Tuesday, December 13, 2005

Another One for the MSM Case History File

From Chaotic Synaptic Activity, a short report on a talk given by two newpaper folk who served in WWII, How Did WWII Affect Newspaper Editors?. Just another data point, but they both seem to have been activist, and they would have come to positions of influence in the 60's. I think we tend to overlook just how much the 60's were a product of the WWII/Depression generation. We were, after all, our parents' children and I think some of the trends associated with boomers, such as divorce, began with them.


terrye said...


And how much of their generation was effected by the Populist movement?

Everything has its time. Remember Pa Ingalls of Little House?

He was in the Grange. Today the Grange is considered conservative, but in its time it was a part of the radical Populist movement.

Some people say today that one of the elements involved in gaining support from the media in WW2 was the inclusion of the Soviets.

After all the NYT was running interference for Uncle Joe back when he was starving Ukrainians.

FDR became president and reduced the number of people in the American Communist party just be creating soup lines.

People were hungry, scared and angry..and looking for help.

So yes, I would say the baby boomers were influenced by their parents.

But we went a lot further than they ever would have and I think a lot of my parents gneration looked at us in about 1969 and thought, My God what have we done?

Knucklehead said...


Thanks for the pointer. This is very interesting stuff.

I personally don't have a huge problem with the MSM wishing to be "watchdogs". My problem with them is that they have a well developed list of things they will bark themselves into a foaming lather about and things which they willfully remain silent about. They've been co-opted by the side which throws them bones and bits of raw meat.

The watchdog function is quite a different thing than the "change agent" function. It is hard to condemn people, MSM or otherwise, for wishing to contribute to change they sincerely believe to be morally necessary - things such as the promotion of civil rights, desegregation, etc. But once committed to this notion of using their position as conveyors and purveyors of information in pursuit of some "social goal", the fact that they've been co-opted by one side becomes a severe problem. They are no longer change agensts but, rather, agents for the status quo. Change is a necessary and inevitable as it was following WWII but they no longer see that. They are apparently determined to "protect" the change they helped foster rather than recognizing that it is the times, and the problems, which have changed and moved on without them.

In short, they've been corrupted and they don't realize it.