Wars, The Press, & The Public

 

Journalists in battle situation

The press has always sought to cover events that can be sensationalized and profited on. War is no exception. Though correspondence has evolved over time, from reporting the events of war to being lapdogs for the military industrial complex, the media has and will continue to be a pervader of war. 

In today's sensationalized world, the media seeks profit from drama and division. We see this with the race riots, and we see this with war.

The 'Fourth Estate" is essentially the 4th branch of government. The media serves as this estate as they often times mold political issues; based off of ratings on certain stories covered. During the Vietnam War, the media played an integral role in highlighting human rights tragedies. Post 9/11, however, the media simply reinforced the government's defense of war in the Middle East. The media should serve as a check on government, not an enabler. We should have a media that holds our leaders accountable, not hold them on a pedestal and worship.

The watchdog press is such a unique phenomena. A submissive lap Pug during the Obama and Biden administrations, and a Pitbull during the Trump administration, the media needs to find a balance between hit pieces and ego strokes.

Journalists should seek to expose the truth and investigate reality. They should not seek to divide and conquer, they should simply publish the truth. Recently, this understanding has been lost. Investigatory journalism has long helped this country mane progressive changes.

Without turning a blind eye to truth, watchdog journalism, when practiced properly, can make a lasting impact that will benefit generations of people and alter the status quo.

The press has a history of starting wars. Many in the political establishment are also responsible for war escalation.

The CATO Institute, a Libertarian leaning think tank, argues that the media's influence on sueding public opinion makes them responsible for starting wars. They point to the yellow journalism of Hurt and Pulitzer during the Spanish-American war and the influence of Judith Miller of the New York Times during the Iraq war as evidence. 

From 2010, this graphic shows cable news ratings

The media is just like any business: provide a product people want, make a profit. It is pretty simple. The only times people really pay attention to the news is if something is happening. As much as we would all like to go back to boring, khaki, pre-Trump life, we really can't. We have become so consumed with the drama of politics- and war- that we crave it and get bored with the blandness of people like Biden. 

This being said, the media needs to make money. They make their money off of advertisements during programming and that rate is determined by viewership. If people don't like boring news, they won't tune in unless it is interesting. This means the media must have something juicy for the people. It's what we want. It's what we need. And the media can provide. It's our savior.

The life and death of Reese Erlich brought a new style of investigatory journalism that sought to delegitimize war. Erlich's work was published in Vice; reason #1 he was not mainstream enough. Vice is an opinion publication that is not taken seriously by most. Pro-war voices like George Will were already in syndication with major publications like The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times.

The 'New Partisan Press' era does not truly highlight where we are with journalism. Twitter journalists and keyboard fiends are moving the pendulum on absolutely no public policy. While journalists are living inside the Twitterverse, the rest of the world is not paying attention. People have stopped watching the news and started looking for more positive things to watch; especially during the time of Covid. 

The state of journalism today is sad... in my humble opinion. No longer are people able to turn on the tv or log onto social media without seeing some sort of liberal spin. Not to mention, if you watch Fox News you are looked down upon as they are perceived to be too radical. Even the most seasoned journalists at the most mainstream outlets have fallen victim to partisanship.

Sources

The Fourth Estate | Link

Watchdog Journalism | Link

The Press & War | Link

Free Press: A Transhistoric Relationship Between the Media and Government

 

Enshrined in the greatest living document that ever graced this planet is the freedom for a free and fair media. For centuries the United States of America has been a model for the world as we cherish the sacred right to a free press. A transhistoric value, the freedom of the press has brought accountability, transparency, and progressive change to American culture. 

Our Constitution is the basis for American law, ethical practices, and moral guidance. The very fabric of our union is the idea that our government can only govern through the consent of the governed. This means that without the support and consent of the American electorate the government is no longer free or fair. 

The 1st Amendment emphasizes the importance of the legislative branch of government in the process of abridging rights. A right is a protection from an overbearing government; protection from the government. The 1st Amendment protects individuals from the heavy hand of government.

Though it does not protect individuals from each other, employers, or other non-governmental organizations, it does protect the individual from a government that seeks oppression. A fundamental personal right, the 1st Amendment protects anyone and everyone who seeks to print the truth about the government.

The 6th clause of the 1st Amendment only emboldens the freedom of the presst by giving the people the right to air their grievances. From the average Joe to the major media networks, our constitution protects and encourages the accountability of the government by the governed. 

Without the media, the average Joe would not be equipped with pressing information regarding public policy and the working of our government. If our government had its way, the American electorate would continue to walk with ignorance to the governing structure. An ignorant governed leads to a sketchy and powerful government. 

The eight values of free expression are valuable components of the 1st Amendment. Arguably the most valuable component is dissent. Dissent allows for the free exchange of ideas. Disagreement of ideas is good for a free society as it allows for the ideas of all to be heard. Without dissent, the people become sheep for the government. A conforming and weak society is ripe for a tyrannical and authoritarian government that diminishes rights and personal liberties.

Perhaps the most dissentful voices in media history are those who voice disagreement with war. Anti-war voices have long been suppressed dating back to the jailing of journalists during the civil war and as recent as the persecution of Julian Assange for publishing damaging material against American troops in the Middle East.

Anti-war voices such as Assange have been persecuted for centuries. In previous blog posts I explored the impact of Julian Assange on the American media and the influence he holds in creating a transparent government that is accountable to a free press. 

The immediate aftermath of 9/11 brought with it a silenced media that was a lapdog to the military industrial complex and the government. Pro-war voices like George Will were elevated while anti-war voices were silenced and censured. This chilling effect discourages people from speaking up and speaking out. The fear of legal and political retaliation is one that most people fear; not just those in the media.

The Trump-era has ushered in another era for the chilling effect. That is, supporters and defenders of the former president are blacklisted from jobs, media appearances, and social settings because of their advocacy for the former president. We have seen this before in history, but not to this extent. To be a Trump supporter is the equivalent of a witch in 1600s Salem. The persecution of right leaning people for their politics is very real and discouraging for other people to step up and step out.

Sources:

First Amendment: Link

Dissent: Link

Julian Assange: Link

William F. Buckley Jr.: Hero or Villain?

 

William F. Buckley Jr. is arguably one of the first provocative opinion journalists that ostracized both the left and the right. Aside from his journalistic influence and provocativeness, William F. Buckley Jr. was one the most influential thought creators in the modern conservative movement with a lasting legacy still referenced by American conservatives.

Born in 1925, Buckley was the son of an oil tycoon who afforded him the preppy lifestyle of some of New England's most influential families. Accustomed to life in the 1%, Buckley travelled the world bouncing from boarding school to boarding school before joining the army in WWII and attending Yale University where he excelled to prominence as a captain of the Yale Debate Team (Brittanica).

William F. Buckey Jr., founder of the National Review

In 1955, Buckley entered into the world of journalism. Through the creation of the National Review, Buckley brought conservative perspectives to the forefront for the first time. In 1962 his political column "On the Right" was syndicated which propelled Buckley to national prominence Brittanica).

In 1965, just 3 years after rising to stardom, Buckley announced his candidacy for Mayor of New York City under the Conservative party. Buckley saw the increase in crime and the city's unwillingness to address problems such as crime and poverty as a driving factor in deciding whether or not to run. Buckley would go on to win 13% of the vote and eventually would support the Mayor-elect Republican John Lindsey (Madden, 1965, p. 1).  

William Buckley's campaign for Mayor

Buckley's Rise to fame quickly made him a target for media attacks and personal vendettas. In 1966, shortly after his campaign for Mayor, Buckley signed a tv deal for national debates with prominent liberal figures. This deal made Buckley even more of a household name and legitimized the National Review as a source of alternate, conservative perspectives (Adams, 1966, p. 67).

In 1980, after 25 years of syndication, the National Review celebrated 25 years of excellence with a star studded evening. President-elect, and conservative icon, Ronald Reagan spoke continuous praise of Buckley's performance as editor of the National Review and his steadfast support for conservatism and conservative politics. Buckley's ability to bring together all different types of conservatives has solidified his standing in the Republican Party and American politics for generations to come (Carroll, 1980, p. 28). 

Firing Line w/ William Buckley poster

William Buckley's most influential accomplishment in life was his involvement with the longest running public policy program "Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr.." A 34 season series airing between 1966 and 1999, "Firing Line" interviewed provocative and influential figures ranging from presidents to religious leaders to anarchists and civil rights leaders.

Though it was cancelled in 1999, PBS recently renewed the series under host Margaret Hoover. Hoover, the granddaughter of former Republican president Herbert Hoover, is a former George W. Bush administration official who offers a conservative, academic perspective in contrast to her guests.

In 2008, after a long and impactful life, William F. Buckley Jr. died at the age of 82 years old. The impact and legacy of Buckley will continue to be debated for decades to come. The praise of Buckley is bipartisan and he is credited with laying the ground work for the election of some of New York's most prominent Republicans such as Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Governor George Pataki. After his passing, Mayor Michael Bloomberg- a Republican at the time who would soon become a progressive Democrat- praised the work of Buckley (Roberts, 2008).

Buckley in his office at the National Review

The press coverage of Buckley throughout his life was relatively positive. Every firebrand political leader, particularly conservative leaders, are victim to media backlash. In his 2008 obituary, Buckley was praised for his influence in politics, as well as the influence of the National Review. For generations, Buckley will influence young conservative thinkers and manipulate political leaders. Without the contributions of Buckley, journalism and media would not be a hospitable to conservative voices or thinkers (Martin, 2008).

The National Review has long been a respected source of news and information. The National Review has housed columnists such as Larry Kudlow, Ben Shapiro, George Will, and other prominent conservative figures. The Review has endorsed every Republican nominee for President since Dwight Eisenhower with the exception of President Donald Trump in 2016.

Movie Poster for Best of Enemies (linked to movie trailer)

In 2015, Buckley's legacy was sealed with the production of the movie "Best of Enemies" which highlighted the tumultuous relationship between William F. Buckley Jr. and liberal author Gore Vidal. A cinematic success, "Best of Enemies" cemented Buckley's influence on journalism, politics, and conservatism for generations to come.

The tumultuous relationship between Buckley and the press ceded upon his death. Yes, many in the modern press continue to critique Buckley's brandish conservatism, but his work is widely quoted and even praised by many in conservative politics. The personality of Buckley created a conservative celebrity influence that was mimicked by President's Ronald Reagan and Trump. To this day, neocons, paleocons, and even Trumpers look to Buckley's work for ideological guidance, thus elevating Buckley to hero status.

Work Cited:

Adams, Val. (1966, March 21). Buckley Signed for TV Debates; To Face Different Opponent Each Week on Channel 9. The New York Times. page 67. | Link

Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia (2021, February 23). William F. Buckley, Jr.. Encyclopedia Britannica. | Link

Carroll, Maurice. (1980, December 6). Buckley is Star As the Review Hails 25th Year: Reagan Due in City for Tongue in Cheek Explaination Magazines Mission Described. The New York Times. page 28. | Link

"The Legacy of Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr.. The Hoover Institute. | Link

Madden, Richard. (1965, June 25). William Buckley in Race for Mayor. The New York Times. page. 1 & 19. | Link

Martin, Douglas. (2008, February 27). William F. Buckley Jr. is Dead at 82. The New York Times.

Roberts, Sam. (2008, March 1). The Mighty Political Legacy of William F. Buckley Jr. The New York Times. | Link

Muckraking v. Yellow Journalism

Teddy Roosevelt: the man who coined the term Muckracker

Muckraking and yellow journalism are two of the most prominent forms of publications in modern media. Pioneered at the turn of the 19th century, muckraking and yellow journalism have long defined the ways in which people received their news and information.

Muckraking is essentially the art of scandal. Muckrakers deliberately investigate and articulate information necessary to create a scandal and sell papers. By today's standards, one could make the argument that the modern media participates in muckraking journalism (Nieman).

A term coined by President Theodore Roosevelt, muckraking has toppled presidencies, ruined political careers, and waged war on foreign enemies. But it has also brought forth necessary change and progress. Muckraking often times will shed light on industry malpractice and deep rooted corruption (Khan Academy).

A cartoon depicting Pulitzer and Hearst, 1898

Yellow journalism is yet another form of journalistic malpractice. This is the act of publishing or poorly researched information under the rouse of being called news.

Prominent at the turn of the 19th century, yellow journalism was revolutionized by journalists Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst. Victims of their time, Pulitzer and Heart would publish damning headlines and articles that would not hold the most accurate or relative information. 

Due to the lack of technology and other communication methods, many journalists relied on correspondence from individual to individual. Word of mouth journalism or interstate journalism without the ability to utilize modern technology made it difficult for journalists to print the most accurate and honest information (History). 

Most individuals would find this type of journalism to be bad. Both use a type of sensationalized media to sell their product. This leads to fake narratives and false information used to enflame tension between groups of people. Other individuals who would not like this type of journalistic practices would be individuals who are into shady dealings; such as John D. Rockefeller of Standard Oil Company who was taken down by journalist Ida Tarbell.

When responsibly practiced, both of these methods can prove crucial to ensuring the press offers a transparent and honest news source. Muckraking can expose fraud, corruption, and crime by powerful people or organizations. Yellow journalism can unite a country behind a common enemy; much like occurred in the 1898 Spanish-American war.

Journalists are responsible for guiding public opinion and political narratives. This is a massive obligation that should be taken as serious as possible. Using these two very different methods can create lasting progress and change but it can also ruin credibility of media sources. Many could, and do, argue that the current state of the mainstream media is in direct correlation with the improper use of muckraking and yellow journalism.

History Channel | Yellow Journalism :: Link

Khan Academy | Muckraking :: Link

Nieman Reports | Yellow Journalism :: Link

Horace Greeley: A Primary Perspective

 

Horace Greeley's legacy has long been looked at by critics and supporters alike. Primary sources, like the New York Times, have covered the lives of historical figures like Greeley. The press coverage of Greeley is mixed. As a newsman himself, Greeley often times was critiqued by his competitors for the smallest of things.

During the 1872 presidential election, Greeley was taking on the Republican establishment and the press. In a September 21, 1872 edition of the New York Times, Greeley was ridiculed for his partnership with southern Democrats in an attempt to steal the White House from Grant (Rawlins, 1872, p. 2).  

Greeley's newly formed Liberal Republican Party attempted to steal votes from the Republican Party while simultaneously rebranding the existing Democrat Party. The Liberal Republican Party represented a reconstruction philosophy used to rebuild the south more aggressively than Republicans had wanted which led to his increased support amongst Democrats and his alienation of most mainstream Republican politicians and voters.

In an earlier article published by the New York Times, J. N. Larned harped on Greeley's association with Democrats and his inability to talk about the issues. Rather than taking a nonpartisan look at Greeley's policies, Larned took a critical approach to how Greeley was responding, or his lack of responding (Larned, 1872, p. 5).

Greeley, despite being the owner and editor of the New York Tribune, neglected to speak in depth on policy issues. He was mainly focused on personal attacks against President Grant. The media took this as a chance to pounce and attack. The New York Times boldly claimed that Greeley was silent and refused to even speak publicly when in fact he did. 

Congressman Albert Rust

Not all of the press coverage by the New York Times was negative towards Greeley. In 1856, a Democrat congressman from Arkansas, Albert Rust, physically attacked Horace Greeley for Greeley's anti-Slavery comments. In their coverage of the attack and subsequent arrest of Congressman Rust, the Times unbiasedly reported on the facts of the attack and included a defense of Greeley's actions against Albert Rust (Editorial, 1856, p.1). 

In June of 1872, the New York Times wrote a lengthy piece about Greeley's influence on the black community. They article focuses on Greeley's positive influence in the black community because of his push for the abolition of slavery and the enfranchisement of black men. This positive media piece reflects the media's bipolar approach to covering individuals like Horace Greeley (Freedman, 1872, p. 4). Interestingly enough, this article was written by a man from Greensboro, North Carolina; a local flare to a national icon.

Greeley's popularity among black Republicans and southern Democrats gave him a large percentage of popular vote support. Early in 1872, Greeley was polling around 40% which is huge considering the Liberal Republican Party was not a mainstream political party and Greeley's influence was centered in New York and New England.

The November 1872 coverage of Greeley was kind in nature. Due to his death, the published obituary positively reflected Greeley's life and legacy on this country. A full two page write up on his life, the New York Times attempted to portray Greeley's life positively (Editorial, 1872, p. 4 & 5). However, in typical New York Times fashion, immediately following his death they covered the debate on what to do with his electoral votes and ultimately lobbying for Greeley's electoral votes to be awarded to Grant; Greeley's lifetime rival.

The life of Horace Greeley is portrayed in a manner that is similarly represented in primary resources and secondary resources. The coverage by the New York Times tells first hand the life of Horace Greeley with the same tone as the secondary resource Encyclopedia Britanica. 

Editor. (1856, February 13). Arrest of Mr. Rust. The New York Times. page 1. Link

Editor. (1872, September 21). Horace Greeley Silent. The South Bend Tribune. page 2. Link

Editor. (1872, November 30). Obituary. The New York Times. pages 4-5. Link

Editor. (1872, December 1). Electoral College. The New York Times. page 1. Link

Freedman. (1872, June 8). Horace Greeley and the Colored Vote. The New York Times. page 4. Link

Larned, J. (1872, May 17). Horace Greeley and the Democratic Party. The New York Times. page 5. Link

Jacob Riis: The Photographer

Jacob Riis by: Getty Images

Born in 1849 to Danish parents, Jacob Riis is one of the first photojournalists to forever change the way people consume media. Riis was a documentary photojournalist who dedicate much of his life depicting the 'other half' of society who live below the poverty line. 

His most famous work is often not accredited to him and unknown to many who have seen it. His series "How the Other Half Lives" depicts the dire living conditions of immigrants living in the New York slums after making the journey to America. An immigrant himself, Riis understands what that life is like. When he first immigrated to the United States, he lived in the very slums that he would later depict in his photography. 

"The Other Half" by Jacob Riis

Riis' work is renowned internationally for directing attention to the living conditions of America's immigrant class. He would later have multiple books published with his photography and descriptions of the living conditions. Some of his work is still on display at the Museum of the City of New York where his legacy lives on.

Though much of his work does go unnoticed, his influence and impact on American journalism and photojournalism is immense. Riis is sort of the 'Father of Photojournalism" as his photographs told a story in more vivid detail than words.

Jacob Riis - International Center of Photography

Horace Greeley: From Publisher to Politics

 

Horace Greeley is quite the interesting character. Born in 1811, Horace Greeley has always been a man interested in media, publishing, and politics. An apprentice for several newspapers growing up, Greeley got his first publishing gig with The New Yorker in 1834. He spent his early years at The New Yorker publishing pro-Whig and anti-slavery propaganda. A political mind, Greeley actively worked and campaigned for Whig Party presidential candidate William Henry Harrison and used his influence with The New Yorker to sway the American public to elect Harrison the 9th President of the United States.

   

Following the 1840 presidential election, Greeley saw his influence as unsurpassable and decided to go out on his own and publish his own newspaper: The New York Herald. The New York Herald would make Greeley one of the most influential man in New York and in the United States. Using his new platform, Greeley quickly began advocating for the abolition of slavery, the rights of the working poor, and several other progressive issues facing the country. One of the few issues Greeley was not open to was Women's Suffrage- he would use his platform to discredit the suffrage movement. Greeley even hired European correspondents to report on European politics and wealth disparities worldwide. Those correspondents were communist thinkers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

Horace Greeley c. 1840

In 1848, Greeley's political influence elevated him to the United States House of Representatives. Though he was replacing an arrested congressman and would only serve until 1849, Greeley used his time in the House of Representatives to advocate for the abolition of slavery and attempt to pass controversial legislation. His legacy would only grow as he would anger politicians in both political parties- Whigs and Democrats at the time- and everyone in Washington collectively hated Greeley. This did not bother Horace. It only emboldened him to fight stronger. One person admired Greeley during his time in congress. That person was Illinois's 6th district representative Abraham Lincoln.

Once his tenure in congress ended, Horace returned to his paper emboldened to further his political agenda and career. For 5 years following his departure, Greeley continued his vocal push for the abolition of slavery; his ideas were even seen as radical. In 1854, Greeley would take a brief break from The New York Tribune to help establish the Republican Party. 

Horace Greeley's Later Years c. 1860 

The years of the civil war were crucial, and devastating for Greeley. In the 1860 presidential election, Greeley forcefully advocated for Abraham Lincoln to be the vice presidential nominee. Though they were friends, Greeley knew that Lincoln had a bright political future, but he did not believe that Lincoln was prepared to take over a country on the brink of civil war. Once   Lincoln became the nominee, Greeley used his platform to violently advocate for Abraham Lincoln on the premise that he would abolish slavery. Many people blame Greeley's paper and rhetoric for the eventual secession of southern states. Lincoln would go on to win the 1860 presidential election and had one man to thank: Horace Greeley.

Greeley and Lincoln's relationship was not always rosy. Greeley was forceful in his demand for the abolition of slavery. He would weaponize his paper against slavery and even Lincoln, calling him a weak and ineffective leader. Greeley would become so intolerable of Lincoln that he would actively work against Lincoln's reelection efforts, even supporting Democrat candidates. In 1867, 2 years after the civil war and the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, Greeley would sign the bail bond for Confederate President Jefferson Davis. Fed up with the Republican Party's betrayal of him, Greeley would spend the rest of his life to rail against mainstream Republicans. 

After the war, Greeley would return to his paper. His life was about to be turned upside down.

Political Cartoon of Greeley consolidating support

In 1872, Horace Greeley would leave his paper for the last time and once again step foot into politics. Fed up with Republican President Ulysses S. Grant, Horace Greeley decided that he is the only man would should be president. With the Democrat Party effectively dead in politics for a while due to reconstruction, Greeley decided to run for president as a member of the Liberal Republican Party. Taking the angry Democrat voters and combining them with angry Republican voters who do not think that Republicans are doing enough, Greeley had a very clear shot at becoming president. Though he was polling at 40% close to Election Day, Greeley would eventually be institutionalized because of the trauma he endured on the campaign trail.

In 1872, Greeley was institutionalized because of the campaign. The slander was so personal and so intense that it drove Greeley insane. He would spend the last few months of his life in the institution. The month of November would prove to be too much for Greeley. In just one month, Greeley had lost his wife to a virus, he had permanently lost his job at his newspaper, and though he died before the results of the election he would lose the election to Grant. At the end of November, grief won its battle and Greeley would die in a mental institution without a wife, without a newspaper, and without knowing if he had won or lost the election.

Greeley's legacy including stamps, school, and statues

The legacy of Horace Greeley is larger than he probably could have imagined. Though The New York Tribune would eventually be bought out by a bigger paper, Greeley would go on to continue making differences beyond the grave. With statues lining New York City to a high school named in his honor, to a commemorative stamp, Horace Greeley's service to his country has not gone unnoticed. Though he never served as president, his life as a journalist served American's more diligently than he probably ever could as her commander in chief.

Notable Visitors: Horace Greeley (1811-1872)

Student Petitions To Have Horace Greeley High School Renamed
Horace Greeley | American journalist