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.

Black Tuesday

The recent economic downturn has drawn a lot of comparison to the 1929 depression. Media coverage of this event ranges from bleak experts predicting the financial apocalypse to optimistic politicians telling the public to keep spending and not to worry. This begs the question in the modern mind: If the economic crisis is really as bad as it was in 1929, is the media sugar-coating it? How is media coverage of the 2009 “recession” different from the 1929 “depression?”

In this blog I will analyze two papers on the day of Black Tuesday—the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times—and their economic coverage in relation to the industry at the time. I will then compare this coverage to the general coverage of the recent economic crisis.

October 29, 1929 is the day that many economists will tell you started the public impact of the Great Depression, triggered the week before on "Black Thursday". But, considering its historic significance and incredible influence on the average American, the start of the Great Depression was not a huge, page-wide, story. Why didn’t editors see the inevitable impact of the event? Did they not think that it was newsworthy enough to devote an entire page? In a word, yes. The journalism industry of the 1920’s was a sensational one. The Yellow Press was still at work and editors printed what would sell. There was a bigger push for news with an entertainment value than with an educational one. Looking back on Black Tuesday, a modern American would naturally think that it would be in the headlines to “Get in the Breadlines,” but then, perhaps as now, the media would rather print what would sell rather than what will inform.

The New York Times gave the economy a third of its front page on Black Tuesday. The story shared the page with news on Senate decisions, a Hungarian countess and an obituary—none of which are relevant today. The Times did not bother to explain the crisis to the men that would soon be loosing their jobs. (But, to be fair, they did not write for the everyman.) The story gives a chart of statistics with huge numbers and a jargon-filled caption, reminiscent of the modern news stories. A man with no interest in the stock market would skim right over the numbers to story that he better understood—a story that he thought actually effected him—not knowing that because of those numbers, he would soon be homeless.

The Los Angeles Times gives even less space to the stock market. A political cartoon about the Chief of Police dominates the front page and the eye travels faster to a story about a musician’s union than to the economic depression. (When I first opened the file, I thought I had made a mistake.) And the lead is almost humorous. “An incredible stock market tumbled toward chaos today despite heroic measures adopted by the nations greatest bankers.” (In the modern recession, to think of bankers as heroic is like confusing the Grinch with Superman.) The story goes on to use exciting words and phrases like “Wall Street throbbed with excitement” and “back-to-the-wall battle.” Unlike the New York Times, The Los Angeles Times is making Black Tuesday sound more like a football game than the beginning of the biggest economic crisis the US had ever seen.

How does the Yellow Press-era media coverage of Black Tuesday compare to modern coverage of the recession? The similarities are unavoidable. Will modern Americans soon be waiting the breadline? Can the media do something about it? When the stock market first started to tank last year, it was a news story but not THE news story. No papers devoted a full page to it and no TV news channels devoted full coverage to it. After all, we had a historic presidential election, two wars and gay marriage to write about. Seeing both sides of the issue, I will ask this question to the commenters:

Did the media cover the current recession enough in the early stages?

President Clinton Impeachment Trial and Acquittal

President Bill Clinton was acquitted of the two articles of impeachment that he was charged with. It was a long trail and the general public in the U.S. was annoyed with the President and his un-wise decision making on his part. The decision came down to a vote and Clinton was found not guilty but the 10 republicans and all 45 democrats who voted on his side. This was a huge story at the time and everyone was interested in the outcome because it was our President and when he does something wrong, everyone is watching. There were obviously many stories written by every newspaper in the nation, so I chose two large ones to compare.
The article about the decision ran by the Washington Post sounded like they were happy the thing was over and that it was time to move past the Presidential scandal. The journalist wrote “The impeachment process has been torturous and inefficient, as are so many other democratic processes, such as elections, making laws and convicting criminals. And, maybe, a guilty person has been acquitted. But the basic soundness of our Constitution has been proven once again. No one branch of government holds dominion over another….” The journalist in this article is just happy that the trial is over and doesn’t really care if the right decision was made, although he sounds as if he thinks the voting should have gone the other way. The article goes on to say “President Clinton and congressional Republicans, anxious to "pick up the pieces" after a 13-month constitutional crisis…” so the reporter is ready to be able to move on to different stories and is done with this one.
The New York Times did reporting on this case a little differently than the Post. A reporter for the Times believes that the Senate did what they were supposed to do stating “The Senate's responsibility in this impeachment trial was not to determine whether the President had done something wrong or something that was morally unacceptable.” People may not agree with the President’s moral actions that lead him to the trail in the first place, but the Senate performed their duty and did the right thing.
Both articles did a good job at stating the facts of the case and giving a brief but descriptive view of the entire process of the trials and the outcome. The Post however had little commentary from anyone other than the journalist of the article. The New York Times included comments from some of the Senators who voted, and reported from both viewpoints. The Times also included comments made from President Clinton cabinet and public relations department, as well as an apology from the President himself, something the Post did not include. This was the biggest story in the news at the time of this decision and it could have been easy to write whatever they wanted to write about. But both papers did a good job at staying impartial when writing about one of the biggest scandals of the decade.

Shuttle Challenger Explodes

The space Shuttle Challenger explosion is an important news story for the 20th century and is something people had never experienced in the news before its time. A contemporary example of something like this is the loss of the space shuttle Columbia. At the time news had shifted from being objective during the 1960s to being more critical, however, I fail to see much skepticism of the government agencies involved. The two sources which I used research the Shuttle Challenger explosion where the New York Times and the Houston Chronicle.
In the New York Times the writer cites at least seven different sources on the space shuttle disaster. Almost all of the sources are government related. For example there is information from NASA, the Coast Guard, the Defense Department, and the President, as well as a source close to the New Hampshire teacher Christa McAuliffe. There seems to be little criticism of the government in either article however both make obvious statement that something went terribly wrong and it could be implied that it was the fault of the space agency NASA. For example both articles note that the space agency had delayed the launch for minor damages that occurred earlier. Also, there were the icing problems with some of the equipment early the morning of the launch. Lastly, both papers note problems with some of the fire equipment on board the shuttle. The New York Times article includes a statement from officials saying they do not consider any of the above to be the cause of the accident.
The framing of the story is also similar to contemporary stories. It basically lays out the facts in the order of what the journalist thought were the most important to the least important. There are facts about the explosion, what happened when the shuttle exploded, then facts about the woman who was going to be the first teacher and civilian in space followed by more facts about the shuttle and possible speculation about what may have caused the accident.
It is important to note that the articles on this subject place no blame or responsibility on any agency and none is claimed. It is treated very plainly as a disaster and the type of reporting that was seen in the 1960’s is different from what we see here. If anything I would say that both articles particularly the one from the New York Times is closer to the objective style we see earlier in the 20th century. Perhaps there is more of a balance because this is not a very politically charged story like those seen in the Vietnam War era. Other stories at the time may have been less objective and more critical, and stories that circulated in the weeks following the incident may have contained more judgment on the part of the professional journalist who felt it was there job to comment on the possibility that there were mistakes made.

Saigon Falls to North Vietnamese

The second news story I chose to analyze is the fall of Saigon to the North Vietnamese. In a Time magazine article there fall of Saigon the story is riddled with verbose language and unsupported facts. There is little or no attribution and the writer of the story cites no sources. References are made to Vietnamese officials and Americans however there are few facts aside from a crushed economy that seemed to fluctuate with the instability of the city. Contemporary news stories that compare to this are the stories we receive out of Iraq and Afghanistan every day.
An article written in the Los Angeles Times carried many more sources and cited several different sources within the first few paragraphs. The writer for the Times clearly puts a lot of emphasis on other journalism sources such as Reuters and the Associated Press. In the book Discovering the News they note this change in the style of journalism, which occurred during this period. The citations of United States government sources come farther down in the story because in fact American newsmen stayed on in Vietnam after the soldiers and diplomats had fled, therefore who better to make news judgments.
The Times article also cites a Vietnamese journalist further down in the article. Both articles seem to put some emphasis on style that is by no means objective. It is clear that the have taken on the responsibility to report the news in the way they think best describes the situation or tells the story and there seems to be some kind of slant to it. The amount of credit they give fellow journalist is apparent in the framing of both the Los Angeles Times Story and the Time magazine story. Sources such as Reuters the Associated Press and even Vietnamese journalist come before government sources and carry more weight. At the time there was a switch in what was commonly seen in reporting and this was prevalent.
The slant that the reporter put in the Los Angeles Times story was that, the Americans had not only left but left many political refugees to fend for themselves. The story the Time magazine writers published was one of a Saigon engulfed by utter Chaos and confusion as the result of war. There will undoubtedly be similar stories in the years to come when American troops leave Iraq to rebuild itself in the wake of a long and ineffective stay.