In the 1960s and 70s the American press forged a new set of values. Threatened with obsolescence by the proliferation of new competitors, pressured to rectify their treatment of minorities and women, denounced as biased by both the left and the right, the country's leading news organizations made fundamental changes. They shifted from simply reporting the news to analyzing it. They adopted a more adversarial approach to those in power. They continued to strive for objectivity, but they did so in a way that left many outside their newsrooms (and many on the inside) deeply dissatisfied. In many ways they became more liberal. Powerful institutions like the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times--the two newspapers this book scrutinizes--transformed themselves, with major ramifications for the rest of the news media and for the country as a whole. On Press shows how these changes occurred, why they persisted for three decades after the 1970s, and why the media is reassessing long-held values once again in the Trump era.--

A study of how mainstream journalism transformed from 1960 to 1980. In the 1960s and 1970s, the American press embraced a new way of reporting and selling the news. The causes were many: the proliferation of television, pressure to rectify the news media’s dismal treatment of minorities and women, accusations of bias from left and right, and the migration of affluent subscribers to suburbs. As Matthew Pressman’s timely history reveals, during these tumultuous decades the core values that held the profession together broke apart, and the distinctive characteristics of contemporary American journalism emerged. Simply reporting the facts was no longer enough. In a country facing assassinations, a failing war in Vietnam, and presidential impeachment, reporters recognized a pressing need to interpret and analyze events for their readers. Objectivity and impartiality, the cornerstones of journalistic principle, were not jettisoned, but they were reimagined. Journalists’ adoption of an adversarial relationship with government and big business, along with sympathy for the dispossessed, gave their reporting a distinctly liberal drift. Yet at the same time, “soft news”—lifestyle, arts, entertainment—moved to the forefront of editors’ concerns, as profits took precedence over politics. Today, the American press stands once again at a precipice. Accusations of political bias are more rampant than ever, and there are increasing calls from activists, customers, advertisers, and reporters themselves to rethink the values that drive the industry. As On Press suggests, today’s controversies—the latest iteration of debates that began a half-century ago—will likely take the press in unforeseen directions and challenge its survival. Praise for On Press “The ultimate story behind all the stories. In tracing the evolution of news over the past half century, Matthew Pressman has produced an account that’s deeply historical and not a little troubling. In an age when the press is alternately villain or hero, Pressman serves as a kind of medicine man of journalism, telling us how we got from there to here and warning us what must change.” —Graydon Carter, former editor of Vanity Fair “Pressman helps us understand how we came to our current, troubled media moment with his deeply researched, engagingly written history of America’s press in the 1960s and ’70s. This is an important and original contribution—and a needed one.” —Margaret Sullivan, media columnist for the Washington Post

In this ground-breaking two-volume set, world-leading experts produce a rich, authoritative depiction of the world's press, its freedom, and its limits. We want press freedom but we also want freedom from the press. A powerful press may expose a corrupt government or aid it. It may champion citizens or unfairly attack them. A vulnerable press may lack supporters and succumb to conformity. It may resist, and overcome tyranny. According to common belief, press freedom involves social responsibilities to equip public debate and render government transparent. Is this attitude valid given that the press is usually a private, commercial actor? Globally, the health, authority, and viability of the press varies dramatically. These patterns do not conform to traditional divisions between North and South, East and West. Instead, they are much more complex. How do we measure successful press regulation? What concessions can the state and/or society demand from the press? What constitutes the irreducible core of press freedom? The contributions in Volume 1 look at key jurisdictions in Europe; whereas Volume 2 goes beyond Europe to analyse the situation in key jurisdictions in Asia, Africa, the Americas and Oceania. Each volume can be used independently or as part of the complete set. This work will be incredibly valuable to policymakers and academics who seek to capture the global picture for the purposes of effecting change.

In this ground-breaking two-volume set, world-leading experts produce a rich, authoritative depiction of the world's press, its freedom, and its limits. We want press freedom but we also want freedom from the press. A powerful press may expose corrupt government or aid it. It may champion citizens or unfairly attack them. A vulnerable press may lack supporters and succumb to conformity. It may resist, and overcome tyranny. According to common belief, press freedom involves social responsibilities to equip public debate and render government transparent. Is this attitude valid given that the press is usually a private, commercial actor? Globally, the health, authority, and viability of the press varies dramatically. These patterns do not conform to traditional divisions between North and South, East and West. Instead, they are much more complex. How do we measure successful press regulation? What concessions can the state and/or society demand of the press? What constitutes the irreducible core of press freedom? The contributions in Volume 1 look at key jurisdictions in Europe; whereas Volume 2 goes beyond Europe to analyse the situation in key jurisdictions in Asia, Africa, the Americas and Oceania. Each volume can be used independently or as part of the complete set. This work will be incredibly valuable to policy makers and academics who seek to capture the global picture for the purposes of effecting change.

Bringing the rich terrain of Arab American histories to bear on conceptualizations of race in the United States, this groundbreaking volume fills a critical gap in the field of U.S. racial and ethnic studies. The articles collected here highlight emergent discourses on the distinct ways that race matters to the study of Arab American histories and experiences and asks essential questions. What is the relationship between U.S. imperialism in Arab homelands and anti-Arab racism in the United States? In what ways have the axes of nation, religion, class, and gender intersected with Arab American racial formations? What is the significance of whiteness studies to Arab American studies? Transcending multiculturalist discourses that have simply added on the category “Arab-American” to the landscape of U.S. racial and ethnic studies after the attacks of September 11, 2001, this volume locates September 11 as a turning point, rather than as a beginning, in Arab Americans’

For many of us, the drive to affect positive change--however vague or idiosyncratic our sense of this might be--has guided our work in higher education. We champion the pursuit of a college degree because few endeavors can match it in terms of advancing a person's economic mobility (Chetty, Friedman, Saez, Turner, and Yagan; 2017). Despite recent debates about the value of a college degree (Pew Research Center, 2017), the opportunities and financial stability awarded to those with college degrees remain apparent when they are compared to peers who have only graduated high school (Pew Research Center, 2014). And while more Americans have a college degree than ever before (Ryan and Bauman, 2016), access to a formal, post-secondary education continues to be elusive for some. Indeed, over the last ten years, analysts have projected that the cost of attending college would keep 2.4 million low-to-moderate income, college-qualified high school graduates from completing a college degree (Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, 2006). During that same period, college students in the United States saw expenses related to tuition and fees increase by 63 percent, school housing costs (excluding board) increase by 51 percent, textbook prices increase by 88 percent (Bureau of Labor, 2016). Because few students can afford a college education by salary alone, 44.2 million Americans have sought financial aid via student loans. As a result, total student loan debt is now topping $1.45 trillion in the United States (Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 2017), and student loan delinquency rates are averaging 11.2 percent (Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 2017). The burden of a student's financial decisions extends beyond the mere individual: society will inevitably carry the weight of this debt for years to come.