The story of Rodney King was not on the Newseum list of Top News Stories of the Century, but I felt it should have been for the enormous backlash seen in communities across the country. The local community called for the removal of Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl Gates. Violent riots broke out in 1992 after the police officers were acquitted by the state court.
On March 3, 1991, King was beaten by three LA police officers as he lay face down, while twelve other officers—including a police sergeant—merely stood by. King was tasered, struck by nightsticks at least 56 times and kicked seven times, fracturing his skull, breaking his leg and damaging nerves. Little did they know that an amateur cameraman, George Holliday, filmed the event from his nearby apartment. Holliday sold the footage to KTLA news and soon, the incident was playing back on television screens across the nation.
As suggested by the Los Angeles Sentinel and questioned in depth by the New York Times, police brutality is no new thing. And what if the incident hadn’t been caught on tape? NY Times reporter Geoffrey Taylor Gibbs offered that police would have played up stories of King resisting arrest and possibly even planting or providing some sort of “weapon” as evidence.
Multiple media outlets cite a range of sources, with most actually quoting King directly. Many made a point of noting King’s initial refusal to say that racism was involved—based on advice given by his attorneys. All of this obviously frames the story in a way that does highlight the racism and overall police brutality that needed—and still needs—to be addressed.
This story of course is all too familiar with the recent killing of Oscar Grant. 18 years after the Rodney King incident and just two months after President Obama was elected, it is a shame that such a thing could still happen. In the same way, communities banded together, took to the streets and called for justice.
Both events also highlight the difference that one individual or individuals can make just by being in the right place at the right time and not being afraid. It shows a change in the way people view and capture the world around them as technology has made it easier for anyone to have a voice. It gives power to the idea of citizen journalism—Holliday and those who recorded the incident on BART may have changed the way each event unfolded and brought awareness to those who have chosen not to see what has been under their noses for too long.
“Black Community Unanimous: ‘Gates Must Go!’” by Ron Dungee Los Angeles Sentinel (1946-2005); Mar 14, 1991; ProQuest Historical Newspapers Los Angeles Sentinel: 1934-2005 pg. A1
“L.A. Cops, Taped in the Act” by Geoffrey Taylor Gibbs New York Times (1857-Current file); Mar 12, 1991; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2005) pg. A23
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Black Thursday
October 24, 1929, now called Black Thursday, was the initial crash of the stock market that would extend to October 28-29, 1929, respectively known as Black Monday and Black Tuesday. Yet, the initial crash on Thursday had no way of foreseeing greater losses in the stock market. The New York Times reported on October 24, 1929, front page headline exclaiming “PRICES OF STOCKS CRASH IN HEAVY LIQUIDATION, TOTAL DROP OF BILLIONS.” Immediately, the large font grabs the reader’s eye. The font is huge in comparison to other headlines of its day. Another interesting point is that under the headline there are several mini-headlines before the article begins: “PAPER LOSS $4,000,000,000”; “2,6000,000 Shares Sold in the Final Hour In Record Decline.”; “MANY ACCOUNTS WIPED OUT”; “But No Brokerage House Is in Difficulties, as Margins Have Been Kept High.”; “ORGANIZED BACKING ABSENT.”; “Bankers Confer on Steps to Support Market- Highest Break is 96 Points.” My only explanation for the sub-headlines is they serve to give a quick summary of the major issues covered in the article so the reader does not necessarily have to read the entire article, which is pretty lengthy.
One thing that struck me as odd was the absence of a by-line, but after consulting Discovering the News, for this time, it was quite common to omit a by-line, unless it was international correspondence. The story opens with a hard news lead, citing the “avalanche of selling” as responsible for “one of the widest declines in history.” Much like an inverted pyramid, the article tackles “Loss In Market Values” after the lead, getting out figures and numbers, the “facts”, before delving into analysis and impact. For a breaking news story, I would agree that getting estimated numbers such as shares and losses in the top of the story, as that is what most want to know about. The article is semi-chronological, leading with the important facts, then recounting the “Crash in Final Hour.”
Since most of the statistics used in the article are about stocks and shares, which are “listed on the Exchange”, there is not a whole lot of attribution in the story. It is assumed data on stocks are from their respective exchanges and public. Several grafs down, The New York Times is attributed with statistical averages, but it is not until the second page of the story that the readers finds out who has been interviewed. Bankers and heads of banks were interviewed, such as Charles E. Mitchell, head of the National City Bank, as was the president of one of the largest groups of investment trusts. Most of the reporting seemed to be down from a observational stance, noting how things appeared on the floor of the stock exchange. While the article ends with the revelation that “some of the leading bankers of the city were in a conference after the close of the market yesterday, discussing the desirability if some assuring word,” but no word was made. What is interesting about the article is that it did not foresee what we all now know happened. The president of the groups of investment trusts, who never gave his name, “predicted that any period of depression would be of comparatively short duration, and next year many issues would seep to new high marks, he said.”
The crash on October 24, 1929, as reported by The Washington Post, was also front page news, headline reading, “$3,000,000,000 LOST WHEN STOCKS CRASH”, with sub-headlines reading “Most Hair-Raising Drop in Recent History Comes in Last Hour.” and “MANY ARE WIPED OUT.” The figures vary from The New York Times coverage, yet in breaking news, I think that tends to happen. The article is also smaller than in the NYT, with a majority of the front page, four columns, devoted to “NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE TRANSACTIONS OF YESTERDAY.” While both stories covered the fact a majority of the losses were experienced between the hours of 2 p.m. and 3 p.m., The Washington Post places that fact high-up in the lead. Similar to the NYT article, this article downplays the crash’s long-term affects. Also similar to the NYT article, some of the sources remain anonymous, instead referred to as “a senior partner in one of the largest commission houses.” The rest of the content is similar to that seen in the more in-depth NYT article. Record loses in the summer precede the crash, nerves affecting sellers and statistics.
Clearly this is reminiscent of the down-turned economy our nation faces today. Many of the remarks made in this article seem like they could be talking about our economy and the current stock market, especially after the recent drops last week. An interesting point made in the NYT article cited a “decline in iron and steel production, in automotive production and in building operations” from the previous summer, as an indicator of strategic selling, when trying to figure out why some stocks saw more selling than others. With the decline the automotive industry has seen in the last year alone, one must wonder if there is anything we can learn from history to aid our current situation.
"PRICES OF STOCK CRASH IN HEAVY LIQUIDATION, TOTAL DROP OF BILLIONS." New York Times. ProQuest Historical Newspapers. Leonard Library, San Francisco. 5 Mar. 2009.
"$3,000,000,000 Lost When Stocks Crash." The Washington Post. ProQuest Historical Newspapers. Leonard Library, San Francisco. 5 Mar. 2009.
One thing that struck me as odd was the absence of a by-line, but after consulting Discovering the News, for this time, it was quite common to omit a by-line, unless it was international correspondence. The story opens with a hard news lead, citing the “avalanche of selling” as responsible for “one of the widest declines in history.” Much like an inverted pyramid, the article tackles “Loss In Market Values” after the lead, getting out figures and numbers, the “facts”, before delving into analysis and impact. For a breaking news story, I would agree that getting estimated numbers such as shares and losses in the top of the story, as that is what most want to know about. The article is semi-chronological, leading with the important facts, then recounting the “Crash in Final Hour.”
Since most of the statistics used in the article are about stocks and shares, which are “listed on the Exchange”, there is not a whole lot of attribution in the story. It is assumed data on stocks are from their respective exchanges and public. Several grafs down, The New York Times is attributed with statistical averages, but it is not until the second page of the story that the readers finds out who has been interviewed. Bankers and heads of banks were interviewed, such as Charles E. Mitchell, head of the National City Bank, as was the president of one of the largest groups of investment trusts. Most of the reporting seemed to be down from a observational stance, noting how things appeared on the floor of the stock exchange. While the article ends with the revelation that “some of the leading bankers of the city were in a conference after the close of the market yesterday, discussing the desirability if some assuring word,” but no word was made. What is interesting about the article is that it did not foresee what we all now know happened. The president of the groups of investment trusts, who never gave his name, “predicted that any period of depression would be of comparatively short duration, and next year many issues would seep to new high marks, he said.”
The crash on October 24, 1929, as reported by The Washington Post, was also front page news, headline reading, “$3,000,000,000 LOST WHEN STOCKS CRASH”, with sub-headlines reading “Most Hair-Raising Drop in Recent History Comes in Last Hour.” and “MANY ARE WIPED OUT.” The figures vary from The New York Times coverage, yet in breaking news, I think that tends to happen. The article is also smaller than in the NYT, with a majority of the front page, four columns, devoted to “NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE TRANSACTIONS OF YESTERDAY.” While both stories covered the fact a majority of the losses were experienced between the hours of 2 p.m. and 3 p.m., The Washington Post places that fact high-up in the lead. Similar to the NYT article, this article downplays the crash’s long-term affects. Also similar to the NYT article, some of the sources remain anonymous, instead referred to as “a senior partner in one of the largest commission houses.” The rest of the content is similar to that seen in the more in-depth NYT article. Record loses in the summer precede the crash, nerves affecting sellers and statistics.
Clearly this is reminiscent of the down-turned economy our nation faces today. Many of the remarks made in this article seem like they could be talking about our economy and the current stock market, especially after the recent drops last week. An interesting point made in the NYT article cited a “decline in iron and steel production, in automotive production and in building operations” from the previous summer, as an indicator of strategic selling, when trying to figure out why some stocks saw more selling than others. With the decline the automotive industry has seen in the last year alone, one must wonder if there is anything we can learn from history to aid our current situation.
"PRICES OF STOCK CRASH IN HEAVY LIQUIDATION, TOTAL DROP OF BILLIONS." New York Times. ProQuest Historical Newspapers. Leonard Library, San Francisco. 5 Mar. 2009
"$3,000,000,000 Lost When Stocks Crash." The Washington Post. ProQuest Historical Newspapers. Leonard Library, San Francisco. 5 Mar. 2009
Dr. King Is Slain in Memphis
On April 5, 1968, one day after his assassination, the biggest headline, featured at the top of the front page of The Washington Post, read, “Dr. King Is Slain in Memphis.” Above the article, a smaller sub-headline reads, “Troops Ordered Into City,” informing the reader of actions implicated by his death. The byline reads “From News Dispatches”, with a dateline of Memphis, Tennessee, April 4. The article begins with a hard news lead:
“The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was shot and killed by a sniper today when he strolled alone onto the balcony of his hotel.”
The lead informs the reader of the basic elements of the story by being direct. When writing stories involving deaths, one things I’ve been taught to avoid is showing off your writing skills. When news is breaking with deaths involved, the reader does not care how eloquently it is put, and it can come off as being disrespectful. By choosing a hard news lead, the reader is able to be informed and not sidetracked by the language. I think this speaks to the contemporary writing style of The Washington Post in the late 1960s.
The grafs following the lead address the most newsworthy topics of the article: “Gov. Buford Ellington ordered 4000 National Guard troops into the city and a curfew was imposed.”; “Unrest immediately broke out in the Negro district.”; police blocked a five-block area surrounding “the Lorraine Hotel, where Dr. King was slain.” Most importantly, in the fourth graf, the subtitle reads, “Two Men Are Held.” As you read the next few grafs, you learn that it is unknown if these two men are connected with the shooting, yet police “issued a bulletin for a young white man in dark clothes” who apparently ran across the street from the hotel and dropped an automatic rifle with a scope and left in a car. Police are also attributed with an alert that had “been broadcast for a blue, late-model Mustang […].” These elements are crucial to the story, as it is breaking and no one had been arrested for Dr. King’s killing.
While the first part of the article addresses the most newsworthy parts of the story, Dr. King’s killing, the immediate ordering of National Guard troops and possible suspects, the second part recreates a timeline leading to Dr. King’s killing. Rev. Andrew Young, executive vice president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), is interviewed. He said Dr. King was shot “in the neck and lower right part of his face”, adding, “He didn’t say a word; he didn’t move.” Not only does Rev. Young’s quotes paint a painfully sad image, coming from a personal friend of Dr. King’s, the reader feels a strong sense of sadness on several levels.
The article then goes on to recount the series of events following the shooting. At St. Joseph’s Hospital, Dr. King was declared dead. Assistant Police Chief Henry Lux is also attributed with declaring the death of Dr. King. Frank Holloman, police director, is quoted as saying, “We are in a state of emergency here.” This is another effective quote which categorizes the severity of the event. To give further context, it was also being investigated by the FBI.
The remainder of the article explains Dr. King was in Memphis for a demonstration to support Memphis sanitation workers. Rev. Jesse Jackson and Ben Branch are also quoted, as they were with Dr. King, preparing to eat dinner, when he was shot. Their quotes provide a first-hand experience to the events, as witnessed from the hotel. The article ends with U.S. District Judge Bailey Brown hearing arguments that challenged a Federal court ban on the march. Police Chief J.C. MacDonald was asked by Judge Brown if Memphis would stay quiet “if the restraining order were continued.” MacDonald said, “If the court allows any sort of march we’re going to need some help.”
On April 4,1968, The New York Times ran an article titled, “McKissick Says Nonviolence Has Become Dead Philosophy.” The article, with a dateline of Cleveland, April 4 and no byline, is about Floyd B. McKissick, national director of the Congress of Racial Equality. The lead informs that McKissisck “said tonight that the death of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. meant the end of the nonviolent philosophy.” I thought this was interesting commentary. McKissick called Dr. King “the last prince of nonviolence” and said “nonviolence is a dead philosophy and it was no the black people that killed it. It was the white people that killed nonviolence and white racists at that.” For a time that was full of segregation and racism, it is interesting to see someone speaking against white racism and calling the events “a horror.” McKissick would not make predictions about what would happened as a result of the assassination, yet his quotes are shocking to me that they would get printed at all. Another interesting side note, is that this article was buried on page 26, maybe not as progressive as one would think The New York Times is.
The reporter for The Washington Post did a great job of interviewing police officials and personal friend’s of Dr. King to paint a portrait of what happened/was happening in the wake of Dr. King’s death. The 1960s was a time of great change and uncertainties, and there is no contemporary new story comparable to the death of Dr. King. The legacy of Martin Luther King Jr., however, is to stand up for your beliefs, no matter what. In that respect, I would say any even in which masses gather to march and protest share in his spirit. Most recently, thousands gathered in San Francisco, and all over the state, to march for same-sex marriage, which I would compare to the nature of Dr. King’s legacy.
"Dr. King Is Slain in Memphis." The Washington Post. ProQuest Historical Newspapers. Leonard Library, San Francisco. 7 Mar. 2009.
"McKissick Says Nonviolence Has Become Dead Philosophy." The New York Times. ProQuest Historical Newspapers. Leonard Library, San Francisco. 7 Mar. 2009.
“The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was shot and killed by a sniper today when he strolled alone onto the balcony of his hotel.”
The lead informs the reader of the basic elements of the story by being direct. When writing stories involving deaths, one things I’ve been taught to avoid is showing off your writing skills. When news is breaking with deaths involved, the reader does not care how eloquently it is put, and it can come off as being disrespectful. By choosing a hard news lead, the reader is able to be informed and not sidetracked by the language. I think this speaks to the contemporary writing style of The Washington Post in the late 1960s.
The grafs following the lead address the most newsworthy topics of the article: “Gov. Buford Ellington ordered 4000 National Guard troops into the city and a curfew was imposed.”; “Unrest immediately broke out in the Negro district.”; police blocked a five-block area surrounding “the Lorraine Hotel, where Dr. King was slain.” Most importantly, in the fourth graf, the subtitle reads, “Two Men Are Held.” As you read the next few grafs, you learn that it is unknown if these two men are connected with the shooting, yet police “issued a bulletin for a young white man in dark clothes” who apparently ran across the street from the hotel and dropped an automatic rifle with a scope and left in a car. Police are also attributed with an alert that had “been broadcast for a blue, late-model Mustang […].” These elements are crucial to the story, as it is breaking and no one had been arrested for Dr. King’s killing.
While the first part of the article addresses the most newsworthy parts of the story, Dr. King’s killing, the immediate ordering of National Guard troops and possible suspects, the second part recreates a timeline leading to Dr. King’s killing. Rev. Andrew Young, executive vice president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), is interviewed. He said Dr. King was shot “in the neck and lower right part of his face”, adding, “He didn’t say a word; he didn’t move.” Not only does Rev. Young’s quotes paint a painfully sad image, coming from a personal friend of Dr. King’s, the reader feels a strong sense of sadness on several levels.
The article then goes on to recount the series of events following the shooting. At St. Joseph’s Hospital, Dr. King was declared dead. Assistant Police Chief Henry Lux is also attributed with declaring the death of Dr. King. Frank Holloman, police director, is quoted as saying, “We are in a state of emergency here.” This is another effective quote which categorizes the severity of the event. To give further context, it was also being investigated by the FBI.
The remainder of the article explains Dr. King was in Memphis for a demonstration to support Memphis sanitation workers. Rev. Jesse Jackson and Ben Branch are also quoted, as they were with Dr. King, preparing to eat dinner, when he was shot. Their quotes provide a first-hand experience to the events, as witnessed from the hotel. The article ends with U.S. District Judge Bailey Brown hearing arguments that challenged a Federal court ban on the march. Police Chief J.C. MacDonald was asked by Judge Brown if Memphis would stay quiet “if the restraining order were continued.” MacDonald said, “If the court allows any sort of march we’re going to need some help.”
On April 4,1968, The New York Times ran an article titled, “McKissick Says Nonviolence Has Become Dead Philosophy.” The article, with a dateline of Cleveland, April 4 and no byline, is about Floyd B. McKissick, national director of the Congress of Racial Equality. The lead informs that McKissisck “said tonight that the death of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. meant the end of the nonviolent philosophy.” I thought this was interesting commentary. McKissick called Dr. King “the last prince of nonviolence” and said “nonviolence is a dead philosophy and it was no the black people that killed it. It was the white people that killed nonviolence and white racists at that.” For a time that was full of segregation and racism, it is interesting to see someone speaking against white racism and calling the events “a horror.” McKissick would not make predictions about what would happened as a result of the assassination, yet his quotes are shocking to me that they would get printed at all. Another interesting side note, is that this article was buried on page 26, maybe not as progressive as one would think The New York Times is.
The reporter for The Washington Post did a great job of interviewing police officials and personal friend’s of Dr. King to paint a portrait of what happened/was happening in the wake of Dr. King’s death. The 1960s was a time of great change and uncertainties, and there is no contemporary new story comparable to the death of Dr. King. The legacy of Martin Luther King Jr., however, is to stand up for your beliefs, no matter what. In that respect, I would say any even in which masses gather to march and protest share in his spirit. Most recently, thousands gathered in San Francisco, and all over the state, to march for same-sex marriage, which I would compare to the nature of Dr. King’s legacy.
"Dr. King Is Slain in Memphis." The Washington Post. ProQuest Historical Newspapers. Leonard Library, San Francisco. 7 Mar. 2009
"McKissick Says Nonviolence Has Become Dead Philosophy." The New York Times. ProQuest Historical Newspapers. Leonard Library, San Francisco. 7 Mar. 2009
U.S Women Win the Right to Vote
On August 26, 1920, America’s suffragettes were finally able to end their more than fifty year battle for the right to vote with the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. As momentous of a victory as it was, it was one that came only after more than seventy years of struggle by America’s women. I believe that it is both the determination of those who fought for it for so long, as well as the enormity of their victory, that deservedly earns the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment a ranking of #7 and #5 by the public and journalists respectively on the list of the 100 top news stories of the century.
Many of the events on the list of top news stories are events that took place and changed the course of history in a single day, or even a few hours- the JFK assassination, U.S stock market crash, the bombing of Pearl Harbor. But women winning the right to vote in this country is something that happened over the course of generations, and because of this I chose to look at several articles covering the suffrage movement at different points in history.
Women’s fight for suffrage began long before many of the women who first voted in the 1920 elections were even born. In July of 1848, women’s suffrage was first seriously presented as an issue at the Seneca Falls Woman’s Rights Convention which was organized by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott.
What struck me most about the way the convention was how much it varied. The headlines are not large and read simply “Woman’s Rights”[1] or “Woman’s Rights Convention”[2]. And the articles range from supportive: “It has long been our opinion that women are better than men…wherever- with perhaps a few exceptions- wherever their influence has been exerted, it has been for good,”[3] to downright mocking, as in The Liberator magazine. The article appears simply under the title “Woman’s Rights Meeting” (there is no byline) and goes on to describe the seemingly ludicrousness of the idea of women’s rights:
“A Convention was recently held at Seneca Falls, N.Y., gotten up by a few erratic, addle-pated come-others of the female sex, headed by the famous Lucretia Mott, for the purpose of discussing their rights, social, political and religious. The preliminary movement in the meeting was the reading of a parody of the Declaration of Independence, showing forth their rights and grievances… We have not met with any detailed official account of the proceedings nor of the speeches, but we think we can form some idea of the affair…We view it as a most insane and ludicrous farce, for women in the nineteenth century to get up in a public and promiscuous assemblage and declare themselves ‘oppressed and fraudulently deprived of their most sacred rights’, when, if they really knew what belonged to their true position, instead of stirring up discontent and enacting such foolery, they would be about the sober duties and responsibilities which devolve upon them as rational beings, and as ‘helpmeets’ of the other sex.”[4]
I know the excerpt is a bit long, but I was blown away by not only how critical the article is, but how the writer points out that he (I can only assume it was written by a man) really has no idea what actually went on at the meeting but how ridiculous it is nonetheless. The only source cited in the course of the article was the “parody” of the Declaration of Independence that the attendees of the meeting created.
[1] OCW Liberator 9/22/1848, Proquest Historical Newspapers
[2]National Era 8/31/1848, Proquest Historical Newspapers
[3]Littell's Living Age 08/26/1848, Proquest Historical Newspapers
[4] The Liberator 9/15/1848, Proquest Historical Newspapers
Many of the events on the list of top news stories are events that took place and changed the course of history in a single day, or even a few hours- the JFK assassination, U.S stock market crash, the bombing of Pearl Harbor. But women winning the right to vote in this country is something that happened over the course of generations, and because of this I chose to look at several articles covering the suffrage movement at different points in history.
Women’s fight for suffrage began long before many of the women who first voted in the 1920 elections were even born. In July of 1848, women’s suffrage was first seriously presented as an issue at the Seneca Falls Woman’s Rights Convention which was organized by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott.
What struck me most about the way the convention was how much it varied. The headlines are not large and read simply “Woman’s Rights”[1] or “Woman’s Rights Convention”[2]. And the articles range from supportive: “It has long been our opinion that women are better than men…wherever- with perhaps a few exceptions- wherever their influence has been exerted, it has been for good,”[3] to downright mocking, as in The Liberator magazine. The article appears simply under the title “Woman’s Rights Meeting” (there is no byline) and goes on to describe the seemingly ludicrousness of the idea of women’s rights:
“A Convention was recently held at Seneca Falls, N.Y., gotten up by a few erratic, addle-pated come-others of the female sex, headed by the famous Lucretia Mott, for the purpose of discussing their rights, social, political and religious. The preliminary movement in the meeting was the reading of a parody of the Declaration of Independence, showing forth their rights and grievances… We have not met with any detailed official account of the proceedings nor of the speeches, but we think we can form some idea of the affair…We view it as a most insane and ludicrous farce, for women in the nineteenth century to get up in a public and promiscuous assemblage and declare themselves ‘oppressed and fraudulently deprived of their most sacred rights’, when, if they really knew what belonged to their true position, instead of stirring up discontent and enacting such foolery, they would be about the sober duties and responsibilities which devolve upon them as rational beings, and as ‘helpmeets’ of the other sex.”[4]
I know the excerpt is a bit long, but I was blown away by not only how critical the article is, but how the writer points out that he (I can only assume it was written by a man) really has no idea what actually went on at the meeting but how ridiculous it is nonetheless. The only source cited in the course of the article was the “parody” of the Declaration of Independence that the attendees of the meeting created.
[1] OCW Liberator 9/22/1848, Proquest Historical Newspapers
[2]National Era 8/31/1848, Proquest Historical Newspapers
[3]Littell's Living Age 08/26/1848, Proquest Historical Newspapers
[4] The Liberator 9/15/1848, Proquest Historical Newspapers
"Kennedy shot to death"
The assassination of President John F. Kennedy was a mortifying event which shocked and saddened the whole nation. News archives first broke the news with statements such as the president being shot, but not totally concluding that the president was dead. The news reads detailed information about President Kennedy’s assassination, such as three shots were fired, along with the president’s car- which was described to have gained speed moments after the shots were fired and how the vehicle went straight to the hospital where the president died thirty minutes later. Some news went on to describe where the president was shot and where the bullets penetrated, also not failing to name others that were injured… 
An interesting piece of information that I read while browsing through articles was the fact that first Lady Jackie Kennedy was said to have whispered “oh no” as she held the frail body of the late president. Also, as a usual part of the news, speculations were made. Hearsay such as Jackie O was seen attempting to crawl out of the vehicle, as she was trying to grab a piece of the president’s skull. A customary part of the news cast, allegations and interviews of people describing to have thought they seen a rifle or a gun of some sort was sticking out of the window at a nearby building but they never saw the actual man or person who triggered the shots were included in the news cast. The coverage of the topic reflected chaos and panic. As detailed as the news story were, it seemed that there were still some information lacking which I believe ultimately lead to the assumption of who the gun man was and some other plotted theories for the hit of the beloved president.In contrast to the other numerous articles I came across with, many headlines were unique and different in their own way. Some were very intriguing, almost inviting to the readers and others just offered drama and sadness. But with all the news articles… regardless of their headlines- from “Kennedy Shot to Death” to “The Death of a President” the entire news cast seemed to have one thing in common, which is the deliverance of the information about the slain president and maybe if you get lucky the article paints a picture and builds your emotion with drama and more.
I was fascinated at the fact that many news papers have continuously written stories about the dark day President Kennedy was shot even decades later. The Dallas Morning News has claimed that the assassination of President John F. Kennedy was ‘the crime of the century’. Published in 1988 the news article revisits the case (which is not unusual for many notable news paper companies, particularly when the date rolls near the murder date of the late President)
Looking ahead, since change is leisurely approaching and happening in America; with the new President elected I feel that now President Obama carries some of the charismatic qualities that the late President Kennedy had. Looking back in our nation’s history seems overwhelming. The tragedies that have happened, the lives that were wasted and sacrificed all ultimately leading to what is happening now- America fulfilling its statement that it is the land of the free and the land of great opportunity for everyone.
The Beatles tour USA
Photograph by Jack Manning for the New York TimesWhen The Beatles announced their 1964 tour of the United States, adults and fathers alike could not understand what had come over their youth. They had never seen such an adamant and wide display of worship, especially for four British kids playing pop rock with mop tops. What they didn't understand is that Popular Culture had taken hold and risen from a generation of predominantly Caucasian female baby boomers who found interest in their out of the ordinary suggestive tunes and appeal.
When they had arrived in the U.S. in February of 1964 at Kennedy Airport they were greeted by over three thousand screaming fans. Published writings seemed to have written about them more as a spectacles than as musicians. New York Times noted that the Beatles, "... have added new gimmicks: tight pants, boots, and hair that never seems to be cut." A mentionable quote, from the same article, puts their lure into perspective and comes from a fifteen year-old girl that had been waiting for the group that afternoon. She mentions that, " 'They're just so different. i mean, all that hair. American Singers are soooo clean-cut.' " [1]
Their success was, and still is, an incredible international phenomenon. Before their tour had even begun in the U.S., they had already sold, "6 million records and [could] earn $10,000 a week in appearances."[2] Fans were fascinated by their personalities and journalists would deliver every quote they could note for their readers. Upon their arrival they had held a press conference where clear dialogue between reporters and the artists had been published and broadcasted. It had been one of the first of its kind for musicians.
The attention they drew to to audiences, and audiences to news, would become a pattern in the entertainment industry for years to follow.
On a tangent, I thought it would be interesting to note that they owe their success to African American blues and rock artists: Willie Dixon, Bo Diddley, John Lee Hooker, and Chuck Berry, just to name a few. Also, their tour of 1964 ran congruently with the Civil Rights Movement and just a few months after their tour Congress would empower the Civil Rights Act. I'm not implying that they had any influence on politics at the time at all, (Lennon's involvement with politics and relationships with groups such as the White and Black Panther Parties would not come until 1971) but i just found the profound effect that re-packaged music, for the right target audiences, had on Pop Culture to be interesting, especially in relation to the times.
///ICHAEL DE VERA
1 /// 3,000 FANS GREET BRITISH BEATLES by Paul Gardner New York Times (1857-Current File); Feb 8, 1964; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851-2005) p.25
2 /// SINGING BEATLES PREPARE FOR U.S. by James Ferson Special to The New York Times New York Times (1857-Current File); Feb 6, 1964; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York TImes (1851-2005) p.36
President Clinton impeached
Almost 11 years ago, the world was shocked to discover that President Bill Clinton had been impeached on charges of lying to a federal grand jury regarding alleged sexual relations with former White House intern, Monica Lewinksy. The Boston Globe and The Washington Post provide good coverage of the impeachment procedures, though The Globe’s article reads with a play-by-play form of commentary. The only negative to that approach is the disinterest readers might express in having to read the information that way. Although Clinton is the center of attention, both stories shift gears to address the debates that arose regarding the decisions to impeach him as well as the issue of public opinion.
Some of the key debates addressed were the issues of truth, justice, and the influence of private and public acts regarding impeachment decisions. Both stories contain an equal amount of balance with regards to peoples’ opinions. Interestingly, they’re presented in a debate-like manner. For example, Henry J. Hyde, an Illinois Republican, stated that “the government, the Congress, has no business intruding into private acts”[1] Then, readers are presented a comment from an unidentified congressman who considers Clinton’s legacy “‘indelibly stained.’” [2] Through this manner, readers receive a good guy/bad guy scenario.
An interesting aspect in both articles is the emphasis placed on the hostility that resulted from the debates and how it was tearing the House of Representatives apart. This led Martin T. Meehan, a Lowell Democrat, to ask “‘What kind of institution are we becoming?’”[3] Bob Hohler of The Globe uses this quote to demonstrate just how impactful Clinton’s impeachment was, not just to those living in the United States, but to those in Congress as well. Take Robert L. Livingston, for example. Convinced that he “must set the example that I hope President Clinton will follow,”[4] he resigned his position as Senate-designate. Referring back to Hyde’s comment, while no reference was made regarding a friendship between he and Clinton, his comment expresses the shock that others felt when they came to realize that Bill Clinton, who seemed like a genuine guy, was facing such charges.
This past January, Rod R. Blagojevich, governor of Illinois, began facing his impeachment trial on charges of attempting to receive financial gain from trading the United States Senate seat relinquished by President Obama. In comparing the coverage of his case with Clinton’s, the issue of who can you trust with regards to politics emerges. Both men were criticized for their dishonesty to their respected positions of power. In fact, one person stated that if Clinton’s actions weren’t met with justice, then “justice is wounded, and you’re wounded, and your children are wounded.”[5] Once again, a good guy/bad guy scenario is presented.
What’s interesting in both stories is the lack of comments from President Clinton, though he didn’t like the press, and his wife, Hillary. As stated in my Babe Ruth blog, it would have been interesting to hear what she had to say regarding her husband’s impeachment. With that said, we should all hope that no such controversy falls upon President Obama.
[1] Murray, Frank J. “IMPEACHED: Clinton ‘indelibly stained’ in a decisive vote; 2 out of 4 articles approved by the House.” The Washington Times. Dec. 20, 1998. pp. A1.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Hohler, Bob. “Clinton is impeached House approves 2 of 4 charges, paving the way for Senate trial;” The Boston Globe. Dec. 20, 1998. pp. A1.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
Some of the key debates addressed were the issues of truth, justice, and the influence of private and public acts regarding impeachment decisions. Both stories contain an equal amount of balance with regards to peoples’ opinions. Interestingly, they’re presented in a debate-like manner. For example, Henry J. Hyde, an Illinois Republican, stated that “the government, the Congress, has no business intruding into private acts”[1] Then, readers are presented a comment from an unidentified congressman who considers Clinton’s legacy “‘indelibly stained.’” [2] Through this manner, readers receive a good guy/bad guy scenario.
An interesting aspect in both articles is the emphasis placed on the hostility that resulted from the debates and how it was tearing the House of Representatives apart. This led Martin T. Meehan, a Lowell Democrat, to ask “‘What kind of institution are we becoming?’”[3] Bob Hohler of The Globe uses this quote to demonstrate just how impactful Clinton’s impeachment was, not just to those living in the United States, but to those in Congress as well. Take Robert L. Livingston, for example. Convinced that he “must set the example that I hope President Clinton will follow,”[4] he resigned his position as Senate-designate. Referring back to Hyde’s comment, while no reference was made regarding a friendship between he and Clinton, his comment expresses the shock that others felt when they came to realize that Bill Clinton, who seemed like a genuine guy, was facing such charges.
This past January, Rod R. Blagojevich, governor of Illinois, began facing his impeachment trial on charges of attempting to receive financial gain from trading the United States Senate seat relinquished by President Obama. In comparing the coverage of his case with Clinton’s, the issue of who can you trust with regards to politics emerges. Both men were criticized for their dishonesty to their respected positions of power. In fact, one person stated that if Clinton’s actions weren’t met with justice, then “justice is wounded, and you’re wounded, and your children are wounded.”[5] Once again, a good guy/bad guy scenario is presented.
What’s interesting in both stories is the lack of comments from President Clinton, though he didn’t like the press, and his wife, Hillary. As stated in my Babe Ruth blog, it would have been interesting to hear what she had to say regarding her husband’s impeachment. With that said, we should all hope that no such controversy falls upon President Obama.
[1] Murray, Frank J. “IMPEACHED: Clinton ‘indelibly stained’ in a decisive vote; 2 out of 4 articles approved by the House.” The Washington Times. Dec. 20, 1998. pp. A1.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Hohler, Bob. “Clinton is impeached House approves 2 of 4 charges, paving the way for Senate trial;” The Boston Globe. Dec. 20, 1998. pp. A1.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)