What is a journalist, anyway? In general terms, a journalist is someone who endeavors to report and record important and relevant events in an objective and unbiased manner. Often, this endeavor is associated with an effort to create an historical record in one form or another. The classic idea of a mid-twentieth century journalist revolves very closely around the values of objectivity, accuracy, integrity and credibility.

The first rule of journalism is to remove yourself from the story and just report the facts as you have been able to ascertain them. The moment you give an opinion about anything at all, you are no longer a journalist. You are editorializing, which is fine, but there needs to be a very, very clear line between those two things if any publication hopes be be considered legitimate.

The problem we find ourselves facing today is the obvious reality that today’s “journalists” are more concerned with how important they are. To be clear, there have always been investigative journalists who are, in fact, agents of change when they reveal facts. However, legitimate journalists do not fashion stories to meet predetermined conclusions that are then reduced to a seven word opinion in a headline for what is supposed to be a straight news story.

Why is this important? Well, the sad reality is that this basic distinction is not something that the average American considers when consuming news media in this day and age. This has led to a new age of sensationalism, where journalists are no longer lauded for their objectivity and integrity but for the extent to which they can create controversy and drive traffic to websites to increase advertising revenues for the publication.

Indeed, if you asked many of today’s “journalists” or those studying to be “journalists,” they would likely answer in a manner that would make you think they are activists when you asked them why they chose their profession. For this reason, we have coined the term “jactivist” and intend to inject it into the American lexicon so that people can understand what is being done to them.

Here is the simple distinction - a real journalist will give you an actual quote from a newsworthy person and possibly the facts surrounding when and where it was said. A jactivist, on the other hand, will publish that same quote - seemingly as a straight news article - and will then apply a headline that passes judgment on the quote and the person who made it. The journalist’s headline: “John Q. Politician made a statement.” The jactivist’s headline: “John Q. Politician made a racist statement.”

Now, we have free speech and free press and there is nothing wrong whatsoever with calling something racist if that’s what you think. However, a real journalist knows, and more importantly, respects the boundaries between journalistic fact and editorial opinion and will simply provide facts - giving the reader credit for being smart enough to make up their own minds about what was said. The true journalists of old would probably have preferred being waterboarded if given a choice between that and revealing their political biases to their audience. This has disappeared and been replaced with “news” as entertainment - “news” as an echo chamber where you feel validated and are told precisely what you want to hear - “news” that polarizes and divides so you can comfortably point your finger at “them” - “news” used as a weapon to manipulate public opinion. The people who once railed against publishing tycoons like William Randolph Hearst would be horrified by today’s automated, segregated, corrupt media landscape and the power wielded by today’s publishing tycoons - who make Hearst look like the publisher of a two-bit flea market rag with a circulation of 10,000.

It is important to remember that we are only a little more than 100 years into the mass communication phenomenon. That’s really not a very long time. In the early days of mass communication, there was a broader recognition of the global context in which these technologies operated. Concerns about the misuse of communication technologies abroad, particularly by authoritarian regimes like Nazi Germany, reinforced the importance of maintaining free and fair communication systems in democratic societies.

The Nazi regime, under Joseph Goebbels, the Minister of Propaganda, made extensive use of mass communication technologies, especially radio, to disseminate its ideology and maintain control over the German population. The regime recognized the power of these technologies to shape public opinion and used them to broadcast propaganda, censor opposing views, and promote the Führer's image.

Although the creation of the FCC in 1934 was primarily intended to regulate a chaotic American broadcasting landscape, scholars and public intellectuals of the time, such as Walter Lippmann, were vocal about the dangers of mass communication being used to control and manipulate populations. Lippmann and others argued that the rise of mass media could lead to the "manufacture of consent," a process by which public opinion could be engineered by those in power.

With the advent of the Internet, it seemed impossible that information could ever be controlled again. Yet here we are 30 years after the public were allowed onto the Internet and one can make a legitimate argument that it is, for all practical purposes, being controlled. What once seemed impossible is currently being done with the sheer force of money. However, with the rise of artificial intelligence - control and manipulation of the internet is likely a forgone conclusion. We’re not going to need shades for the “bright future” at the end of the road we are currently on.

In the 1930s, Nazi Germany's use of radio and other mass communication technologies was seen as a powerful tool for propaganda. The regime effectively used these technologies to spread its ideology, control public opinion, and suppress dissent. The concern was that through centralized control of media, the Nazis were able to create a controlled narrative that conditioned the populace to accept and even support the regime's policies without question. This phenomenon was observed and critiqued by scholars and media analysts of the time, who warned of the dangers of such concentrated control over communication technologies.

In today's context, the concept of "manufacturing consent," famously explored by Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman in their 1988 book Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, describes how corporate-owned media outlets can shape public perception to align with the interests of the powerful. This is not direct state control, as it was with Nazi Germany, but rather the influence of a small number of large corporations over the vast majority of mainstream media outlets and online platforms - which inevitably leads to corporate control of the state.

The modern media landscape, dominated by a few corporations, has led to concerns similar to those in the 1930s about the potential for manipulating public opinion. In the U.S., a small handful of giant, multinational corporations control a significant portion of the media market. On the internet, a similarly small handful of giant social media companies have immense power over what content is seen and shared, shaping public discourse in profound ways.

This corporate dominance has led to the "manufacturing of consent" through:

• Consolidation of News Sources: Fewer independent voices and perspectives.
• Algorithmic Control: Platforms prioritize content that maximizes engagement, often leading to sensationalism or the reinforcement of existing beliefs.
• Economic Influence: Advertisers and corporate owners influence content, leading to a focus on profit-driven narratives rather than public interest.

While the mechanisms differ, the concerns about the manipulation of public opinion through controlled media remain strikingly similar between the 1930s and today. The centralization of control, whether by a state or by corporations, poses a significant challenge to democratic processes and the free flow of information. The modern challenge is to ensure that the internet and media remain open and diverse, allowing for genuine public discourse rather than the manufacturing of consent by a few powerful entities.

The concern that corporate consolidation has led to corporations effectively controlling the state is well-founded and widely recognized. This situation poses significant challenges to democratic governance, as it can lead to the erosion of public trust, the undermining of democratic institutions, and the prioritization of corporate profits over the public good. Recognizing this dynamic is crucial for those advocating for reforms that seek to restore democratic control and accountability in the face of growing corporate power.

We have to state again here one of our primary beliefs: that the two party system exists to facilitate, protect and preserve the corporatocracy. The possibility of one party gaining absolute control is the driving force behind the money in today’s American political landscape. Help us put an end to this. Join the Third Rail Party and become a real agent of change in your own life. Help us get established in all 50 states. Help us get 40 congressmen and 10 senators elected and we will (actually) change America forever.