What is the moral of "Ruth Herrick's Assignment"? In deciding this, consider how the woman journalist is portrayed. What are her defining characteristics? Are they the same as a male journalist's? Is it surprising that a woman journalist portrayed her fictional alter ego this way? How do you explain that? Does MIGHTIER THAN THE SWORD offer any clues?
Your response is due on Sunday, Nov. 18, by 4 p.m.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
The second to last sentence of “Ruth Herrick’s Assignment” sums up the societal view of female reporters of that time period: “…After all, you can’t depend on a woman in this business.” Women were seldom treated with the same respect men received, and even today, there are far fewer female reporters than male reporters in the field. Despite this, Ruth was a pioneering reporter compared to the women we watched in “Goodnight and Goodluck.” I was surprised to see Ruth portrayed as dedicated, determined, and hungering for a challenge – all traits a male reporter is expected to possess. The difference is that Ruth did what I think many men would not have done in the same situation. Her morals took over and she threw away her story. Though it is a gross generalization to assume male reporters would do this and females wouldn’t, it says something about Ruth and female journalists.
An argument for female journalists could be that Ruth, being a woman, was more in touch with her emotions and morals, letting that stop her from writing the story of her career but saving a life.
And the sexist argument would be that Ruth, being a woman, was more in touch with her emotions and morals, letting that stop her from writing the story of her career, a slave to her feelings.
I wasn’t surprised the other characters in the story, like Ruth’s male boss, characterize her as weak and not reliable when she fails. But I was surprised to see a female reporter portrayed this way in literature, a place where women are often shown in a sexist light. I didn’t expect to read about Ruth’s internal struggle or her bitter acknowledgement of the way an average male reporter would handle the situation.
I’m sure that a male reporter has done the same thing Ruth did. It’s naïve to assume different. But men have the pressure of competing with other males in a male dominated field. As a result they may push their morals aside to get the star story. Ruth was fighting more than that. She was trying to make a name for herself in a male-dominated field and listen to her morals at the same time. To write that story would have been tying the noose around Helen Brandow’s neck. Ruth’s decision is a testament to her bravery.
I don’t recall reading anything about female reporters yet in “Mightier than the Sword.” The way women were portrayed throughout history, however, lends itself to this story. All of the mentions of historical women throughout Streitmatter’s book, from the female suffragette movement to the glamorization and beautification of “Rosie the Riveter” working women, are colored with sexism. Ruth and the plight of female reporters of this time period were also subject to this.
I guess the moral would be that the life of a person is sometimes more important than a good story. I don't disagree with this, but I feel that it was heavily implied that the only reason Mrs. Harlowe was let of the hook was because Ruth Hendrick was a woman. Throughout the story, she's described as having a womanly look and is considered exceptional simply because she had to work twice as hard because of her gender. I agree with Hannah and feel that a man is just as capable of being quiet as a women is, it's just a matter of who the person is. The only reason it's more dangerous for Ruth is because like her boss comments at the end, women are seen as being unreliable reporters.
I will venture to say that the moral of the story is this: Everyone deserves a second chance - given the circumstances.
I would also say that I don't see the boss character as being sexist or chauvinist. I think viewing him in that light is: 1) Too easy, predictable, and irresponsible, and 2) A stereotype that has been made with no real thought put into it. I see the boss as more of a caricature of what he is expected to be. I think the boss was more tactile than given credit for. He saw how male reporter after male reporter was failing to get the story, so he sent a woman. Rather smartly, in fact, hoping that she would be able to do complete what all of the male reporters failed to. Maybe, too, he expected her to go above and beyond, considering the status of women in the field at that time.
Ruth Herrick and her fellow co-workers all work in a place where their first mistake is their last mistake -- regardless of journalistic prowess. This business model makes sure that everyone who wants to keep their current job, and hopefully be promoted, will do the absolute best work possible. This also suggests that some moral and ethical dilemmas may be solved less-than-honorably.
Ruth Herrick, however, shatters the mold. Not only is she assigned the story, she then gets the story, and ultimately chooses to allow Mrs. Brandow a second chance, which ultimately proves her power and ability to sacrifice. This is where I believe the distinction between male journalists and female journalist exists... perhaps.
Being that this is a fictional story, it is hard to delineate between the story world and the factual world. Sure there are similarities in the story and in history, but even then, this can't be considered a fair match. That would be like saying that the grandmother in Flannery O'Conner's "A Good Man is Hard to Find" is the model for all grandmothers in that time period. It simply is not so. All this is to say that I do not believe that someone, even a woman, would be predisposed to make the same decision in the factual world. So to say she did what a male would likely not have done is just as conditional as the fictional story. Anyone is capable of sacrifice, but not everyone steps up to the task. But in stories, the sacrificial hero is the best hero. They are revered.
I suppose the moral of “Ruth Herrick’s Assignment” is that people deserve a second chance, but above that I think it is that a journalist should not intervene with the judicial process. I think it could be argued that Mrs. Herrick may not have acted in similar fashion if it were a different case. If this was the OJ Simpson trial, would she have not reported his admission? That is a hard point to argue although printing such a story also puts the newspaper in a precarious position.
The defining characteristics of female journalists are that they allow their emotions to get in the way. Herrick concedes this fact when she says to Brandow that she should not meet another journalist, she follows up with: “He might not be more loyal than I.” An admission that a man would have not thought twice about running the story and that there is a distinction between the two.
I don’t think it is surprising that she portrayed his self in such a righteous fashion. Its personable and humane but at the end of the day she is conflicting with may journalistic essentials. The clichés we hear about the duties of a journalist, to seek the truth and report it conflicts with Afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted. Yes, she was abused and humiliated by her husband but does that warrant sheltering a murderer? I think it is possibly one of the toughest situations to be in and I am not sure how I would act in a situation similar to this.
Mightier than the sword has not indicated, outright that these were trends but I think overall throughout history the biggest argument against women is that they are too emotional and put too much of their feelings in their work. While I don’t think it is 100% true I think women did empathize with one another while the struggle for equality and while it was going on I cant help but think Herrick put herself in Brandow’s shoes and thought that she deserves a second chance and sympathized with her more than she would have a cold blooded killer who they just didn’t have evidence on.
I think the moral of "Ruth Herrick's Assignment" is that a human life is worth more than one person's fame or fortune, but it is a moral that is presented in such a sexist manner. Throughout the piece, it is made clear that Ruth's actions and decisions were all based on the fact that she was a woman--it is even mentioned that a male reporter would have handled the situation differently.
While Ruth is shown to possess determination and drive, her male co-workers still see her as weak because she lets her emotions get in the way of her job, a purely female weakness in the eyes of the time.
"Mightier than the Sword," as well as most writings of or about the time, supports this theory, and it is definitely shown that women were considered unfit for "real" work because of their delicate emotional natures.
I think the moral of the story, according to author Elizabeth Jordan, would be that you shouldn’t let your professional aspirations compromise your ethical standards as human being. Protagonist Ruth Herrick felt as though she made the right decision by choosing to keep Helen Brandow’s guilt a secret. Herrick felt she was saving the women’s life, and to publish the true story would be to condemn her. She wouldn’t be able to live with herself if she printed the story because she would feel responsible for Brandow’s death. Additionally, she felt it would be unethical to go forward with the story because she would personally benefit in her career at the expense of the woman’s life.
Personally, I would argue that perhaps here, Herrick’s journalistic or professional ethics, in a commitment to the truth, would have been more correct, and Herrick actually acted unethically. If Herrick had printed the truth, that Brandow was guilty of murder, the woman would have at least received a fair trial. There’s no guarantee she was going to be executed. Perhaps the jury would have taken into account that Mr. Brandow was violent with her, and attempted to strike her mother. Perhaps her defense attorney would have argued that she was out of her mind, and she could have been sentenced to psychiatric care. What I mean is that ethically speaking, Herrick prevented justice from occurring, and lied by omitting the truth. Is it morally fair that a murderer was allowed to walk free, with no repercussions to committing such a horrible act? Of course, the facts of the actual case upon which the story is based would have been different, because I don’t think Lizzie Borden’s parents were abusive, but the idea that protecting her was unethical remains the same regardless.
That idea aside, Herrick was described initially as having a reputation of “no nerves or nonsense about her,” never complaining, being professionally competent and “reliable.” These, I suppose, would be understood as masculine values or attributes at the time. Herrick showed, throughout the story, moments of professional aloofness and directness. For example, right after Brandow’s confession, Herrick asks, “Do you realize what all this means to you? Had you forgotten that you were talking to a reporter?”
But by the end of the story, Herrick’s femininity is perceived as her downfall. Her managing editor said she was an example of why “you can’t trust a woman in this business.” The decision Herrick made out of “womanly sympathy” to protect Brandow could be seen as weak, and it would seem as if the female journalist was easily manipulated by her source. After all, Herrick “was usually a cool, unemotional young person, but she was profoundly moved now.” I think a male journalist could have just as moved by Brandow’s testimony, taking pity on her and sympathizing with her because of the way she was mistreated. But somehow I feel that would not be seen as weakness but rather compassion.
In Mightier Than the Sword, author Rodger Streitmatter writes, “A Newsweek article about women journalists, for instance, ended with a statement clearly tailored to reassure male readers, ‘The younger generation of newspaperwomen is composed of women who can do a man’s job but still look like a woman.’” Perhaps it was Jordan’s intent to portray herself in the character of Herrick as a successful journalist who could do a man’s job but still think like a woman, i.e. empathetically.
I think the moral of this story is that sometimes you have to do the right thing even if it means compromising your professional career. When your a news reporter you have to tell the full and true story but if the full and true story will destroy a good person's life, then you have to take matters into your own hands and judge for yourself what the right thing to do is. The way Ruth is portrayed in the story is very shy and timid amidst the presence of her boss and other male employees. She does however have ambition, and lots of it. In the story we learn how good at communicating she is and how she makes people feel comfortable, while the previous male reporters couldn't do that. I think this story definitely tries to illuminate a woman's most stereotypical strengths, i.e. good communicator, sympathetic, thoughtful, over analytical. I mean, I do think that it definitely works because she is the only one to get the interview, however, at the end, it is because o her sympathetic womanly nature that she decides to not publish the story thus making her seem an inferior reporter because she's female. It's really a no win situation and is quite ironic. In a way it is almost proving the theory that woman were unfit for work because of their delicate emotions. So I am surprised a little bit that she would portray herself this way. I'm not sure why she would do this. I can't rationalize any points.
After reading this story, I believe the moral that Elizabeth Jordan's intended moral is that your career goals should not be more important than having ethics and compassion, which are both part of being human. Ruth Herrick made a choice when she was confronted with the decision between publishing a breaking story for her newspaper which would elevate her professional status or keeping the woman's guilt a secret and giving her a fair trial. She decided that the second is more important than a breaking story and her compassion guided her way. While Ruth's decision was, as some might say, persuaded by feminine traits, her traits I would say were very masculine, in social standards. She was driven and relentless in speaking with the woman which are also the traits of a good journalist. While I have seen these traits in many incredible woman, society would qualify them as being masculine traits. I found the quote "Something hot and wet filled her eyes" to be very revealing as well, because they hinted at that Ruth was not familiar with crying, which is universally considered to be a feminine quality.
I as surprised that Jordan depicted her alter ego in this way because in the end with the line "you can't depend on a woman in this business" suggests that the author thinks women are to weak to handle journalism. However, at a second glance I realized that she is mocking society when she says this. This is how most of society would see a woman when she acts out of compassion, but I think that Jordan was praising women journalists on being undependable. She is saying that men act according to what will elevate them in the newsroom but women march to their own beat, and will use their own minds to make decisions. I would not say that there aren't any men who would do what Ruth did, and that only women will act as Ruth, but it is safe to say that men are under a different kind of pressure than women and therefore tend to act in a different way.
"Mightier than the Sword" speaks about women's image throughout history which is always being feminine no matter the time. I like how in the story Ruth actually acknowledges how a man reporter would have reacted in the situation she as in, and it's very accurate in my opinion.
The argument put forward by Streitmatter is that journalism worked against the women's rights movement because male power and identity was so enmeshed in the profession. The expansion of rights and autonomy to women was a threat to the professional monopoly that men held over the field of journalism.
In the story, Ruth Herrick is portrayed as an astute, capable reporter. She, along with the other mostly male reporters, must continually prove herself in order to attain a secure place in the news organization. However, we see evidence in the story of the unequal way men and women are treated in the newsroom.
Herrick was the managing editor’s second choice to report on the Brandow case, being called upon only after Marlowe had failed. Herrick did actually succeed in getting the scoop where all the other reporters had failed, but she chose to make an ethically sound decision in not publishing Brandow’s confession. The managing editor blamed this “failure” on Herrick’s sex. However, her actions are not a failure when viewed from the perspective of fulfilling a greater social good and exercising sound moral judgement.
Perhaps Elizabeth Jordan, who was herself a suffragette, is arguing that women should not try to fit into the newsroom alongside men, but rather the newsroom must be refashioned to more closely align with the principles embodied by Herrick in the story.
I believe that the moral of the story is that people and situations are rarely what they seem. This story provides two important examples of this. This first example of this is Mrs. Brandow who had been inaccurately portrayed by the media. Other newspapers painted a picture of a frail beautiful woman locked in a jail cell crying her eyes out. It is not until Herrick actually goes to visit her that she realizes that this is not the case. The second example of this is the way which Herrick is treated by her coworkers. The journalism profession has been a male dominated occupation historically making it difficult for a woman to gain respect. In this case, Herrick is recognized as being an above average worker who is both talented and dependable, but she is still not the first reporter assigned to the story. It is not until a man fails at it that she is even considered. I think that persistence and honesty would be two of her defining characteristics. Persistence, because she is able to overcome adversity in the workplace so that one day she is finally given the assignment that she wants. Honesty, because even when she is the only reporter that Mrs. Brandow trusts enough to visit, offering her a chance to write a story which could possibly forward her career, she remains honest and ethical. I would argue that men are also able to posses these same characteristics, however I would also say that they truly emerge in specific situations. I do not believe that a man would ever be in the same situation during that time period and I would also argue that her being a woman contributed to the trust felt by Mrs. Brandow. This way of thinking is supported by the examples in Streitmatter’s book “Mightier than the Sward” in the examples of sexist practices in the news room. It was because of this struggle that woman often times felt the need to take on an alter ego.
Somehow in my mind I already knew how the story was going to end. I somehow knew that Ruth Herrick was going to make the decision in withholding Helen Brandow's confession, but it brought me to tears when I read the words "I'm going to forget this interview. I'm going to let you have the chance which a fair trial will give you."
The words "going to let" expresses the power Herrick held in her hands; the power over a human life. And she exercised great restraint with that power and did what I would say was right morally, but not professionally.
I believe there are many morals to be learned from this story, the most prominent being that there comes a time when stories enter the realm of seriousness, as they often do, when a line has to be drawn and a choice has to be made regarding the quality of human life verses the quality of a newsworthy story.
Did people not have the plea of self-defense in these times? But I take into consideration that Brandow would probably still have been sentenced given that she gave her husband poison instead of alerting authorities of his abusive nature. There may have been no way to justify her killing her husband at that point in time. It probably would have been considered premeditated, as I think Herrick also assumed. The fact was that Brandow did kill her husband. And Herrick obviously sympathized with her story--I did too.
I think Herrick's sympathetic nature is one of her defining qualities. The fact that she put aside what was expected of her and sacrificed her opportunity to "distinguish herself," realizing that there would come other opportunities, was commendable. Especially since she had gone to the prison and left with far more than what was expected: a confession.
In my opinion, the moral of "Ruth Herrick's Assignment" is that sometimes a persons beliefs and ethics must interfere with their desire to succeed.
Ruth Herrick is put in a position where she can prove herself as a very good reporter. This is very important to her as a woman working around mostly men, where she must constantly prove that she is adequate for the job. However, publishing the story would go against her beliefs of what she knows to be right and fair. She can understand the position Brandow was in that made her commit her crimes and is sympathetic to her situation because of that.
If Herrick had been a man the decision may have been a completely different one. From a mans point of view, the will to succeed in publishing a great story would have most likely overcome any ethical second thoughts. This isn't to say men have weak morals or a stronger will to succeed than woman, it just suggests a man may not have been able to relate and be as sympathetic to Brandow's situation as Herrick was.
I believe this is why all of the male journalists sent before her were unsuccessful in their search for the story. Even in their attempt to seem sincere and get the facts they wanted, Mrs. Brandow could sense their true intentions, where as for Ruth Herrick she was able to form some kind of connection and confess her story.
The moral of Ruth Herrick’s story is that women in journalism can value their morals over the price of fame. Herrick was given this opportunity to cover a famous case, but then opted to forget the interview due to her sympathy towards the prisoner. She knew that she would protecting her, and to Herrick that was more valuable. However, this story portrays female journalists as being too emotional for the job. It seems that they cannot separate business and pleasure from one another. Men, on the other hand, don’t care about the actual people involved with the story. They just want to tell the story in a vivid way and receive fame.
I could understand why a female journalist would portray her alter ego to act like Ruth Herrick. Women are more emotional, and it must be hard to put your feelings aside to get the story. The author was trying to show the hardships that journalists are faced it. It is not always easy to interview a “bad person” only to find out that they are actually human, like everyone else.
Mightier than the Sword does tap on women in journalism; it has always took note that women are valuable members of society. We saw in the World War II chapter how newspapers and magazines portray women as being the heroes of the war, since they took over the jobs while the men were at home. We also saw the coverage in the chapter on women suffrage. In my opinion, the role of women in journalism are just as important.
It is not surprising that a women journalist portrayed her fictional alter ego this way because most admirable journalists sacrificed their titles or put their necks on the line for some greater good--to make moral, conscious decisions. I think it is only surprising in that you would expect an alter ego to be the opposite of "good," or in that it doesn't go against the already perceived nature of women to be sympathetic and maternal.
I would say that it is unfair to say that a man would not have systematized as well with the abuse that Brandow endured, resulting in the same decision Herrick made. In the world we live in today, it is more foreseeable--a husband forces his wife to "receive" (have sex with? as in she was being raped?) other men would most likely be frowned upon by many, and he would have been the one on trail. Similar, if Brandow would have alerted authorities instead of killing him, he probably would have been. But I am unaware of what the laws were at that time, but I'm guessing, women were not as "equal" to men we have seem to have gained some leverage today.
If you ask me, with all the recognition given to Herrick before even taking on the Brandow story, she had already distinguished herself.
Post a Comment