Comm455/History of Journalism

Writer Jean-Paul Marat wrote the eight page periodical L’Ami du peuple which comprised over 700 issues. Marat frequently ran into trouble with authorities. Publishing from England, Marat played a key role during the French Revolution. Marat was a critique of all authorities, particularly the monarchy in both France and England. Similar to Thomas Paine during the American Revolution, Marat had a similar impact on the French Revolution.

A copy of L’Ami du peuple

Marat was a frequent attendant at various English and French coffeehouses. As such, Marat began his love affair with politics when he began L’Ami du peuple. Marat attacked the French monarchy through his underground paper. Marat’s paper became very influential to the French people as he reported on the monarchy. 

Painted days after his murder, painter Jacques-Louis David painting “The Death of Marat” it is widely considered David’s best painting.

Writing in 1790 Marat attacked the most conservative officials of France, “Five or six hundred heads would have guaranteed your freedom and happiness but a false humanity has restrained your arms and stopped your blows. If you don’t strike now, millions of your brothers will die, your enemies will triumph and your blood will flood the streets. They’ll slit your throats without mercy and disembowel your wives. And their bloody hands will rip out your children’s entrails to erase your love of liberty forever. ”

Marat wielded his pen and made many enemies. Being murdered by French authorities after the Revolution, Marat still remains one of France’s most influential writers.

One of the tenets that has formed America into a unique nation is the creation and the support of a free press. Under the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment protects the right to religious freedoms, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and petition and the freedom of the press.

Though the freedom of the press was revolutionary in its creation, the free press we have today is hardly the same as the original American press. Originally, freedom of press was interpreted simply as the freedom to publish, without regard to partisanship or objectivity. Early American newspapers were riddled with religious sermons and blatant political biases, something that is frowned on in today’s media.

Though freedom of the press is protected under the First Amendment, there are some restrictions. Laws on defamation and copyright prohibit journalists from taking too much control or power in the media. To balance those laws, the government is not allowed to interfere or compel newspapers to print content that the printer disagrees with.

The dedication to a free press has been upheld throughout America’s history. In 1938, the judge in  Lovell v. City of Griffin ruled that the press is “every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion.” More than 70 years later, with the advent and explosion of the internet, the laws and intricacies of the press are ever evolving. At the time of the ruling, there was no such things as blogs or news websites, which entirely changes the impact of the ruling. 

photo credit: tanialfreitas.wordpress.com

By: Jessica Farley

Twitter. Love it or hate it, there is just no escaping it anymore. And while some use Twitter simply to see what Kim Kardashian ate for lunch, or what the latest #firstworldproblem may be, it is also undeniable that Twitter has become an increasingly useful and popular medium for breaking news stories.

While some “Gutenburg-minded” thinkers refuse to believe it, Twitter has become for many the first source in a breaking news story. In May of 2011 when Osama Bin Laden was announced captured and dead, Twitter was one of the first viewed and most visited sources of information for the news. In an article posted on Outsidethebeltway.com about the growing popularity of Twitter as a news source, it was said that “Unconfirmed reports — that turned out to be true — of Osama bin Laden’s demise circulated widely on social media for about 20 minutes before the anchors of the major broadcast and cable networks reported news of the raid at 10:45 p.m., about an hour before Mr. Obama’s address from the White House.” This is a drastic and revolutionary difference from just one decade prior, when the internet was barely trusted for email purposes.

And Bin Laden’s death is just one of many major news events that have first broken in the “twittersphere.” Others include Michael Jackson and Patrick Swayze’s deaths, the 2009 Hudson River plane crash, and the 2008 discovery of ice on Mars, just to name a few.

So what does this all mean for the future of news? No one can know for sure just yet. But when we do, you can bet that it will be #trending on Twitter before anywhere else.

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.

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.

Freedom of speech, religion and assembly of the people is protected under the First Amendment — but what about freedom of healthcare requirements?

A voice in the uproar against the pro-abortion HHS mandate belongs to Frank O’Brien and O’Brien Industries.  O’Brian runs his small business in Missouri in accordance with the Catholic religion and believes that the mandate’s requirements impede on his freedom of religion.  Since Catholicism does not support contraceptives, O’brian recently argued that he should not be required to indulge in any required healthcare plan for his employees that would contribute to any related funding of it.

Unfortunately for O’Brian, Judge Judge Carol E. Jackson dismissed the case in it’s entirety late last Friday.

“The challenged regulations do not demand that plaintiffs alter their behavior in a manner that will directly and inevitably prevent plaintiffs from acting in accordance with their religious beliefs. Frank O’Brien is not prevented from keeping the Sabbath, from providing a religious upbringing for his children, or from participating in a religious ritual such as communion. Instead, plaintiffs remain free to exercise their religion, by not using contraceptives and by discouraging employees from using contraceptives” said Judge Jackson, according to LifeNews.com.

Judge Jackson then went on to argue that the only way the mandate could offend O’Brian was if family members or employees independently sought the healthcare benefits and that either of the parties’ mentioned could use their own salary on benefits that might conflict with the personal preferences of the owner, so it was a moot point.

For now, it seems that the ethical boundaries of religious freedoms will plague federal district courts and they will have to take the lawsuits on one at a time.