Just what qualifies as news?

Monday morning. The first day of class at a highly-regarded journalism school. The instructor walks in, drops a stack of books on a table next to the lectern and to a room full of young students eager to make their mark in journalism, says: “The easiest way to fail in journalism, not to mention in this class, is to be subjective. There is no room in news for views. That is the purview of editorial writers, of columnists. The reader or viewer expects to get the facts from journalists. He doesn’t want your invective or your opinion or your bias. He supplies that himself!”

In one brief statement on Day 1, Class 1, the professor has stated the basic tenet of journalism, the presentation of facts in an unbiased fashion. In fact, objectivity has been the goal of serious journalists for more than 100 years, and has been a standard as far back as 1833 when newspapers became objective because they wanted to sell to a mass audience. You see, if you were subjective and took one side, then you lost half your audience. Before 1833, good journalism was subjective, that news with views was not the exception, but the rule.

Just as today, journalism during the first third of the 19th century had standards, but they were antithetical of those held today, and exactly those of the fictional instructor quoted above. During the early years of the young Republic, the basic tenet of journalism was partisanship. As the famous, and to some, the infamous, William Cobbett (also appropriately known as Peter Porcupine) concisely put it, an editor who didn’t take a side was “a passive fool, and not an editor.”

Now don’t misunderstand, today we have Rush Limbaugh, Keith Oberman and a host of others railing against this party or that party. It’s MSNBC versus FOX. Just remember there is a big difference from news and commentary/entertainment, and, as such, they are in the opinion business, NOT the news business (And as you know, sometimes the networks and commentators can’t tell the difference.).

In the early days of the Republic, the press actively participated in the political dynamics of the country. Rather than simply inform, newspapers sought to persuade. Sometimes they were hurtful, sometimes comedic, sometimes personal and almost always one-sided.

And no one in government escaped press criticism. Jefferson frolicked with his “Congo Harem.” Alexander Hamilton was accused of adultery. So was Andrew Jackson. And so, the beginning of the new century brought little change in the partisan attacks of newspapers.

Commentary often extended beyond political issues. While present-day journalists debate to what extent private information about politicians should be disseminated, partisan editors worked with a different recipe. Stir in politics, mix with personalities, add character “flaws” for spice, and let simmer. The result made for spicy but unbridled journalism. For example, an implication of atheism in a country founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs was potentially devastating, but it was a charge Thomas Jefferson learned to live with.

Perhaps more than anything else, however, the aggressive nature of newspapers during this period can be attributed to the growing importance of the press in America. The American public became infatuated by and dependent upon the medium far beyond that of the Europeans. No matter their content, American newspapers’ social and political importance throughout this period should not be underestimated since major realignments of political parties was occurring.

Name-calling in newspapers was common. Among the epithets were “skunk,” “coward,” “hypocrite,” “atheist,” “adulterer,” “drunk,” “assassin,” “carouser.” Republicans throwing barbs at the Federalists often used “Tory,” “aristocrat,” “royalist,” “monarchist,” “enemy of liberty.”

When the Republicans were the target of the Federalist marksmen, the terms included “democrat,” “atheist,” “anarchist” and the pro-French word “Jacobin.”

Interestingly, the forces that fostered the growth of the partisan press eventually brought about its demise.

The growth of democracy undermined the party press because editors came to be seen as members of the elite who appeared to be dictating to the audience rather than conversing with it.

In the end, however, the vast economic growth of the century nurtured by the Industrial Age brought about changes too formidable for the partisan press to function as before. The phenomenal growth of the cities and the growth of the democratic movement set the stage for a new approach to journalism. This would mean a more objective press, one that redefined the role of the media, the role of the editor and reporter, and even news itself.

Today’s media would be wise to remember that.