From Shipping News to Shifting News

Early Days

American colonial newspapers told readers of the cargo and passengers on ships that recently arrived in port — shipping news. They may have reported the arrival of Hepplewhite chairs from London, Aubusson tapestries from France, Alvear wines from Spain, the nephew of an Italian marquis, assorted human chattel for southern plantations and northern mansions.

The papers also included dispatches about the social and political doings of important people, especially the British monarchy. Some papers were royal-friendly; others more antagonistic, more "patriotic." Publishers who were critical of the king or his emissaries were punished, some severely.

For example, in 1734, the publisher of the New York Weekly Journal, John Peter Zenger, was brought to trial on charges of “seditious libel” for running articles that reported the king’s governor had appointed judges without having them duly vetted by the legislature, among other things.

His attorney, Andrew Hamilton (no relation to Alexander Hamilton), argued that Zenger published the “truth” and had not committed libel. This argument was unprecedented but nonetheless persuasive, and the jury found Zenger not guilty of libel (thoughtco.com). This laid the foundation for the constitutional defense of free speech and a free press in the United States.

Dollars and Sense

As public policy in the new nation moved to the center of public life, the newspapers' focus on commerce began to merge with politics. The partisan press sold political viewpoints to segments of the citizenry whose outlook aligned with the paper's position, folks seeking affirmation, or those open to persuasion. Political parties often subsidized these papers, ensuring they toed the ideological line.

When advertising, which had long been a part of newspaper content, became the papers' main source of revenue, the news became more "objective," more mainstream, so as not to run off the merchants’ customers regardless of their political stripe. Opinion moved to the editorial pages, and readers were invited to join the fray on the facing page (the op-ed page).

Shifting Standards

How events were covered, who was identified as newsmakers, and how items were written became standardized across mainstream newsrooms, which made an experienced journalist's skillset highly portable. These practices were codified in the mid-1800s by the Associated Press, a cooperative of media organizations that share news coverage among members (ap.org).

This system worked well (more or less) for generations until the advertising model changed with the advent of digital media, and news organizations slowly returned to relying on subscriptions, sponsors, or benefactors — lest they die. Definitions of journalism and journalists changed. Schools that prepared professionals for newsrooms record declining enrollments, which continues to this day.

This is a worldwide trend, as was reported in The Conversation in 2022 (theconversation.com).

Franz Krüger reported, “The demand for journalism graduates is shrinking, while non-professionals play an increasing role in supplying society with information. … Journalism, in the sense of finding, sifting, and sharing vital information, remains of crucial importance. But it is no longer under the sole control of professional journalists. News organisations remain important but must accept they are no longer information monopolies. Reliable information remains essential for societies to work, but it is produced by a range of people, not all of them in traditional newsrooms.”

I agree with Kruger’s assessment and would add that to satiate the public appetite for viewpoint, much of the “news” is not about what and how events transpired but what they mean to the writer, less about facts and more about impressions and speculation. Information has been relegated to boxed listicles; opinion is the main attraction.

© XXX