The Partisan Media (1790-1840)
Fueled by contrasting federalist opinion, early reporters and news sources were nothing more than support systems for differing political factions. After the Revolutionary War, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton forced a public separation of opinion; Jefferson supported state rights while Hamilton supported a strong central government. Their views entertained both supporters and critics in an early tug-of-war media debate. However, at the hefty price of 6 cents, newspapers were only read by those already experienced in current politics, and, as West states: "the goal of many journalists of this period was direct advocacy and support for the positions taken by the political party with which they were affiliated. There was little effort at objectivity on the part of reporters, which limited their overall credibility with readers"(9).
The Commercial Media (1840-1920)
As a result of a much lower, stable newspaper price and the influence of new technology, newspaper circulation skyrocketed after 1840. Samuel Morse's new telegraph invention along with the need for Civil War coverage launched the business prospects of early newspapers. With a wide circulation range, publishers could increase the price of advertising and end their reliance on government or campaign financing. Soon, individual editors such as Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst would push commercial media to the limits. To attract and retain high subscription rates and advertising space, Pulitzer and Hearst engaged in cutthroat, sensationalistic coverage. The Spanish-American War of 1898 was the first true testament of media power in the United States. On the influence of yellow journalism, West recounts: "with jingoistic headlines from leading papers, journalists fanned the flames of war and encouraged America to go to war to assert national prerogatives"(44). The Commercial period "befitted broader social, economic, and political changes, technological developments, and the key role of the powerful editors and publishers, the media evolved into a commercially oriented industry featuring tabloid stories"(45). The media's scope and influence increased as a result of shifting ties between government support and financial prominence.
The Objective Media (1920-1970)
Towards the end of his career, Pulitzer sought to professionalize the reporting industry. As a result, Pulitzer endowed the first Journalism school at Columbia University; several more were to follow. This initiative, as well as the expansion of mass education following World War I, lead to the objective period in media history. West asserts that "control of the news moved from the powerful publishers and editors of the nineteenth century to professional reporters who argued that only they could fairly report the news, free of partisan bias and untainted by economic incentives"(51). Reporters began to probe deep inside the world of war and politics and relate new perspectives to the public. The visual coverage of the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal emphasized the "pinnacle of source credibility"(64). With homogeneous coverage, trustworthy reporting and mass appeal, the objective age marked the pivotal moment in media influence on public opinion.
The Interpretative Media (1970-1980)
The 1980s marked a backlash of objectivity. Reporters related the experience and knowledge of several fields of study to assess political and social issues. According to West, reporters felt that "facts in and of themselves could not be interpreted out of context. Instead it was important to understand events in light of deeply rooted structures"(70). Ad watches and political punditry also emerged to provide interpretive appeal. Pundits consistently added a detached professionalism and credibility to newscasts, and in doing so, exerted a high degree of power over political opinion. Issues ignored in the objective era, such as adultery, were highly criticized in the interpretive era. The Heart trial and the OJ Simpson case resonate as interpretive period triumphs. The media's outlandish approach in associating every social issue with that of the OJ Simpson trial bludgeoned their credibility. The confusing, Wakowski-type social interpretations and criticism eventually took a toll on the common viewer and much of the media's credibility was lost. On page 80, West states: "If media credibility reached its high point during the objective media stage, then the interpretive phase saw the start of a slow but steady decline in public trust and confidence in the media."
The Fragmented Media (1990-?)
Current deregulation of the media industry, the rise of internet reliance, tabloid press, talk radio and satellite technology incite the rise of a fragmented press. Variety marks the current age of media and entertainment. With cable and satellite television, a horde of newspapers and magazines and more independent websites than Chinese citizens, a support system for any group of thought or political reason is easily accessible. With fragmentation also comes an excessive amount of individual event coverage. From the Simpson trial to the Kennedy plane crash, if no enticing news exists, the media will converge on a similar topic to a sickening degree. This over analysis also lead and continues to lead to a major decline in public appreciation for the fragmented media giant. According to West, "press fragmentation would mark the fall of the media establishment as a powerful and unified entity. With weak public esteem and declining public respect, reporters would lose the credibility and homogeneity of coverage that had given them such great influence during the objective era"(85).
The Future of the Media
In the final chapter of West's analysis, he finally suggests that "we should abandon treating the era of the objective press as the golden age of the mass media in terms of quality and coverage"(117). West argues that although the homogeneity of coverage may have granted the media ample power in shaping the political nature of America, that power was not necessarily a healthy alternative for democracy. West also introduces possible scenarios for future media eras. Either the media will continue to fragment and lose credibility or, possibly a more immediate and viable conclusion, media conglomerates such as MSNBC and Disney will sieze the bulk of media outlets and execute their own individual partisan incentives. In conclusion, West states that "in the long run, nothing is more fundamental to the operation of the political system than the media"(126). Yet, the ways in which a democratic society relates to media influence will continue to develop and recycle, exhibiting the basic ideas of democratic change itself.