EOTO Reflection: The Black Press

While it is certainly impressive what some major presses were able to accomplish, such as technological advancements, massive stories, and huge growth in the spread of the press, I found the EOTO on The Black Press to be particularly inspiring. It cannot be put into words how impressing and inspiring it was for a group black figures and free slaves to fight back against society by creating their own press, the Freedom’s Journal. In a time period in which even free black slaves didn’t have many rights, and were often denied a voice, this group created their own important voice.

 

During this period before the civil war, there were certainly some voices who spoke out for the black community, and fought for their rights, but these voices were almost always white people. While that was important in its own way, it was critical that free black persons were given a platform of their own, to speak of their own story and experience. In a time so cruel and brutal, even white men supporting the abolition movement would have no way to truly understand the life of a black person in America. That is why the Freedom’s Journal was so important, as it not only would give a platform for black people to spread their voice, but was created by freed slaves as well, an incredible feat.

 

One thing I found particularly powerful that was covered in the EOTO was that the publication would include the birth and death dates of black people, as the birth and death dates of slaves were not recorded since they were not viewed as human. It is a heartbreaking fact, but I was amazed that this record would be viewed as a historical record of the deaths of slaves during the period, one of the first forms of birth and death recording. I will remember the Freedom’s Journal as one of the most important publications in this nation’s history, not because of its tech advancements or massive sales, but because its mere existence was an inspiring creation, a fight against society itself. Its content was critically important in presenting a diverse perspective of views in a time without such a thing.

Sources:

https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/freedom-s-journal-1827-1829/

EOTO Reflection: Whistleblowers

I found the discussion of Whistleblowers particularly interesting, as they play a huge role in the state of affairs of the world while often existing in the shadows. I found my peers’ presentation to be greatly educational, giving me a great understanding on just how important whistleblowers are to society. We live in an often-corrupt world, and information about the injustices of society are not available to the public; it is up to whistleblowers to bring light about the corruption to the public, putting pressure on the government, company, or institution that the information is about. It keeps people of power in check, preventing them from using their power with no fear of consequences.

 

I have always held an interest and respect for whistleblowers, but in the past week, I have found that interest to be renewed as the situation with the Supreme Court and Roe V. Wade has played out. As there has never in the history of the Supreme Court been a majority opinion revealed to the public before the final deliberation, the gravity of this situation cannot be overstated. In the past week, it has cast a bleak shadow over the nation and sparked widespread debate and public outcry through protests in the streets. Yet what I have found myself focused on is the public response to and opinion about the anonymous person that leaked the controversial document to Politico. 

 

The opinions have been diverse. I have had friends describe the whistleblower as a hero, someone who would jettison their career and place a target over their heads, something that is largely true, as Chief Justice Roberts has launched an investigation into the leak. On the other hand, when talking to my more conservative friends who approve of the court decision, some have completely skewered the whistleblower, calling them a traitor who has sought to bring violence and ruin to the country through revealing the decision. These friends have called for the prosecution of the individual, which is an opinion certainly shared by some reporters as well. 

 

I am fascinated to see the future of this situation, not just about the final court decision, but what the fate of the whistleblower is, and what the public opinion of them is after the situation hopefully settles in some way. I have found it interesting in how bias plays into this situation, as abortion is a very sensitive topic that can stir up strong emotions from both sides; perhaps if it wasn’t such a controversial subject, the public reaction to the whistleblower would be different? I find it rather concerning that the public opinion of whistleblowers may be split by party lines in the future. 

 

 

Bob Woodward: An Inspiration for The Journalists of the Future

Before this assignment, I had known the name Bob Woodward, but I wasn’t fully aware of the massive impact he had on both the world of journalism as well as American politics. He is an inspiration to anybody that has an interest in investigative journalism, and his important contributions to breaking the Watergate Scandal will be discussed for decades to come. The courageous ability to spearhead a fight against the government and injustice is a skill that I hope journalists of both today and the future can possess. 

 

Woodward’s background makes his story all the more incredible, as most of his upbringing was not dedicated to journalism. Instead, he was expected to follow in the footsteps of his father, a prominent jurist in the Chicago area. This actually seemed to be the case, as he went to Yale University on a Naval ROTC scholarship. He used his college years to attain a degree in history and English literature, before going on a five-year tour of duty. His first foray into the journalistic world came during his enrollment at Harvard Law School. Woodward decided that his passion was not for law, rather, it was in journalism, and so he pursued an internship with The Washington Post.

 

He was able to land a two-week unpaid internship, but none of his stories were published in the Post. Despite this, the editors saw something special in Woodward, and wanted him to get more experience before offering him a job at the Post. He ended up being referred to a local paper in Maryland, the Montgomery County Sentinel. Woodward’s work with the Sentinel was exceptional, and it took him less than a year to receive a job offer from the Washington Post.

 

One of the most fascinating things about Woodward is the speed at which he was able to accomplish incredible acts. Much like how it took him less than a year to get a job at the Post, it was in his very first year that he broke the massive Watergate Scandal. After nine months of covering the police beat, Woodward, with coworker Carl Bernstein, was able to connect a burglary of the DNC headquarters to the Nixon administration. 

 

The scandal changed the world and the perception of the US Presidency forevermore, and Woodward’s work earned him countless accolades, the most prestigious being a Pulitzer Prize for Public Service. After the scandal, Woodward continued his work with the Post, eventually working his way into the position of Assistant Managing Editor. However, his talent for investigations shifted from news articles into books. 

Much like his investigative reporting for the press, his career as an author has been wildly successful. To this day, Woodward has authored 20 nonfiction books, 18 of which have been national bestsellers, and 12 of those made No. 1 nation bestsellers. He has more No. 1 national nonfiction bestsellers than any other modern author, an incredible feat for someone who grew up with no background in authorship or even journalism. 

 

Woodward’s efforts will be felt for generations. It is investigative journalism like his that is equally frightful and inspiring. It raises concerning questions about what people in the government are willing to do, but it inspires that there are people out there brilliant enough and brave enough to find and expose such unjust acts. As the world of politics continues to become more volatile, and perhaps more corrupt, I sincerely hope that journalists will follow in the footsteps of Woodward.

Sources:

https:www.bobwoodward.com/biography

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Bob-Woodward

Good Night, And Good Luck: An Inspiring Past, A Terrifying Look at the Present

People don’t often view journalists as fighters. They are often seen as passive, gathering and documenting information in the background. Yet journalists have their own fights that they must win, battles that test their courage and threaten their safety or reputation. Often, the battle is against the very people that are the subjects of reports. Such is the case in the award-winning film “Good Night, And Good Luck.”

 

The film details the investigation and coordinated takedown of US Senator Joseph McCarthy, who uses the paranoia of communism in the 1950’s US to fear monger citizens into his belief system. It is the true story of Edward Murrow, the CBS reporter committed to reporting only facts and truth, who spearheaded the conflict. The film shows one aspect of the often-complex relationship between the press and the government. In some cases, such as war, the press and government march in tune, but when journalists look inward and report on the government themselves, a fierce battle can occur. 

 

The film, set in the 50s, has a shocking amount of relevance to journalism and politics today. One of the most poignant and familiar elements of the film was the concept of “McCarthyism,” a term coined to describe campaigns levying unfair and untrue accusations on the basis of fear, modern day witch hunts. Unfortunately, I feel as though McCarthyism has not only survived, but has thrived in recent years. President Donald Trump in the months leading up to the 2020 election utilized fear mongering to try and convince voters of how the country would change under Biden. In September of 2020, he even tweeted “Suburban voters are pouring into the Republican Party because of the violence in Democrat run cities and states. If Biden gets in, this violence is ‘coming to the Suburbs’, and FAST. You could say goodbye to your American Dream!” Trump’s comments remind me of the idea that communists were lurking to destroy America and American values; only now, it is Democrats instead of communists. Politics have evolved in recent years to focus on fearing those who should be our allies, our own countrymen. 

 

Unfortunately, the media has developed such a bias that you would be hard pressed to find any facts and truth on any of the major television news networks. Most of what they produce is opinion pieces and reports clouded in their own beliefs. That is a huge difference from the film, in which journalistic integrity and media responsibility is given massive importance. Murrow views TV as a tool to educate the American people, an avenue to report the truth to a widespread audience. In turn, he remarks about the power of television and how it must be handled properly. He fears that misuse of TV could be a threat to the education of the American people. Television, in his eyes, was intellectual and truthful, not entertainment and fluff. 

It appears that world in which news television has strayed from the truth and moved to entertainment is fully upon us, and that his fears are our reality. I found myself almost amused by how honest and dedicated Murrow was, which is a disturbing fact that such integrity is so unusual in today’s journalism. I found his work, and the film, to be inspiring, and truly hope that we can return to journalism such as that, work that pushes boundaries and seeks to educate and inform, not scare and enrage.

 

 

 Sources:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trumps-use-of-fear-and-anxiety-to-motivate-his-voters/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Press and War: Misinformation for Profit

The press is critical to war, especially in communicating events that happen and keeping the public informed. Yet, the press often oversteps these duties, instead pushing narratives that encourage war. This sometimes even means that the press inaccurately describes events and exaggerates them to convince the public that a war is necessary, such as Robert Hearst inaccurately accusing the Spanish of destroying the USS Maine in order to convince the public of the necessity of the Spanish-American war. War is, ultimately, highly beneficial and profitable for the media.

 

While the media itself has no power to actually start a war or send troops, they hold the dangerous power of spurring both the government and the people into believing that such acts are not only necessary, but important. In times of war, erroneous information can have massive effects. This was seen in the lead-up to the Iraq war, where incorrect information regarding Saddam Hussein’s government and their possession of “weapons of mass destruction” was widely circulated after being published by reporter Judith Miller in the New York Times. Miller was not the only reporter guilty of this, but her report was the most prominent. The evidence the reports were founded on were sourced from so called Iraqi defectors. With the Bush administration already set on launching an invasion, the press drumming up public support for the invasion was the final straw that set forth a misguided and horrifying war that would take countless lives of innocent people.

 

This is not something new, as during the First World War, famous author Rudyard Kipling was quoted as saying that “There are only two divisions in the world today, human beings and Germans.” That sort of idea has stayed in the wartime press; Hussein was painted as the second coming of Hitler, a man so barbaric that he was beyond human. 

 

At the end of the day, for the press, ratings are what come first. War captures everyone from every corner of the world and as the guns keep firing, people keep reading and watching. Today, during the Ukraine-Russia War, visitation to the BBC news website has soared; during the first week of the war, the weekly audience went up by 252 percent. Nearly all of the main prime-time news channels had 50% growth in viewers. Viewers are drawn in to tragedy and horror, and nothing stirs that up in viewers more than war. When viewership equals profitability, it isn’t surprising that the press will promote war. Though it may be horrifying for everyone else, war is a blessing for the media. 

 

Even today, events that will draw in clicks are often portrayed inaccurately. Just earlier this year, it was reported that the Ukrainian soldiers of Snake Island were killed after defying a Russian Warship’s orders are insulting them. It was also reported that a major Russian warship was sunk, a stunning victory for Ukraine. Both of these claims were sourced from Ukrainian military reports, which certainly have a reason to be biased or inaccurately report during the war. As it turns out, the soldiers of Snake Island were alive, and the warship was unharmed. Still, these were huge stories that went viral, drawing in huge viewership. The press today continues to prove that as long as they can get attention and profit, they will publish wartime claims no matter the source, whether it can be proven valid or not, as long as it will make an attractive article.

Sources:

https://www.cato.org/commentary/yes-press-helps-start-wars

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230393295_20

https://www.cato.org/commentary/us-press-again-becomes-conduit-pro-war-propaganda

Collateral Murder: A Horrifying Leak

In times of war, it is important that the public is made aware of the actions taken by the military, especially since some acts are horrifying beyond words and need to be witnessed. One such avenue that exists to expose such acts is Wikileaks, the infamous website created by Julian Assange that has been integral towards exposing multiple crimes committed by the US government. One of the most shocking and important events it has exposed has been come to be known as “Collateral Murder.”

 

On July 12, 2007, two US Apache helicopters stationed in New Baghdad opened fire on a group of men standing on the Baghdad streets. This event would receive widespread attention from the media and be broadcast on the world stage three years later, when footage of the attack from the inside of the helicopters accompanied by audio recordings of the soldiers commanding the attack was uploaded onto Wikileaks, provided by US Army soldier Chelsea Manning. 

 

The footage was brutal and horrifying. It exposed that the men they had shot at were not insurgents. All of deceased were civilians, and two of them were even journalists for Reuters. The “guns” that the soldiers had supposedly seen were cameras that the journalists were carrying. Children who had been in a van that had stopped to help the injured had been injured, and the footage clearly showed the children visible in the window of the van. To make the situation worse, the soldiers are recorded laughing about the deceased and making jokes about the deceased and their bodies. One is even recorded joyously saying “Oh yeah, look at those dead bastards. Nice shoot’n.” Another remarks about how he drove over a body, to which another laughs in response. 

 

The video was powerful and caused waves in the media. Assange was interviewed by the media and was often attacked. In an interview with Stephen Colbert, he was accused of being too editorial with his title and preface for the footage, to which Assange defended the title, explaining that while they protect their sources and promise to give the entire footage, that they “will try and get the maximum possible political impact for the material that they give to us. Assange was also probed about whether any of the men had guns, to which he admitted that some likely do, but that “I’m not sure that means anything.”

 

Unfortunately, much of the US government and army were critical of the video, accusing it of being released without context and being too brief to offer any complete picture of the events that had occurred. The men who led the attack did not apologize, however one of the ground soldiers seen in the video, did write a letter of reconciliation and responsibly, apologizing for the events of the video. Still, no apology will ever make up for the atrocities the military has committed, and it is important that websites like Wikileaks exist in order to keep them in check and expose such events.

 

 Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007,_Baghdad_airstrike

https://collateralmurder.wikileaks.org

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/15/all-lies-how-the-us-military-covered-up-gunning-down-two-journalists-in-iraq

Propaganda: A Dangerous, Dishonest Weapon

Propaganda has long been a tool in war, used to manipulate and shift the view of the public. In many cases, it also is based completely in lies. It is often used by not only the government, but journalists and newspapers as well. It can come in many different forms, and a few of the major instances and situations involving propaganda will be examined here. 

 

Propaganda first became widespread and utilized by the media during the Spanish-American War, fueling a media war during the new age of yellow journalism. One of the main players in this wave of propaganda was Robert Hearst, who highly editorialized the sinking of the USS Maine, running stories claiming that “The War Ship Maine was Split in Two by an Enemy’s Secret Infernal Machine,” that the Spanish had somehow planted a torpedo under the Maine and had remotely detonated it from the land. These claims were made without any evidence, and the Navy themselves even stated that judgement should be suspended until more information came to light. Still, Hearst ran with that narrative, running more headlines such as “Who Destroyed the Maine? $50,000 Reward,” “Spanish Treachery” and “Invasion!” Hearst fueled fear and outrage with his paper. He is most famously quoted as responding to an artist, Fredric Remington, who reported that Cuba was peaceful, as saying “Please Remain. You furnish the pictures and I’ll furnish the war.

Another situation during the Spanish-American war created by Hearst was that of the Olivette incident, in which a young Cuban woman named Clemencia Arango was held in custody in an American ship by Spanish officials going to New York, because she was suspected of delivering letters to rebel leaders. She was searched, which was reported by Richard Harding Davis, a reporter working for Hearst, but when the situation was publicly reported on, Hearst had falsely claimed that it was a situation of sexual harassment, with the woman being brutally stripped and searched. It was such a false claim that Hearst even eventually was forced into printing a letter in which he admitted the search was done properly with no men present. Still, Hearst never published an apology.

The Vietnam War was another war that was full of propaganda, this time from both parties involved. North Vietnam ran a campaign during the war that the US had both completed mass destruction beyond any possible reasonable numbers, yet that a massive number of US troops had been killed or captured. North Vietnam reported numbers such as 630,000 US aggressors killed or captured, and that there had been 38,000 separate US bombings on Vietnamese villages. These numbers were used to influence southern citizens hate the US. Interestingly enough, propaganda art produced by the North was often spread on scraps of paper, since there wasn’t resources to mass produce.

 

The US ran a propaganda campaign as well, in their case, attempting to influence northern citizens to fear the North. This was done by using the religion of the North Vietnam citizens, pushing a false narrative that the North government had plans to persecute Christians, and that they would be safe under the Catholic friendly government of the South. This plan, known as “The Virgin Mary has Gone South,” was largely successful, as 60% of the 1.5 million North Vietnam Catholics fled to South Vietnam. 

 

Ultimately, propaganda is a dangerous but often successful tool in convincing citizens to either take actions or believe that wars are justified. It is often either highly sensationalized and edited to sound certain ways or is exaggerated, or is completely false, drummed up purely to push narratives of war.

Sources:

https://www.history.com/news/spanish-american-war-yellow-journalism-hearst-pulitzer

https://www.jstor.org/stable/43040494?seq=2

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiusJGxrYL3AhUSkHIEHSQaABAQFnoECEEQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fjournals.troy.edu%2Findex.php%2Ftest%2Farticle%2Fview%2F440%2F356&usg=AOvVaw1re1VFLF4foKKdsXmEN3_8

https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/cnngo-travel-vietnam-propaganda-poster-art/index.html