Newspapers aren't very reliable sources of information these days; they're generally either too concerned with revenue or too friendly with the people they interview to get good information. Now, this might make you think longingly of Walter Cronkite, and bemoan the state of modern journalism. Don't worry, papers have been a lot worse than this.
For starters, the first printed matter in the New World meant for general consumption were largely trash. Many were practically tabloids, and all of them promoted an agenda. There was no tradition of the free, impartial press: the broadside was put out to further the interests of whoever wrote it or funded the enterprise. Oh, some of them claimed to be fair, not taking sides, but in the same sense in which I can claim to be an Olympic pole-vaulter.
This general philosophical difference between newspapers didn’t end when the British surrendered; initially there were 25 papers supporting the war, and 13 against. Instead, the goals shifted toward either of two setups:
1) A strong central government and alliance with Great Britain; or
2) States being the main governing bodies, opposing England and favoring France.
Having a strong central government was the governing philosophy of the Federalists, who held the presidency and much of Congress until 1801. Meanwhile, the Anti-Federalists favored the states, and continued to distrust England.
Washington himself was rarely the target of Republican polemics; he was well-liked, but he was nowhere near as active in the party as was Alexander Hamilton. Additionally, Washington was only clearly on the side of a strong central government during his second term, though he refused to admit it, and famously warned against forming political factions in his farewell address. This is odd, given that he in a political faction — and factions were clearly dominating in Philadelphia when he was president. (Congress moved to DC in 1801.)
Now, these names did not arise until around when President Washington was re-elected. The parties weren’t formal for a while, simply people who believed in similar things and began to gather to promote their beliefs. Remember, politics in a democratic society was a new phenomenon, and it wasn’t until 1795 that members of Congress were officially Federalists or Republicans*, rather than being identified as supporting the administration or opposing it.
The Anti-Federalists named themselves Republicans, emphasizing the desire for a republic, as opposed to a monarchy, which they accused Federalists of supporting, seeing a strong central government as little different from a king. Just the same, the main focuses of American politics -- power in government and foreign alliances -- became prominent in only the second session of Congress, and people did organize in support of them.
Once the Federalists and Republicans settled as the two major parties, the struggle in ink became even fiercer. The days of politicians -- trained in classic oratory -- publishing anonymously in the paper faded. But the wilder-than-today claims were amazing: They accused Jefferson of being prepared to have nuns prostituted, while Adams would teach “murder robbery”.
One of the means of support was founding newspapers to trumpet their views, for which wealthy party members would pay subscriptions, so that the editor need not back off from attacking members of the other party for fear of losing sales. The Gazette of the United States was perhaps the most prominent of the Federalist papers, and it quarreled viciously, bitterly, even leading to the point of libel with its Republican counterpart, the National Gazette.
In short, while freedom of the press was one of the first things added to the Constitution, the Founding Fathers were quick to ensure that some members of the press would be loyal only to their faction. It took a very long time to get better, for that matter; while William Randolph Hearst most likely never told his photographer in Cuba "You supply the pictures, I'll supply the war", his New York Journal and its rival the New York World most certainly contributed greatly to sparking the Spanish-American War in 1898, as was their intent.
The most trustworthy journalism today lies with the Daily Show, the Colbert Report, NPR, and the BBC, not with the papers. But frankly, newsprint has rarely been that reliable when it comes to the first half of the word.
Most facts in this post came from the excellent Infamous Scribblers, by Eric Burns, published by PublicAffairs in 2006.
*Note: I call them Republicans, since that’s what they called themselves, but their opponents labeled them Democrats, a pejorative referring to their worship of the common man, whom the Federalists did not trust with matters of governance. Historians have settled on the name Democratic-Republican, which nobody ever called anyone in 1789, so it seems unhelpful and stupid. However, my way could lead to confusion: to make this perfectly clear, the Republican Party of Jefferson and Madison has nothing to do with that of Lincoln and Taft.
No comments:
Post a Comment