Germany Invades Poland

 

On September 1, 1939 Nazi Germany invaded neighboring Poland, provoking a World War Two. Prior to that, German Chancellor Adolph Hitler issued the “16 points” memorandum, defining the terms for negotiations with the Polish government. As the word powers were still unclear about the conflict’s outcome, the international press closely followed the unfolding events, making note of every little detail that took place as the history was unraveling itself before their very own eyes.

“British Mobilizing; Navy Raised To Its Full Strength, Army and Air Reserves Called Up. Parliament is Convoked. Midnight Meeting Is Held by Ministers — Negotiations Admitted Failure,” is a September 1, 1939 front-page story from The New York Times. Combined of two reports — one from the Associated Press and another from a special correspondent in London, the story talks about German aggression, failed negotiations with Poland, British mobilization and evacuation, attempts to address the issue in the Parliament, and presents a detailed account of the events prior to beginning of war.

While the paragraph-long wire from the AP resembles the modern style (short, concise, and straight to the point), the second part by Ferdinand Kuhn, Jr. falls into the category of a narrative written like a police report: “About 9 o’clock yesterday morning M. Lipski had asked to see Herr Von Ribbentrop. The Ambassador had no response until afternoon, when he was asked by telephone if he were coming as Ambassador or as a plenipotentiary to negotiate. He said “as Ambassador.” He heard nothing more until evening, when he was summoned and was told it was already too late, as the time limit has expired.” This over-explanatory style, as well as a lengthy, descriptive headline suggest that the story’s aim was to appeal to the general population and not specific socio-economic class. Nevertheless, the language gets complicated sometimes, as if the writer were someone from the previous century: “that the British regarded them as artful went without saying, since they conveyed a first impression of reasonableness that was not born out by the terms themselves.”

Another distinction from modern journalistic writing is lack of direct quotes — not even once the writer quotes his sources, majority of which are anonymous officials. Moreover, the writer tends to put his own spin on the story by putting quotations marks around certain words — as if he tries to be ironic. He also speculates, as it becomes clear from this passage: “much might have been said about the German “proposals” here tonight if the government had not been so anxious to have the first decision to Warsaw without any prompting.” At this point, it is evident that the style of the article is determined by the trend in journalism of the pre-WWII era — an interpretive reporting.

Another prominent newspaper, the Washington Post, had also provided a detailed coverage of the war, beginning with British mobilization, reactions from the international community, and raids of Polish towns. Somewhat similar in style (very detailed articles with explanatory notes from the editor), the Post writers, however, presented the information more objectively; although the traces of opinion and speculation could be found in some news articles (14 stories were examined), they all closely resemble the modern AP style — short, concise, and informative paragraphs elaborating on who did what and what happened as a result. However, just like in case of the Times, writers did not use direct quotes, and even if they did, they often attributed them to “top officials” and “knowledgeable diplomats” with no names or specific titles. For example, in one of the stories (“Germany Blockades Gdynia; Orders Ships Out of Baltic,” Sep 1, 1931, p.1), the editor mentions “reliable diplomatic sources in Rome,” as well as someone or something called D.N.B. — a source of unclear origin.

What’s interesting is that the facts mentioned by Times are corresponding with those reported by the Post, which can be argued is the sign of accurate reporting. 

Overall, close examination of the two leading newspapers has shown that although different from the journalistic attributes of the 1920s (lack of neutrality, believe that the facts could not be understood by themselves, and skepticism — as Michael Schudson suggest), the professional journalists of the late 1930s did not try to be as objective as they are today… In fact, the profession of the given time period was something in between — a participatory journalism and sharing of unfiltered information, which eventually paved a way for the “ideal of objectivity as we know it.” (Schudson, 120).

 

Sources:

http://0­-proquest­.umi­.com­.opac­.sfsu­.edu/pqdweb­?did=90734659­&sid=1­&Fmt=2­&clientId=17866­&RQT=309­&VName=HNP

 

http://0-proquest.umi.com.opac.sfsu.edu/pqdweb?index=4&did=287262892&SrchMode=2&sid=1&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1238201934&clientId=17866 

Dissolution of the Soviet Union

When it comes to deciding what is news, the industry’s decision makers tend to agree on key characteristics implying the importance and scope of the information that will make a headline. Such characteristics (timeliness, proximity, human interest/impact, prominence, etc…) often determine the place, or rank of the specific story in relation to the medium in which it is published or broadcasted. However, taking in consideration the fact that gatekeepers of the profession view the news through a prism of their own biases or lenses, it will be safe to conclude that this ranking is rather subjective — the notion of importance is a volatile abstract depending on editor’s own preferences and/or the very nature of a singled out medium. At this point, the same goes for the Newseum Top News Stories of the Century, for “even historians might argue about what’s most important.” Thus, it rather came as a surprise that sinking of the “unsinkable” Titanic and assembly line creation by the automaker Ford surpassed such a major event of the twentieth century as the disbandment of the USSR, America’s number one nemesis that influenced the foreign policy of the latter for more than fifty years.  Hence, intrigued by this order, I’ve decided to examine the coverage of the event presented by two very different, yet affluent American newspapers — the Boston Globe and The New York Times. Although this analysis cannot account for the mood of the entire US media of the time, it can, however, shed some light on attitudes of the time vis-à-vis the conduct and reporting style of the period’s mainstream outlets.

Case 1: The Boston Globe

The objective, factual, and rather dry style of Elizabeth Neuffer’s  “Republics dissolve Soviet Union. New commonwealth is formed” is a vivid example of modern day journalism. Beginning with a standard lede based on the five pillars of the contemporary news writing (who, what, where, when, why, how) followed by the inverted pyramid structure of the article’s body, Neuffer’s account presents the information at its rawest — no speculations, no opinions, and no sensationalism (despite the overall significance of the event) — just naked facts supported by quotes and materials from the relevant newsmakers such as heads of states, their spokespeople, and news agencies like Associated Press and Moscow- based Interfax. The lack of scholarly terminology and academic jargon and presence of scattered throughout the story bits of historical background and common knowledge facts (Russia’s transition from tsarism to communism, the formation of the USSR, the centrism and autocracy of the regime, etc…), suggest that the article was written for the general audience who might be unfamiliar with Russia’s cultural and historical specifics.

Mainly focusing on the newly formed commonwealth of independent states once comprised the USSR, Neuffer talks about the diplomatic recognition of the former, citing the key actor states’ policy makers — from George Bush’s White House to Japanese Foreign Ministry’s Michio Watanabe, not forgetting the newly emerged leaders of the day-old alliance. In doing so, the author presents contrasting opinions regarding the matter and the future of the new world order — yet another attribute of profession every reporter embraces since his or her days in j-school.

Issues such as democratization, liberalizations of markets, and nuclear disarmament do poke their heads throughout the article, depicting the top priorities of the American Foreign policy amidst the zeitgeist of the previous decade.

Case 2: The New York Times

Leaning towards the feature style of newspaper writing, Francis X. Clines’ “The end of the Soviet Union; 11 Soviet states form commonwealth without clearly defying its powers” is a 1,400-word article where the hardest of news meet analytical depth of high end, white-collar aimed publications such as Foreign Policy or Time Magazine.

Unlike the cool, concise language of the Boston Globe, The New York Times’ take on the unfolded event is portrayed through more sophisticated, intelligent writing full of witty adjectives that show author’s familiarity with the subject matter as well as the quality of education he received prior to joining the newspaper’s staff.

With great attention to detail and full of symbolic descriptions (“…small freshly-minted flags of their sovereign republics under a huge bronze-toned medallion that still bore the hammer and sickle of Communism), the article goes beyond the mere facts (who met who and did what) — it elaborates on a variety of complex issues ranging from the possible UN Security Council’s actions regarding the nuclear dilemma contrasting the new status quo, to long-lasting impact on micro and macro economic development the CIS might face in the future.

What’s striking about this article is that despite being a hot button breaking news story, it is rather abundant with hints regarding the author’s own views (neo-liberal school of thought), as he attributes the economic and political chaos to “seven decades of central dictatorship,” while acknowledging the common good of “free-market prosperity” via change of course to full democratization. Moreover, the streaks of author’s own bias shows through selected phrases and sentences, such as “the uncertain hands of the republic parliaments” or “the meeting today went a considerable step beyond, for not only was the new association enlarged and sealed with pledges of peaceful collaboration, but also the heads of state began settling some differences.”

With that being said, it is evident that although exceptionally well written, as a news story this particular article is somewhat inferior to the first one discussed, for the objectivity of the presented account is blurred by writer’s own “lenses” and visions.

Conclusion

Although very different in style and nature, both of the articles are nevertheless are the examples of modern journalism as we know it, for both of the stories are constructed in a familiar way relevant to the trend of the profession which remained virtually unchanged for the past two decades. First, they both begin with appropriate ledes (the 5 Ws) and present the information in the descending order of importance (the inverted pyramid). Secondly, the materials presented are accompanied by supporting quotes and evidence. Thirdly, despite the light bias of the second, both stories accomplish its main job, that is to inform the public by conveying facts corresponding to the event. And overall, they both reflect on issues that were relevant to the time during which the stories were written.

 

Sources:

Neuffer, Elizabeth. “Republics Dissolve Soviet Union. New Commonwealth is Formed.” Boston Globe. Dec. 22, 1991, p.1

 

Clines, Francis X. “The End of The Soviet Union; 11 Soviet States Form Commonwealth Without Clearly Defying Its Purposes.” The New York Times, Dec. 22, 1991, p.A1.

MLK Assassination

The assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968 was so closely tied to the civil rights that were being fought for and then with the timing of the killings of JFK and RFK, the death of this progressive leader was a major historical element in America.   I looked at three articles in the NYT about the death of MLK.  One that was published right after his death 4/5/68 then another 4/23/68 and a third 6/9/68. 

The first had the headline: Dismay in Nation -- Negroes Urge Others to Carry on Spirit of Non-Violence.

This article quoted every major African American in America at the time.  NAACP, NUL, Jackie Robinson, a negro psychologist, a negro senator, as well as some other public notables such as Richard Nixon and the Gov. of Texas.

The article did a good job of getting lots of quotes and information into it but I was surprised to see that there were no details of the actual shooting or the investigation.  Even though there could have been other articles that covered the details it is odd that there was no mention of anything in the article. Also there were no quotes or information from the police or the King family.  It seems like that would be a logical addition more than Jackie Robinson.  

The second article: A Convict Says Ray Sought Bounty

This article starts to answer the questions of who could have killed King.  There was information from an inmate and police follow up.  I did feel that the article, like the first, lacked information about the shooting and how to get information to police.  The article came out relatively soon after the shooting and there weren't any new details released about autopsy or investigation or anything except the word of this inmate.  It is also lacking last known whereabouts of the suspect.  It was really just a blurb and left me with more questions than answers.

The third article was Guns and Assassins

This article pulls together the information on RFK, JFK, and MLK's killers and where they are in prosecution.  While it gives information as to how the police and courts are coming along in the trial process but don't quote the DA's or the families.  It is largely un-sourced information.

I was greatly surprised by the lack of information given in all three of these articles.  Even when most people would know a great deal about the event, there must have been a way for them to package the general info into the articles so that they all had more context -- especially for the NYT and their status as a historical publication.

Pearl Harbor Bombing

I looked at two articles that the New York Times posted in response to the bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. This event is arguably what thrust America into WW2 and changed a series of events that followed. There were two times that I checked to see if the coverage was any different.  The first article I looked at was published in the NYT the following day and one that was published to weeks later.  The first article was titled: Entire City Put on War Footing.

This article was focused on the rounding up of Japanese in NYC.  It discussed persons of interest that could be Japanese loyalists. 

It mentioned suspicious activity occurring amongst small groups of Japanese in the city. One sentence actually insinuated that a Japanese businessman knew of the attack because he didn't renew his lease on the first of December.  The article referred to Japanese people being taken to Ellis island as prisoners -- that language, even though it may be true, makes it sound like they had been tried and convicted.  The language and insinuations make this piece seem very biased but there were efforts to get quotes and information from people brought to Ellis Island. The third person to arrive was quoted.  There was another problem though -- their were names of people who were brought to the internment camps that were not interviewed and that seemed prime for the possibility of blacklisting.  They weren't quoted and it didn't serve any other known purpose other than to list them as possible conspirators.  

The article did a good job of quoting public officials, even if the quote was that they couldn't comment at that time but they didn't contact or quote any non-detained Japanese people or any human rights representatives. 

The second article was a series of first-hand accounts on site from Pearl Harbor that piece together a timeline of what happened that morning.  It was titled: Torpedo Hit the Arizona First -- Navy Men of Pearl Harbor Say.

I was suspicious of this grouping of accounts because these people were spouting off percentage numbers and, while people do sort of see things like that, there is no precision or professional used to back up the approximations made by the officers.  One person claimed that 60% of the causalities were in one area and another said that 1,000 were wounded but these were officers and they were saying it in the recounting of the events rather than saying "we later found out" or "medical personal said" so there is some suspicion raised there.  Also no civilians or medical personal were added into this piece.  It also quotes the Navy having said something but not what branch of the Navy or what representative or when.  The story gives a fairly clear account of the morning but it raises more questions for me than it answered. It would have been a more balanced, full story if they let the people tell the story first-hand at the beginning then moved on to the provable facts given by officials and others that have been corroborated. 

Babe Ruth hits 60th Homer

NOTE: This is a repost of my blog. My original copy, which I posted on March 8, somehow got deleted.

On September 30, 1927, New York Yankees slugger Babe Ruth hit his historic sixtieth home run in Yankee Stadium, breaking his 1921 record of 59. Around this time, the issue of objectivity arose as journalists began questioning the capability of facts to hold their own ground. During this period, “a sense of community or of the public had no transcendent significance and… one responded to other people as objects” (Schudson, 121). But newspapers such as The Washington Post and The New York Times helped to establish New York’s sense in community following Ruth’s accomplishment. While The Post simply presents inning-by-inning coverage, The Times captures the significance of Ruth’s home run to not just the city of New York, but to Ruth himself, especially after the suggestion that “the King of Clout would have to postpone his record breaking clout.”[1]

Though both stories feature one picture of Ruth and none of either the home run or the celebration afterwards, reading about “the spirit of celebration [that] permeated the place”[2] can substitute for those pictures. Furthermore, readers may experience a great feeling that was felt when Barry Bonds hit his record 756th home run in 2007, breaking Hank Aaron’s previous record of 755. The Times also incorporates the exploits of Manhattan resident Joe Forner, who happened to catch the ball that night. The story also contains a very intriguing aspect: Emphasis on Washington Senators pitcher Tom Zachary as Ruth’s “victim.”[3] It’s stated that after Zachary failed to strike Ruth out, he “turned to his mates for consolation and got everything but that.”[4] Amidst all the celebration that occurred in Yankee Stadium, the writer momentarily focuses on Zachary’s disappointment and his infamous recognition as the man who pitched Babe Ruth his sixtieth home run.

Surprisingly, both articles lack comments from Babe Ruth, his fellow teammates, and the fans. While it’s great to read about Ruth’s happiness as he ran all the bases “with a grin a yard wide on his face,”[5] it would have been better to hear him discuss what thoughts were running through his mind as he was up to bat, as Bonds did minutes after hitting his 756th home run. Probably the most interesting comments would have come from Zachary himself, but his disappointment at the end of the game would most likely indicate that he didn’t have any. Still, any comments could have produced what Yumi Wilson, my newswriting professor, called “kicker endings” for both stories.

Ruth’s recognition following the home run is reminiscent of that received by Filipino boxer Manny Pacquiao. Whenever he steps into the ring, even if anything isn’t mentioned in an article, photos are usually provided showing all the excitement and pandemonium his fans in the Philippines create whenever he wins, just as the fans at Yankee Stadium did for Ruth. In a country that is unfortunately plagued by poverty, Pacquiao brings hope to all the Filipinos as “the people’s champion,” and while Ruth may have not been given that prestigious title, he may have brought hope into some of the lives of the people who saw him play ball. Whether they boxed or played baseball, both men showed the world why they’re true champions and heroes.

[1] “Ruth Hits 60th Home Run To Break His Own Record.” The Washington Post. Oct. 1, 1927. pp. 15
[2] “Ruth Crashes 60th To Set New Record.” The New York Times. Oct. 1, 1927. pp. 12.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] “Ruth Hits 60th Home Run To Break His Own Record.” The Washington Post. Oct. 1, 1927. pp. 15

The Fall of Berlin

The Berlin wall built in 1961 to separate East and West Germany. The fight to bring it down began as soon as it came up. At midnight on November 9th, 1989, East Germany's Communist rulers gave permission for the walls gates to be opened. The East Germans were greeted by the West Germans as the gates were opened. Although the wall was still physically up on this day, figuratively it was down. Germans could now pass through with a Visa and didn't have to take a detour through Czechoslovakia.
Two big newspapers at the time were on the front lines, ready to cover it. The Washington Post and the New York Times both came out with stories the next day, telling the world what happened.
In the New York Times article, A Jubilant Horde, the writer begins with a light, happy summary of what happened the night of November 9th, 1989. The writer adds in excitement some words about the celebration and happiness the Germans endured and that the guards were not checking Visas, but in fact just smiling and taking snapshots of the historic event. Then the writer dips into some detail. He shares the statement of Gunter Schabowski, a member of the Politburo, in his decision to grant the Germans access quickly and with out preconditions, "we know this need of citizens to leave the country... the decision was taken that makes it possible for all citizens to leave the country through East German crossing points. " The writer adds interesting facts relevant to the wall, then continues to the history of how this came about ever since 1961. This article seemed to be framed around all readers. It is an informative article, that gives the facts but it is also enjoyable and easy to read. By the time the reader is finish, he/she has a solid understanding of who, what, when, where, how.
In the Washington Post article, East Germany Opens the Gate, the write begins with the joke, "East Germans no longer have to climb out the back window to leave home." The writer then spends the entire article, mixing opinion with facts, "They will still have to pass heavily guarded gates that they know could be shut down again at any moment." The writer has no source for this information, which may make the reader skeptical of it. Some other opinions of the writer present in the article are: "The Berlin wall is one of the ugliest monuments in the world", "because it [the government] fears that the alternative might be a violent explosion", "freedom of movement can be established immediately if the regime is courageous", "perhaps if Germany and the world are fortunate, the next great advance will be at the Berlin wall." Although this writer includes many facts, the amount of opinion that is present turns to be potentially persuasive.
Between the two articles the New York Times did a greater job and doing its job, telling the news.





http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/9/newsid_2515000/2515869.stm
East Germany Opens the Gate : http://0-proquest.umi.com.opac.sfsu.edu/pqdweb?index=0&did=734242562&SrchMode=2&sid=2&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1237338143&clientId=17866
East Germany's Great Awakening : http://0-proquest.umi.com.opac.sfsu.edu/pqdweb?index=3&did=114934338&SrchMode=2&sid=1&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1237338084&clientId=17866

MLK Jr's death not invain

While assassinations of important and historical people are not anything new in the American history, the murder of Martin Luther King Jr. was undeniably another tragic turning point in our history. Similar to the late President Kennedy’s assassination news headlines, the murder of MLK Jr. described the most important facts the public or reader would want to know… who he was with, who shot him and why. What were the details, when it was and other important preceding information to follow… who was survived by the victim, what does this mean for the American people and history and more importantly what does this change and what now.

It was on April 4, 1968 at approximately 6:01 pm a shot was fired and Martin Luther King Jr. who was standing on the Balcony of his room at a local motel in Memphis TN. It was described the MLK was shot in the neck, and next to him was Reverend Jesse Jackson. It was amazing to me how fast they got the shots of the late MLK. One shot was him in the stretcher and another of Reverend Jackson and some other people pointing out the direction of where the shot came from. It’s as if photojournalists or photographers just happened to be at the right place at the right time, but sadly in MLK’s case it was the complete opposite.
As a usual notion for many papers to do is to revisit and reprint some sort scenarios from the murder of these prominent and historical figures. Of course the time frame is an important factor. Whether we are celebrating what could have been their 60th or so birthday anniversary, or simply just their death anniversary.
One thing that separated JFK’s assassination from MLK was the lack of riots. Preceding Doctor Martin Luther King Jr’s shooting it was reported that many violence and riots followed. While both men help change the nation historically Martin Luther King was mourned by thousands of colored people. “In outrage of the murder, many blacks took to the streets across the country in a massive way of riots.” (Jennifer Rosendberg LA times January 2007)
I do not imagine any other story that would compare with this two. The heaviness and importance of this surreal tragedy forever changed the history and existence of our nation. A story I feel that should have made the top news stories of the century up to date would be Presidents Obama’s victory and the way he change the nation’s color margin today. Obama’s presidency not only showed that anything is possible in the land of the free but also, more importantly, I think it portrayed that the death of Kennedy and MLK Jr. was not for granted, it was honored and it still in our minds today. Both American legends- JFK and MLK JR. are gone but never forgotten.