the newspaper that more than any other of the time emphasized news over opinion as the proper function of newspapers and that had been the most successful mass newspaper in American history. Coming from a news-oriented background and assuming that the Herald’s characteristics were the appropriate ones for newspapers, he tended to explain earlier journalism in terms of how it performed in accordance with the successful practices of the Herald and how those practices had developed in the past.

As mass communication began to professionalize in the late 1800s, interest in its history began to grow. As a result, historical studies increased in number. Although differing on a few particulars, they largely echoed Hudson’s themes. Most later historians came out of the mass communication professions, and many in the 20th century taught in professionally oriented college programs in journalism, broadcasting, and advertising. They believed the professional standards that had developed over time to be the appropriate and proper ones, and they began to apply even more universally the concept of professional progress in the history of communication.

The Developmental interpretation had a pervasive impact on historical assumptions because most textbooks for college courses in communication history were cast in terms of the professional framework. With textbooks such as Frank Luther Mott’s American Journalism (1941), the Developmental interpretation became entrenched in historical thinking. Studied by generations of students and future historians, the textbooks tended to reinforce the explanation that the history of American mass communication was the story of how the media evolved in their professional characteristics. Being generally positive about the professions in mass communication, Developmental textbooks also exercised a major importance by providing a favorable view of the American media and reinforcing a pro-media outlook among communication students and professionals.

After World War II, several events contributed to the expansion of the professional concept of the news media as entities that ideally should be autonomous from outside authority and independent of other parts of society. Influenced much by the media’s role in such episodes as the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, the Vietnam War, and the Watergate political scandal, Developmental historians—though retaining the concept of professional progress— sometimes viewed history as a clash between the media and established institutions such as government, religion, the military, big business, and the White racial majority. Thus, whereas Progressive historians, for example, had emphasized the media as a means of working within society to achieve social and political change, Developmental historians tended to emphasize such historical trends as press freedom and media-government relations in which the media confronted other units of society.

Cultural Perspectives

In the early 1900s, a handful of historians began to react to the approaches of the Romantic and Developmental schools that emphasized the role of i...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title page
• Copyright page
• Contents
• Preface: A Note on Teaching
• 1: Perspectives on Mass Communication History
• 2: The Study of History: Interpretation or Truth?
• 3: The Colonial Press, 1690-1765: Mirror of Society or Origin of Journalism?
• 4: American Revolutionary Printers, 1765-1783: Powerful Radicals or Ineffective Conservatives?
• 5: The Party Press, 1783-1833: Political Sycophant or Party Leader?
• 6: Freedom of the Press, 1690-1800: Libertarian or Limited?
• 7: Women in Media, 1700-Present: Victims or Equals?
• 8: The Frontier Press, 1800-1900: Personal Journalism or Paltry Business?
• 9: The Penny Press, 1833-1861: Product of Great Men or Natural Forces?
• 10: The Antebellum Press, 1827-1861: Effective Abolitionist or Reluctant Reformer?
• 11: The Civil War Press, 1861-1865: Promoter of Unity or Neutral Reporter?
• 12: The Black Media, 1865-Present: Liberal Crusaders or Defenders of Tradition?
• 13: The Industrial Press, 1865-1883: Professional Journalism or Pawn of Urbanism?
• 14: New Journalism, 1883-1900: Social Reform or Professional Progress?
• 15: Modern Journalism, 1900-1945: Working Profession or Big Business?
• 16: Public Relations, 1900-1950: Tool for Profit or for Social Reform?
• 17: Advertising, 1900-Present: Capitalist Tool or Economic Necessity?
• 18: Mass Magazines, 1900-Present: Serious Journalism or Mass Entertainment?
• 19: The Muckrakers, 1901-1917: Defenders of Conservatism or Liberal Reformers?
• 20: The Media in Trying Times, 1917-1945: Propagandists, Patriots, or Professionals?
• 21: American Radio, 1920-1948: Traditional Journalism or Revolutionary Technology?
• 22: The Contemporary Press, 1945-Present: Profiteering Business or Professional Journalism?
• 23: Television, 1948-Present: Entertainment or Information?
• 24: The Entertainment Media, 1900-Present: Diffusers of Culture or Seekers of Profit?
• Index