[exmadscientist]

Asking where the money goes is always worthwhile, but the thesis that journalism was more partisan 100 years ago is well established. For example, look at Joseph Pulitzer, founder of the Pulitzer Prizes, one of the most prestigious awards any journalist can receive. Pulitzer was also an infamous "yellow journalist", one of the most prominent and influential.

Late-20th-century style "real journalism" seems either to be a historical aberration, or something that is only sustainable in very particular social conditions.

(And yes, I miss it too.)

[Bluestein]

> Late-20th-century style "real journalism" seems either to be a historical aberration

I had never considered that possibility. Horrifying thought.

[dragonwriter]

> Late-20th-century style "real journalism" seems either to be a historical aberration, or something that is only sustainable in very particular social conditions.

It's neither, and no less ideologically driven than preceding or subsequent journalism.

The image of the late 20th century journalism as unbiased and non-ideological would be aberrant if it was at all true, but it is an illusion brought about by a combination of the narrowness and ideological alignment of the major media of the time combined with their own incredibly successful self-serving propaganda (which was reinforced by many elites outside of the media, who shared their corporate capitalist ideological alignment.)