Monday, November 5, 2012
Mightier Than the Sword (Chaps. 1-5)
What, in reading about the history of American journalism, surprised you the most? A particular incident? A particular personage? A particular development or trend? Briefly explain why (but in more than one hurried sentence). Please post your response by 4 p.m., Sunday, Nov. 11.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I was surprised by a few things throughout the first five chapters of this book, but something that I found paralleled to present day was in the chapter about women suffragettes. I was well aware most newspapers of the late 19th century mocked the female suffragettes and refused to take their fight seriously. What I wasn’t aware of was the extent to which they mocked them physically. Maybe I was naïve in assuming publications were cleaner than that. But when I read that Susan B. Anthony was described as “uncomely in person, has rather coarse, rugged features and masculine manners,” the first thing I thought of was present day gossip magazines. Magazines like Star and People that dedicate covers to images of female celebrities “caught” without make-up on, then chastising these women for being in public without wearing concealer. Obviously the aims for these two styles of publication are different, but they both do what they do (and did what they did) to sell their product. It was interesting to see how image-based society was even back then, proving Neil Postman’s point about how much emphasis we place on the visual.
The trend that surprised me the most was probably the numerous examples of hyperbolic to outright fictitious stories through out the first five chapters. From Samuel Adams to the awful stories about the suffragettes and even the press war between Hearst and Pulitzer. These are large examples of how the "good old gatekeepers" of the news really weren't what they were cracked up to be.It really makes me question how scholars can have so many problems with modern news on the Internet when it's starting to feel like this development is anything but new. It is one thing to strive for objectivity, but to say that our media problems now just sprang out of nowhere and that newspapers were all objective is just completely false.
I was surprised by the impact of Thomas Nast's illustrations on political corruption in New York. Though we spoke a lot about how our society's focus on images rather than words has muddled our discourse, Nast's cartoons were able to educate a population that couldn't read or understand the language. Nast's cartoons were even more effective than The New York Times' editorials and it was interesting to see that the two publications worked together to inform the public about Tweed's scandals. It was also interesting to read about William Tweed's massive influence on journalists and how publications were so easily paid off and unwilling to do their job as the fourth estate--i'm not sure that this aspect of journalism has changed very much. Tweed was able to place thousands of dollars worth of advertising in city newspapers to keep them silent. This reminds me of advertisements disguised as news that we see today. Both are/were used as a way to influence a newspaper's content and also jeopardize the relationship between journalists and the public.
I think that the most interesting incident throughout the first five chapters is definitely the impact of Thomas Nast's illustrations. Boss Tweed was running New york and the people were uneducated to the point that those who were reporting on the injustices wouldn't really be able to read and understand just how far reaching his corruption was. Nast's cartoon that depicted Tweed as a vulture praying on the people of the state as well as a large sack of money that was "the brains" of the state. At the time the widespread corruption was tweeds way of keeping his dirt out of the papers and the publics eye. this is similar to some concepts in ethics where we have discussed if certain articles should be published if it pertains to big advertising contributor. this is a huge moment in the history of journalism because it displayed the impact of a well thought cartoon and the meaning it can convey to people without having to worry about the public misundertsanding.
What I found to be most surprising in reading the first five chapters of Mightier than the Sword by Roger Streitmatter was the chapter “Journalism as Warmonger.” Having, of course, previously studied the Spanish-American war, however briefly, I knew that the U.S.S. Maine was not attacked by the Spanish navy, as reported, but actually exploded by accident. What I was not aware of was the extent of Joseph Pulitzer and William Hearst’s role in catalyzing American involvement in the colonialism conflict. Overall, I was surprised to learn that anyone, especially a journalist, would take such a serious matter as war and blatantly lie about it to push the country to get involved, when the publishers knew the truth and knew that what they were printing was not what really happened. I guess I was under the impression that they were just misinformed and going on bad information when printing the stories, but from reading the chapter it seemed like they knew exactly what happened and printed the lie anyway in order to sell papers. It seems pretty ironic that we award reporters today the Pulitzer prize for journalistic excellence when the award bears the name of someone who defied all journalistic standards of commitment to seeking and reporting the truth.
After reading the first five chapters of “Mightier than the Sword,” I was most shocked to find out how often it was for the media to lie in their stories. It was shocking to me because today journalism is all about being ethical and finding the truth and delivering it. What shocked me the most was the last chapter and how the false writings of Hearst and Pulitzer ultimately caused the war. They were publishing about battles that never took place and pure propaganda. Hearst and Pulitzer completely made up their stories about how the U.S.S. Maine was attacked by the enemy. It was also shocking to see that the president of the United States was so easily influenced by these journalists to declare war when he said himself that the ship was not attacked.
In the first five chapters of "Mightier than the Sword," I was most surprised and off put by chapter 3, "Slowing the Momentum for Women's Rights." From history classes I had known that women faced extreme opposition in their quest for suffrage among other rights, but I hadn't been aware of just how large a role the press played in slowing their quest. I was really sad to read that the press pretty much single-handedly slowed women's quest for suffrage. Despite how critical I am of the press, I'm often hopeful that it can be used to ignite public discourse and rational debate. However, the press during women's fight for suffrage made the fight last like 40-50 years longer than it should have.
Not only did they ridicule their movement, but their physical appearance as well. The press was relentless in making Elizabeth Cady Stantom and Susan B. Anthony, as well as the other suffragists, as shrew and physically deformed (either overweight or frail and thin). It actually reminded me of the way the press deals with strong, politically-minded women. The two names that spring to mind immediately are Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. With their political agenda and policies aside, the press would especially harp on their physical appearance. It's sad that then, and even now, the press has to succumb to the easiest form of ridicule. Instead of having rational, well-informed arguments against suffrage, they used tired, sexist (from today's viewpoint) mockery.
The incident that surprised me the most while reading the first five chapters in “Mightier than the Sword” was in Chapter 2, Abolition. The first page of this chapter introduces Reverend Lovejoy and all that he did to oppose the sale of African Americans. He believed that slavery was a sin, so he wrote about it in the St. Louis Observer (which ended up being the most controversial topic of this paper). Other newspapers that supported slavery bashed Lovejoy’s ideas and felt his paper should be silenced. Then, when he was trying to relocate for safety of his family, his printing press was pushed into a river by people that did not support him. His printing presses were not ruined once, but four times. Another antislavery journalist was probably the most influential abolition writer at this time, William Garrison. I feel he was the most influential because he wrote specific details about what people in the South were actually doing to the slaves. Garrison’s ideas circulated more and more so much that mainstream newspapers joined his movement, which made more people aware of what was truly happening. When the Thirteenth Amendment passed after the Civil War, Garrison stopped publishing his newspaper, The Liberator, because he felt his job had been done. People praised him for his hard work, dedication and passion to make people aware of the evils of slavery.
It really amazes me the lengths that the advocators of slavery went to to make both of these antislavery journalists life a living hell. This chapter also showed how much power good journalism and writers had at this point in time to spread their ideals and end something that shouldn’t have even began in the first place.
What surprised me the most throughout the five chapters was the extent to which Adams and the first real start of journalism, lied. I always imagined that when something was created it was created and maintained for truthful and positive outcomes. Since journalism today exaggerates the truth A LOT, I thought that way back when it would have been honest and sincere, but nope. It seems that journalism was created from the start with mal-intent. Adams straight up made storied about the British soldiers in order to get people angry at the British. I think it was for a good cause and definitely helped the revolution but I think he could have been more honest about it. I was also really surprised at the extent to which Nast's cartoons influenced people. I guess I shouldn't really be surprised since nowadays people rely more on images then on words but even back then when people could not grasp what the New York Times was saying, pictures took over and stuck more in people's minds.
What I found to be most surprising about the first five chapters of Mightier than the Sword was the amount of lying and fabrication used to manipulate people by the news media. The example I found most interesting was the horrendous lies spread by Sam Adams in order to sway the colonies perception of the British. Our culture has this image of the nations founding fathers being noble and heroic men, when in reality many of the methods they used to promote their ideas go against the very ethics of journalism. What I also found surprising was how little I knew about all this fabrication. Every history class I've ever taken seemed to skip over the nasty methods our founding fathers used to influence the nation. This influence turned out to be a beneficial, resulting in the American Revolution but our education of these topics seems to be geared towards covering up the gritty details of history. This goes back to the discussion we had in class about the idea of there being different narratives that show up along the course of history.
One trend that really astonished me was the rise of yellow journalism was led by competition between Hearst and Pulitzer (and it was even more ironic that the New York Post commented on that practice as “sinful”). “Journalism without a soul,” also known as yellow journalism was sparked by the desire to be the best newspaper. Aside from competition, the need to get the juiciest story led to misleading information and of course, the Spanish American War. It just goes to show how important it is for reporters to gain the best sources and act upon truth rather than what will sell. I think back to Keen’s argument on how there needs to be a gateway of keepers online, to weed out what is necessary and who is considered an “expert”. Even today, examples of yellow journalism are seen online through sites such as Twitter and Google. There have been a few times that I go online to Twitter, and what’s trending are false.
Post a Comment