Journalists

[jhuether]

Even back then the press were a problem on the battle field. Sherman complained during the Vicksburg Campaign that the Free Press had done as much to bring down the government as slavery had. So in that spirit I endevour I to recreate these pests. So far my research as been all-in-all successful. The problem that I am having is coming up with evidence from the Western theater. Most everything that I have found has centered around the AOP, from 1863-1865. There is limited content in the LOC and actually a good number of books covering the subject. But it seems that researchers as yet have not looked across the valley into the West. So now to my question... finally... does anyone have anything (and I mean anything) dealing with newsmen of the West? They were obviously out there, if nothing else to plague poor Sherman.:cry_smile Any help is much appreciated.

[Hank Trent]

Re: Journalists

I haven't read it so don't know if it would be useful at all, but here's a book online:

http://books.google.com/books?id=fIDYkBWpnXAC

Memoirs of Henry Villard, Journalist and Financier, 1835-1900 by Henry Villard.

The table of contents mentions Chattanooga and Chickamauga, as if he was there as a reporter.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Robert A Mosher]

Re: Journalists

Jason -
I look forward to hearing more about your research but I find it interesting that it seems not to agree with my own. The available material isn't perfect by any stretch but I have found a number of sources that discuss the activity of correspondents in the Western theater(s) including the work of some individuals who specialized in that area and did not come east.

My own impression of an Army Correspondent is based upon Charles Carleton Coffin who reported from both the eastern and western theaters during the war. But this leads me to also suggest you avoid the stereotyping of journalists accompanying the army as simply one more problem for those in uniform to deal with. A lot of attention has been focused on the clashes between different generals and journalists over the course of the war, but it should also be noted that a number of journalists also served as aides and staff members to various commanders during the war even while carrying on their journalistic enterprises. A number of generals actually welcomed the presence of reporters (got to keep those voters at home informed about what you are doing, you know) and there were also reporters whose presence did not create problems for the army. During the war, Coffin developed relationships with a number of senior commanders, including Grant and Meade for example, that allowed him to approach them directly in seeking information.

BTW - you didn't name any of the published works so I will note that on my own shelves are Bohemian Brigade by Louis M. Starr; Yankee Reporters 1861-1865 by Emmet Crozier; Reporters for the Union by Bernard A Weisberger; and The North Reports the Civil War by J Cutler Andrews (who I believe also wrote a book on the Southern press during the war which I have not yet picked up). As Hank pointed out, there are also the published memoirs of civil war journalists to be found (I have a number of Coffin's books on the war which draw on his own experiences) and many of this can be found now online in PDF or other formats for downloading or reading online.

You could also visit us at the The Bohemian Brigade website to find more information about sources www.bohemianbrigade.com

I look forward to hearing more about your research!

Robert A. Mosher
(aka Charles Carelton, Army Correspondent, The Boston Journal)

[jhuether]

Re: Journalists

Robert

Thank you much. I think what I needed more than anything was direction. My research as been a rather slow work over the last couple of months, mainly retarded by the fact that I am in Iraq. Great website! I don't know how I missed it on web searches. If for nothing else, the reading list makes it worth it.

Like I said previously, I am going for a more western paper (Chicago, St. Louis, perhaps Nashville), and have had so little to show. To be honest I was beginning to lose interest. But your post has put the drive back in me. Thanks.

As for the press being a pest.... trust me the press is always a pest! If not immediately dabbling in affairs, then the fact that higher commands buddy up to them just makes it worse. But, of course, just a personal opinion. Just kidding... but really.

[billwatson]

Re: Journalists

Journalism in 186x is definitely another one of those things that needs to be judged by the standards of its own time rather than the standards now in play. Completely different animal, although, interestingly enough, we are very definitely headed BACK in that direction today.

[Prodical Reb]

Re: Journalists

Sherman didn't like journalists much. The quote in my signature will attest to that. This was from his March to the Sea from Atlanta. It came from a book about Shermans campaign to the sea and then on to the Carolinas.

Besides his supply lines the Telegragh lines were cut also to keep his plans secret. Even the journalists who followed couldn't report back to their respective papers because they had no way to transmit the story. Upon reaching Savannah news got out via military reports and press channels.

[Becky Morgan]

Re: Journalists

If you ever have the chance to read the Wheeling Intelligencer and the Wheeling Register articles on the same battle, diplomatic incident or presidential action, you'll wonder whether the reporters were looking at the same scene. To put it mildly, the papers' estimates of who's winning the war are entertaining and their reasoning, er, colorful. Try to imagine Rush Limbaugh and Rosie O'Donnell as the nightly news anchors on competing stations...

[billwatson]

Re: Journalists

That's exactly how it worked, Becky, the newspapers were partisan, had a point of view through which they assessed events.

We got into this alleged objectivity and fairness in the 20th century when economics made it inevitable that most towns would only be able to support one newspaper. The publishers all promised that in exchange for sacrificing two or three newspapers with different points of view, they'd change their approach and present "just the facts." What we're discovering now is that it's boring, and very often the effort to balance things perfectly means readers are left with no clear idea what's really going on, just with some kind of intractable dialectic that effectively polarizes all problems. Either that, or we try so hard to put the meaning between the lines that we baffle readers who have neither the time nor the inclination to decipher the secret messages of journalists.

The new world of the internet, with anyone free to interpret facts from any point of view they want, is very much a return to the 1700s and up to the mid 1800s when almost all "newspapers" or broadsheets espoused a particular philosophy and printing one wasn't something requiring a fortune. You no longer need $20 or $30 million for a printing press, with a computer and $200 in software, you're up and running.

The need to make reporters and newspapers somewhat more accountable for the crap they printed, by the way, has its origins in the Civil War, when Joe Hooker (I believe) insisted that the only journalists who would travel with his headquarters would be the ones whose real names appeared with their stories, rather than the nom de plumes behind which many hid ("Publicus," "Rasberry," all kinds of great names.) It was a very personal kind of journalism, and what I find to be the great aspect of it is the way the writer's personality shines through so many of the reports. They are sarcastic, wry, funny, outraged, indignant -- a lot like Jon Stewart. :-)

[Becky Morgan]

Re: Journalists

This is post-period, but during one postwar presidential campaign a small notice appeared on the front page of the Moundsville Echo (the daily, I think). It was an advertisement for a Republican competitor's paper, with a note from the Echo's editor to the effect that "I am understandably biased toward my candidate, and any thinking individual should subscribe to ---'s paper for the duration of the campaign in order to get a more balanced idea of the facts." If no one noticed, it was also a clever way for BOTH papers to get extra subscribers.

[Robert A Mosher]

A Modest Proposal (was Re: Journalists)

Okay, you are here on the AC Forum and clearly have decided to try and be as authentic as possible in your kit, your drill, your deportment in the field, etc. Good. Now let me humbly point out that you aren't done yet.

Since I began doing a journalist impression some two years ago, I frequently find the same reaction from mainstreamers, progressives, and even campaigners. Sadly, far too many of them fall into the trap and let their feelings about the modern media determine how they respond to and interact with a Civil War era journalist. So allow me to suggest that a little more research is in order. Any one of the books I listed in my posting above would be a good start. You can also visit the Bohemian Brigade website, read the material available there for online reading, and find listings for other sources that you can find at the library and sometimes even on line at Google books or other online sources.

Yes, Sherman had a very good personal reason for disliking the press. So did other generals. But there were also many generals who liked the press - remember especially in the Union Army how many of them were political appointees or had political ambitions for after the war. And it is well documented how both sides regularly looked to the other side's newspapers for useful intelligence about the opposing army and its plans. Once in a while something useful came out of the effort - but it's a technique that was no more reliable then than it is now. The books I cited as well as others listed at the Bohemian Brigade website will also tell you about the repeated, failed attempts by military brass and politicians to stop or censor the press during the war. Newspaper editors and journalists were not unmindful of the sensitivity of their work and the risks that they might unintentionally aid the enemy, but they also understood their readers' demand for news of the war and when it might be won.

And almost every general liked at least some of the press. My own impression is based upon Charles Carleton Coffin of the Boston Journal, who had good relations throughout the war with Grant and Meade, in particular, as well as with President Lincoln himself (who regularly talked to journalists looking for insights into how the war was going and how public support for the war was holding up).

Before and during the Civil War, the only organized news source in the country (North or South) were the newspapers. Just about every community of any size had at least one newspaper upon which it depended for news about the outside world as well as what was happening right next door. There were newspapers that openly supported and espoused almost every political party and faction - quite openly and without any shyness or subtlety. Alexis de Tocqueville offers some interesting insights and observations on the phenomena of the free press in the United States before the Civil War, in addition to the previously cited sources. In particular, he notes how the newspapers of the time survived only as long as they could find readers who agreed with them and could pay for the newspaper - a newspaper of any standing therefore represented some significant portion of the population that shared its views.

So, go ahead and dislike the press, but as in most things in reenacting - base it upon some research and make sure that you can explaiin why a private soldier or officer in your unit or from your home town disliked a reporter - maybe you don't like New Yorkers? or perhaps you disagree with the editorial line and political position of the particular newspaper? If nothing else, it will give you and your mates something else to chew over while waiting for the officers to decide which maneuver to try next - and for you officers, you may want to consider whether that journalist is a friend of Lincoln's or of some other politician in Washington.

Robert A. Mosher