Newspapers, as bad in 1860 as today?

[johan_steele]

One thing I think most scholars recognize is that newspapers in general do not make good sources as their facts are often sensationalized or outright wrong. This is especially true today, but it was as true in the Civil War. It should be remembered that the Editorial board sets the tone of a newspaper and that it's agenda or attitudes may not be that of the populace at large.

I recently posted what I thought was a rather macabre article, one that caught my attention as a period piece of the kind that would never be printed today. It had originally been posted over on Authentic Campaigner I checked the website it was originally from and posted it here. In very short order historians of a superior caliber than I recognized the originality of the document and noted that most of what was in the article was not only incorrect but an outright lie and questioned whether the author had even been at the site he mentioned.

With the plethera of period articles presented by Hal & Thea (outstanding and worthy work I might add)how many I wonder would pass the litmus test of fact vs fiction?

As we all know of the NY Times writer who recently was dismissed for falsifying stories so it's obviously not a problem restricted to the past. But how do we as historians look at Newspaper articles? Especially, those from such an emotionally charged time. We are forced, I think, to look at them w/ a grain of salt and a realization that they may well be trying to further their own agenda, whatever that might be.

Can anyone identify the Newspaper Editor that made the statement: "I never let the truth get in the way of a good story." I think that is a statement that needs to be remembered whenever we look at period newspaper articles.

Then the question becomes what do we look to as an accurate period piece? I don't think there is any one simple answer to that. My own opinion places personal diaries at the top of the list. Though even diaries can be suspect as individuals often concentrate upon their own experiance to the detriment of all others in a diary. But they are perhaps the most honest view as they, usually, were not intended for anyone but themselves.

Letters home or to a newspaper are sometimes worse as the individual rarely wants to offend their peers or paint themselves in a less than flattering light. And to make matters still more difficult there is evidence that many of the letters, at least to some Northern newspapers, were outright fabrications of the editorial board.

In conclusion I believe it is important not to look upon period sources as if they are pure as the driven snow. The argument that people were more honest then doesn't hold water when looked at with scrutiny; there were as many scoundrels then as now. Perhaps more, because a crafty falsehood was in many ways easier to hide.

[hoosier]

I found one reference on the internet that attributes the quote "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story" to Mark Twain, but I'm not sure how accurate that is.

If I had to name a newspaper editor who might have said something similar, it sounds like the fictional Charles Foster Kane, or perhaps William Randolph Hearst, after whom Kane was supposedly modeled.

[johan_steele]

George I've heard of it attributed to both Horace Greely & Hearst. Myself I find it doubtful that Twain would have said something like that about himself. I don't know who said it for certain.

[gary]

Sensationalism drove the papers then and now. I don't think the papers have changed a bit. The accounts I've read is that the soldiers would read them and felt they were pure nonsense. Despite that, they eagerly sought them out and especially that of the other side.

[rbenne]

Shane;

One of the questions/comments you mention was the agenda of the newspaper. While we do always have to look to the political agenda of the editors, the first and most important agenda must be remembered.

Selling newspapers

As true when they were penny broadsides as it is for the $1.50 Sunday edition today (or more)

Spectacular sells, now and then.

[unionblue]

Shane,

So, are we to believe that no reporting during the Civil War was accurate or to be believed? That there is no way to determine fact from fiction, propaganda and agenda from true reporting?

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[johan_steele]

No, Neil. I'm just stressing that using a SINGLE period source as fact is... naive. If I've learned one thing about research it is that sources can contradict each other... dramatically.

After all there is no good news like bad news... While Raymond is right that what sells is what is printed... that isn't always a recipe for honest reporting. Spin can get through whatever agenda is wanted.

From my reading of period papers and comparing fact vs their articles I've aften found much of the same. From outright invented stories, distinct regional slant, sensationalized stories that have taken a thread of real info and blown it so far out of proportion it's as reliable as a bankers philanthropy. Comparing similar stories from two competing newspapers has been a useful tool for me, but even then I've sometimes been frustrated by realizing that the abolitionist paper is going out of it's way to put a particular spin on events as quickly as the Copperhead paper... which "facts" do you go w/? Now it's time to drag in a third paper... and try to figure out their agenda. It's quite easy to gather three or four distinctivly DIFFERENT stories about the same incident all placing blame or credit where the editor or writer thinks it will do their agenda the most good.

It's very easy to find a particular period paper that agrees w/ with a modern agenda and automatically take it as truth because it's a "period source"... It isn't right but it is easy.

Period letters can do some of the same, if a man is writing home to his wife, he may not mention some of the things going on around him for the simple fact that he wishes to shield them from it... or mask his complicity.

Diaries and journals seem to be more truthful, especially those that were written for the author alone and not intended for the eyes of anyone else... those are the real prizes. But even those are written from a distinct viewpoint often w/ a very narrow point of view.

What I'm saying is that it's important to verify anything that is put forward in newsprint. It's not too difficult to find newspapers that declare 2nd Bull Run as a monumental victory for the Union...

Anything written in 1862 should not be taken as Gospel, if it was a lie then it's still a lie today. A lie in print w/ 100,000 readers is still a lie.

[unionblue]

Shane,

I agree that research should spring from multiple sources. How many times have we seen the oft missused phrase That General Grant would not have picked up his sword if the conflict had been about slavery? It has been used on this board once or twice but I am happy to say that when it was used, it was researched and admitted not to be true by the very folks who at first thought it was.

Research is the key, but in spite of the fact that newspapers of the period may be highly suspect in some of their content, you are right to infer they should be cross-checked and verified.

I have recently provided some articles for the Newspaper Thread of this board that are very strong in their Union sentiments. All come from Northern sources or newspapers and of course should be considered somewhat suspect in their reporting. There are facts among all the verbal landmines though, and your advice should be standard for anyone doing serious research, cross-check and verify.

YMOS,
Unionblue

[bill_torrens]

Diaries and letters are very reliable sources of information on the writers' opinions, but on matters of fact they can be unreliable - either because of the diarist's imperfect grasp of the facts or because of (often deliberate) errors of omission.

Official correspondence - as anyone who has ever worked for a bureaucracy will readily acknowledge - is a cesspit of self-justification, back-stabbing and mendacity. Nothing is quite what it seems, and a nice example is furnished by General Dorsey Pender's enthusiastic words about one of his staff officers. On 14th October 1862 his report on 2nd Manassas & Sharpsburg contained the following: "I would beg leave to bring to the notice of the major-general the distinguished gallantry and efficiency of First Lieut. R.H. Brewer, volunteer aide on my staff, whom I recommend for promotion."

This is all very fine, but Pender had written to his wife on 22nd September to tell her that "Brewer I had much rather was gone[,] for he has become so dissatisfied and talks so much about wanting to go to Richmond that it is disagreeable to have him around." Pender wanted rid of his subordinate, and recommending him for promotion was the easiest way of achieving his aim.

Shane's points about newspapers are valid, but I don't believe there is anything uniquely unreliable about them.