ACCURATE THINKING 675Though science and medicine had made tremendous advances in the first
part of the century, it would still be a generation or two before that knowledge
would become a part of the general education of the average American.
Newspapers were still the main source of information about such things, and the
back pages were filled with advertisements for pseudoscientific contraptions that
promised to cure diseases by harnessing the power of magnetism or the
miraculous effects of radio waves. Quack doctors touted patent medicines and
pills that were often mostly opium or cocaine that dulled the senses but did little
to cure anything. When viewed in that context, it is little wonder that Napoleon Hill
felt it was important to caution his readers about the source of their information.
But what significance does his advice have for the modem reader? America has
advanced since then through the information age, the communication age, and the
Internet age. News is delivered to us as it happens from anywhere on earth, and even
children have instant access to information data banks that stagger the imagination.
The world has indeed changed, but as the editors of this edition have often
pointed out, the times may be different but the basic principles Hill writes about
remain just that: basic principles. Though journalistic standards have improved
tremendously, and it is rare to find an executive of a reputable news organization
who blatantly manipulates the news, it would be a mistake to believe that what you
hear, see, or read is fact. It only means that today bias is less obvious and we must
be even more astute when searching for the facts necessary for accurate thinking.
By the end of the twentieth century, the term "spin doctor" came into
common usage. It was used to describe political or government officials, or p.r.
professionals whose job was to take the news and "spin" it in the way that served
a particular purpose and advanced his or her political agenda. Another commonly
heard term was "the liberal media, " used often in reference to television news and
the perception that there was a left-leaning bias among the major networks.
However, in radio broadcasting at that same time, the majority of talk
shows featured highly opinionated hosts whose popularity was based on their
controversial right-wing views. The two most popular cable-television news
networks were evenly divided, with CNN usually identified as liberal and the Fox
News Channel usually regarded as conservative.