Comm455/History of Journalism

When the big story just isn’t enough, journalists must dig deeper.

Stories that have been unearthed, so to speak, may constitute muckraking or investigative journalism. These types of stories do, however, sometimes reveal themselves as big stories. Therefore, muckraking and big story reporting often times go hand-in-hand.

The Watergate Scandal was broken by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of The Washington Post. Through enterprise journalism this groundbreaking story was revealed to the entire world. It was, without a doubt, one of the biggest stories to ever be reported on in the history of journalism.

Sometimes a journalist has to dig deeper to find the ‘scoop’ on whatever he or she feels may be actually occurring. When a reporter does this, the story is most likely going to be big. It is these kinds of stories that make their way to the headlines. Former president of ABC News, David Westin, argues that news is a commodity but reporting is not. What he means by this is that news is readily available everywhere but reporting and journalism takes hard work.

Investigate and find the real story behind the cover. That’s where the big story lies.

William Marcy Tweed was the epicenter of corruption in New York city during the 1860s-1870s. Immigrants fell servant to his bribes and played pawn in his game to take over the city.

Tweed either owned or payed off every single New York Daily except the New York Times and Harper’s Weekly.

“In 1862, New York aldermen passed a resolution to pay individual reporters $200 a year for “services” to the city, and in the expansive manner of Tammany Hall this figure had been increased tenfold. Even more fundamental to the administration’s ability to influence the editorial content of the newspapers was the city advertising budget. Tweed subsidized the largest papers in New York City—the World, Herald, and Post—by annually placing some $80,000 worth of city advertising in each. During the ring’s reign of corruption, the city treasury funneled $7 million to the newspapers in exchange for their silence.”

Streitmatter, Rodger (2011-12-27). Mightier than the Sword: How the News Media Have Shaped American History (Kindle Locations 992-996). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.

 

Tweed tried to suppress the news, but the truth could not be hidden. The New York Times published expenditures from Boss Tweed’s books to unveil his corruption. But what proved to be more effective were Thomas Nast‘s cartoons.

CREDIT: Nast, Thomas, artist. “Tweed-le-dee and Tilden-dum,” 1876. Prints and Photographs Division, Library of Congress. Reproduction Number LC-USZ62-117137.

The New York Times based its readership among the upper middle class. Nast’s power was appealing to all audiences.

“I didn’t care a straw for the newspaper articles—my constituents didn’t know how to read. But they couldn’t help but see them damned pictures”  Tweed said in response to Nast’s cartoons.

Overall, Boss Tweed attempted to control the press but ended up failing miserably. The press exposed him and his parties corruption to and us the citizens of New York city. Meanwhile Thomas Nast fought boldly against the Tweed Ring using his pictures to convey his message to the public.

The media had a big impact on sports in the beginning.  The more a sport was televised or written on, the more people played it and the more popular it was.

Ice hockey in the 1960s for instance.

In 1960 the Olympics were in February in Squaw Valley, California, United States.  There was a big controversy as to whether China, Taiwan, North Korea, and East Germany could participate or not because of the Cold War going on at the time.

In the 1960’s ice hockey was not a sport that everyone watched until the semifinal match in the winter olympics that year.  The United States was playing the Soviet Union.  At that time it was the most watched game and televised and covered by the majority of news stations and television stations. This was the first time the Olympics were being televised and viewed worldwide.

With the Cold War going on this game meant more to the  country than just the game, but it still got everyone to watch the hockey game.  With the will to win with the war going on with the Soviets they beat them in the semifinals.  The Americans had never beaten the strong Soviets in a hockey game before.

The media was booming trying to get this match televised and covered because of all of the buzz going on with the war.  This ultimately led to Americans knowing the sport of hockey better and having it part of their history.  Twenty years later in 1980 came the “Miracle on Ice” team that also beat the Soviets.  This game was also highly televised and watched but this game came first.  This game helped television and news casts on sports to improve.  Not only did they improve, but it helped people realize how entertaining they were and they were covered more often.

Who doesn’t love to be the first one to know something? I love to be the source of information for any kind of news , but I definitely can’t be a fountain of information alone!

I owe my success in my distribution of information to social media and television for their consistent updates of information on what’s going on around the world. Thank you, thank you. I couldn’t do it without you guys!

So when my parents were kids (a LONG , LONG time ago) they only had morning and nightly news.. if that. How did they survive I wonder. Was that news sufficient for them? Or were they wanting more?

In 1995 CNN International became a global 24- hour news channel. That’s right, news all the time. Now before you go jumping for joy and clapping your hands like this guy, pause. Ask yourself, how often do you watch CNN International?

Now some of you are probably going to lie and say it’s your go to channel, others of you probably either a) didn’t know there was a CNN International news channel or b) don’t even know what channel or even what channel range CNN International falls into.

But don’t worry, I’m not judging. I’m just asking you to ask yourself, has the ability to access news at anytime increased your desire to be more knowledgeable or does it really make a difference?

I feel like our generation is so used to having the ability to access news anytime that we don’t take full advantage to all the information we have access to.

Courtesy of CNN

Just my thoughts

But if you actually want to check out CNN online  or you can follow them on twitter.

I know your busy, but make the time to invest in your own knowledge. You won’t regret it.

In history, crime and war reporting were, and still are, the most popular topics to report on. News consumers eat up these types of stories. They are filled with scandal, action and tragedy.

The first instance of war reporting can be attributed to the Greeks, which can also be attributed to the making of popular films like Troy and 300. Something I am sure we have all seen either for our appreciation of Greek history, or Spartan men with amazing abs.

In 1200 B.C., an account of a Greek battle with Troy was documented in the Homeric epics, The Iliad and The Odyssey, making it the first report on war in journalistic history. This was followed by other war reports using different methods of journalism.

Word of mouth was often used early on by the Greeks as a means to spread word of victory or defeat. In 490 B.C., an Athenian messenger named Pheidippides runs from Marathon to Athens with word of victory in the turning back of a Persian invasion. He then died of exhaustion, but was able to successfully relay the news.

Another instance of word of mouth in Greek history is when the Greek philosopher Socrates returned from one of the initial battles of the Peloponnesian War and delivers news in a gymnasium in Athens. The orator Demosthenes later notes the extent to which Athenians are preoccupied with word of mouth stating “Thus we all go about framing our several tales”.

In 334 B.C., Alexander the Great spreads news as well. He sends 300 captured Persian shields to Athens to spread news of his victory over the Persians.

The Greeks contributions to the history of journalism played a pivotal role in the start of war reporting as well as word of mouth. In today’s world war reporting is an especially popular topic with wars in the Middle East constantly occupying news stories. Without these journalistic records we would not have all the facts today or such entertaining “historically accurate” films.

On Oct. 3, Republican candidate Mitt Romney went head-to-head with incumbent Barack Obama in the first televised debate of the 2012 election.  For days after, the internet was humming with chatter over impressions gathered from the debate and predictions for the future.

Many believed that Obama had a weak performance and that Romney dominated the debate.  Obama himself even conceded that his opponent performed well while he did not perform well in this article.

However, the main question now is whether or not that debate will either hurt Obama’s campaign or help Romney’s in any significant way.

The first televised presidential debate happened in 1960, and it was a huge deal.  It is estimated that 70 million viewers tuned in to the broadcast.  According to a Reuters article, found here, 67.2 million viewers tuned in to the Obama-Romney debate.  The number is close, but it must be remembered that in 1960 the population was smaller and fewer people had a TV set.

The excitement surrounding the first televised debate placed heavy weight on its outcome.  Nixon was recovering from an illness, and as a result looked sickly and pale.  Kennedy was well-rested and prepared for the debate, appearing confident and healthy.  Kennedy ended up winning that debate in the eyes of the public.

The three subsequent debates brought two victories to Nixon and one draw, but they weren’t enough to erase the impact of that first debate, which enjoyed around 20 million more viewers than the rest and the significance of being the very first televised debate.

That debate is often believed to have given Kennedy the edge he needed to win that election.  The power of television in the 60s was undeniable, but today, it seems that the impact has waned.

Not only did a smaller portion of the population tune in to last week’s debate, but television is now competing with many other media that may have more relevance to a growing portion of the voting age population.  Social media and online resources are becoming primary sources of political information for many voters, stealing away some of television’s influence.

Also, television as a medium is more diluted with alternative programming, such as the O’Reilly Factor and the Daily Show, which can have an effect on the opinions of those who watch those shows.  This means that the content of the debate may not matter as much as what the pundits make of it after the fact.

While televised debates are still a respected, if relatively new, tradition in American politics, they may be losing their power.  Fewer people are watching, and more people are forming opinions of other candidates based on other sources and outlets.  It will be interesting to see if the remaining debates in the election season cause as much of a stir as the first one.

After a two-year grand jury investigation, the case of Jerry Sandusky has been laid to rest.  On October 9^th, 2011, Sandusky was found guilty of 52 counts of sexual abuse and sentenced to 30 to 60 years in prison.   Judge John Cleland who issued the sentence acknowledged that the length of his term within that time period would be pretty irrelevant.

According to USAToday, Cleland said that he “could impose a sentence of “centuries,” referring to the maximum punishment of 442 years. But given Sandusky’s age, 68, the lesser term still ensured that he would spend the rest of his life in prison.”

Sandusky, served as the assistant football coach at Penn State for 30 years before going under investigation in 1998 after a mother reported that her son was molested by Sandu

sky in the shower.

After the investigation began, allegations of Sandusky’s sexual abuse accumulated as more boys came forward.  Sandusky’s past caught up with him yesterday and he finally heard the amount of pain he put his victims through as they confronted him face to face.

“A few victims broke down during their statements, speaking about how they have been riddled with torment due to Sandusky’s actions, with a number of victims claiming they suffer from PTSD, anxiety, and depression,” according to US News.

In such serious, nationally known cases, accurate courtroom reporting becomes pertinent seeing as how people’s reputations – and lives – are at stake.  Despite trying to fairly cover the Sandusky case from the beginning, courtroom journalists couldn’t help but report the important moments of the trial, sparking public disgust of Mr. Sandusky and his behavior before his sentencing.

Seeing Senators spit on each other might be easier for Jane Grey Swisshelm to stomach while trying to write one of her articles than courtroom reporting today.

I should warn all of you before you read any further: You may be deeply confused and angry by what you read here this morning.

I have been in an ongoing battle with the English vocabulary. There are two words in particular that I feel must be sorted out. Trust me, this is important for you all to understand as aspiring journalists. I may be taking some liberties in illustrating the difference, but that’s why I’m here.

How do you use Then and Than?

It’s simple right. Then is used to illustrate time, and than is often used to compare. Not quite. And here is where all of you loyal then-using-journalists may want to scroll down to the next story. Then is boring and should only be used to nail down an exact moment in history.

Example: I was handsome then.

But wait. How about, I was handsome than. Aren’t I comparing being handsome to not being handsome any longer. I use than, always. Let’s try an example of a sequence of events.

Example: I was in love, then I cheated on my girlfriend, then I fell into a depression and then I got over it.

Why do we use then here instead of than? Then is boring. The people who use then to explain themselves are only trying to pass the time. By using than, you introduce contrast and individuality, and you offer your audience the chance to understand the differences between, say, being in love, and falling into a depression.

The example would read more honestly.

Example: I was in love, than I made a huge mistake and cheated on my girlfriend with a girl that loved me obsessively, than I realized her love would ever be enough so I broke it off with her and fell into a depression that would last two years, and than suddenly I started to realize my own potential and I moved on.

You see, using than instead of then, as a writer, encourages you to explain yourself more thoughtfully, and it gives you an edge on every other writer hack who hasn’t figured out that sometimes you’ve just got to bend the rules, and that you can get away with it if it’s just.

Write a story, than go back and replace the thens.

Guest speaker Donald Ritchie gave a very informative, in-depth look at the press during early America. Newspapers were not only driven by, but owned by political parties. During the Washington Administration, the government sent news directly to the newspapers. Dissent within the cabinet between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton caused the formation of two separate political ideologies, and in the process two rival newspapers.

Could the same be said today? We would like to think we’re receiving “fair and balanced” news coverage, but that might not be the case. While Fox is notoriously conservative, and MSNBC leans toward the other end of the spectrum, viewers know who to turn to for their preferred perspective.

In this news clip, Fox reports that the Supreme Court struck down Obamacare claiming it was “unconstitutional.” However, the law was not actually repealed. Many critics accused Fox of reporting what they wanted to hear.

In this video, MSNBC political commentary reporter Chris Matthews blatantly shows his support for President Obama. He dishes out advice on what he should have done to win the debate against Republican candidate Mitt Romney.

While the bias may not be as obvious (although many, including myself, would argue that it is), both of these cable television news giants have displayed their political agenda on numerous occasions.

The other day I read an article on CNN about the Fars News Agency in Iran publishing a story that a Gallup poll found that rural white Americans prefer Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad over President Barack Obama. The source of the story–The Onion, a news satire organization known for creating outlandish stories and presenting them as real news.

Funny, right?   This lack of fact-checking, however, is an example of why traditional news in the U.S. has slowly lost its edge.

I realized that I find it difficult to trust many of our news organizations and, not surprisingly, so do a lot of other people. This is why many, including myself, have turned to social media.

There has been a decline in the credibility ratings of major news organizations over the past decade.

Courtesy of www.people-press.org

The Pew Research Center has determined that nine of 13 organizations have seen a double-digit drop in ratings since 2002.  These include national newspapers like the New York Times and USA Today, cable news outlets, broadcast TV networks and NPR.

Courtesy of www.people-press.org

Social media has changed the way we receive news, however, the question remains on whether or not to rely on these networks as a credible news outlet.

A feature in New York Women in Communications site states that perhaps we should stop looking at traditional media and social media as two separate entities.  That both, despite their differences, “should work together for the common goal of spreading the news” fairly and accurate.

On Thursday October 4, 2012 Senate Historian Donald Richie came and spoke to the History of Journalism course.

Donald Richie is the historian for the United States Senate. He came and spoke to the class regarding the access to Congress and the relationship that the city of Washington D.C. has with the reporters that cover/covered the city.

Jane Grey Swisshelm
Minnesota Historical Society Photograph Collection

One such individual was Jane Grey Swisshelm. Swisshlem  was both a journalist and an abolitionist. She began her journalism career when she submitted poems and stories to papers in Philadelphia where she lived. She began publishing her own abolitionist newspaper entitled the Pittsburgh Saturday Visitor. In it, Swisshelm wrote about the growing need for women’s rights and to end slavery.

Swisshelm in 1850 became the first women to be allowed t in the Senate press gallery as a journalist. When she covered the U.S. Senate, Swisshelm worked for the New York Tribune.

While covering the senate, she reported on the controversial issue of the Compromise of 1850 which, “admitted California as a free state and abolished the slave trade in the District of Columbia also included a Fugitive Slave provision which required Northern sheriffs and other officials to cooperate actively in the recapture of escaped slaves.”

Swisshelm became highly critical of then Senator Daniel Webster from Massachusettes who was a supporter of the compromise. She began reporting on the person life of Senator Webster writing about his illegitimate children and his habitual drinking problem. She quickly became a household name for her reports in a time when the lives of politicians were not published or discussed.  Swisshelm was publicly criticised and later moved to to Minnesota to create her own paper.

Swisshlem is was a pioneer in the field of journalism. When she passed away Alice Lee Weston wrote in the Chicago Daily Tribune that Swisshelm was, “the pioneer of her sex in vigorous and effective journalism. She went into newspaper life when the sentiment of the public was against women expressing opinion in print on any subject stronger than roses or ribbons.”

On July 24, 1884 the Chicago Daily Tribune  also wrote of Swisshelm that, “as a writer no woman of her time, and very few men, have wielded such a sharp, powerful, and an incisive pen.” Swisshlelm was a household name, such as the likes of Edward R. Murrow during McCarthyism and today individuals such as Tom Brokaw and the late Tim Russert.

When studying the history of journalism it is important to note Swisshlem’s contribution to not only the abolitionist papers, but also in pioneering the way for women journalists.

For more accounts of Swisshelm the following are links to The New York Times  and The Christian Science Monitor:
New York Times Jane Swisshelm
Christian Science Monitor Swisshlem 

It seems that celebrities are always complaining about pesky photos snapping shots of them around Hollywood. From red carpet galas to the Whole Foods grocery store, they can’t get a break without a creepy guy in an SUV pointing a Canon in their faces.

“I’ve been… chased by paparazzi, and they run lights, and they chase you and harass you the whole time. It happens all over the world, and it has certainly gotten worse. You don’t know what it’s like being chased by them,”
-says Tom Cruise

While they may be a nuisance in the day-to-day lives of silver screen stars, let’s face it; sneaky photos are a major asset to the business of celebrity reporting.

While the word paparazzi originated from a news photographer character named “Paparazzo” in the 1960 film “La Dolce Vita,” the word has roots in the Italian word for a mosquito, papatacci. Said Federico Fellini (director of “Lad Dolce Vita”) in 1960: “Paparazzo… suggests to me a buzzing insect, hovering, darting, stinging.”

Buzzing insect or not, the candid photos of our favorite celebs keep the tabloids in business. We’re a culture who craves news, and what better to accompany with a glossy page of Angelina Jolie wrangling her kids down Sunset Boulevard?

Image courtesy of toutelecine.com