Taylor KennedyJour 300D-Day, or the Allied invasion France, was a campaign that became altered by many unforeseen complexities, many of which resulted in much confusion and loss. The brutal events that took place on the beaches in France on June 6th, 1944 have since been foreclosed, written about, and made into movies and documentaries, but reading newspapers at the time might have left you with a completely different notion.
“Churchill Says Losses Less than Anticipated” were the letters emblazoned across the Los Angeles times on June 7th, 1944, the day following the D-Day invasion. The article quotes and summarizes a press release given by British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in which he declares the invasion of the beaches in France had taken place in “a thoroughly satisfactory manner.” Afterwards, Churchill outlines the major points of the operation and claims each had gone off without a hitch. He claims the beach and air landings of troops were on point and successful, aerial bombings had been on target, and “that tactical surprise had been achieved over the Germans.” Churchill’s statement ends with a gratuitous salute to American Generals Eisenhower and Montgomery and an ode to the “ardor and spirit of the troops… when they were embarking.” Had you been reading the L.A. Times on June 7th, 1944 you would have been lead to believe that perhaps nothing out of the ordinary occurred during the D-Day invasion.
Soon enough, however, articles began to surface that painted the true grotesque picture of the D-Day invasion. An article that appeared in the L.A. Times on October 21, 1945 features the first-hand account of Lt. Col. Randolph Leigh who says that “almost nothing went according to schedule” on D-Day. Leigh tells of how foggy weather caused Allied ships to miss their landmarks, letting the troops ashore directly into German fire. Air Force bombing plans were altered at the last second causing the bombs to be dropped half a mile inland, away from hostile forces and onto civilian territory. Naval bombardment also did nothing for the troops in taking out hillside guns, as most of nine thousand rockets missed their marks. All this confusion led to “large losses” before the Allies finally took the beach fronts. At the end of the day “1127 American Army and Navy officers and men lie dead, 3671 are wounded or injured, 24 are captured, and 2674 are missing.” Not exactly the perfect operation that Churchill had described.The coverage of Churchill’s press release was typical of journalism in America in 1944. Franklin D. Roosevelt had long since established the trend of government agencies feeding the “official” story to the press, and in a hurry to get to print first, reporters would print the releases almost word for word. This led to purely objective articles but when considering the source, it is not a far out allegation that government manipulation of reporters occurred. Henry Luce, publisher of Time, Life, and Fortune, claimed the freedom of the press “was no longer self-evident” as it was controlled by “big government” through publicity activities. Later, Joseph McCarthy would build a career on this exact technique of rushing official stories into newspapers. In most cases, there would be no time for a reporter to do a more investigative article on the subject, and it makes sense that more in-depth coverage of D-Day did not occur until about a year later, after the end of the war. SOURCES: http://0-proquest.umi.com.opac.sfsu.edu/pqdweb?did=411678661&sid=6&Fmt=10&clientId=17866&RQT=309&VName=HNPhttp://0-proquest.umi.com.opac.sfsu.edu/pqdweb?did=413475801&sid=8&Fmt=10&clientId=17866&RQT=309&VName=HNP
Thursday, April 9, 2009
1964- Beatles Tour USA
Taylor Kennedy
Jour 300
In 1964 The Beatles took America by storm when they came across the Atlantic to play their British rock music on their first U.S. tour. In doing so, the four young chaps from Liverpool opened the flood gates for many other British musicians and brought about rapid changes in popular youth culture. At the time journalists, along with most everyone else, were torn as to whether The Beatles, with their long hair and teenage aimed music, were just a harmless pop band or a threat to American society. This difference of opinions is reflected in the news stories written in 1964.
The first news article I found entitled “Americans Decide The Beatles Are Harmless” was published in the London Times on February 10, 1964. The article explains the highly built up image of The Beatles and goes on to state that once Americans “had satisfied their highly stimulated curiosities about these four remarkable young men,” the feeling was “one of relief”. The band had basically been given a bad reputation, to the point that Americans were outraged about them without having ever seen them play. Fears were also heightened because in 1964 the last major teen occurred with Elvis. When another craze was finally adopted by teenagers; its results would be “uncontrollable.” Once The Beatles were televised from “coast to coast” in America, people dispelled rumors. The article quotes a New York critic saying, “We can put away our spray guns. The Beatles are harmless.” Another quote from the Washington Post explains that “The Beatles are not such bad chaps after all. They behaved in a more civilized manner than most of our own rock-and-roll heroes.” An interesting point in the article links The Beatles to better British-American understanding. The author believed that the band had opened Americans eyes to the merits of foreign nations. After the long and arduous cold war, perhaps Americans had lost touch with the outside world and the Beatles were remedying this. The author even ends this point by proposing that, in bringing this new understanding, The Beatles may perhaps help America’s problem with Cuba.
The second article I found seems cynical, even bitter about the arrival of the Beatles in America. It is entitled “After Beatles Came the Deluge,” and appeared in the Los Angeles Times on December 6, 1964. The article basically addresses the British Invasion before it was called that. In winning over adults and disarming critics, The Beatles opened “the door for all their hairy mates back home. The blokes are entering the door by the dozen now.” The author’s use of British slang serves to belittle the bands, making them sound silly. The term “hairy” refers to their longer hairstyles of the Beatles and others which many American teenagers were already emulating at the time, as “suddenly, almost anything British was desirable to American teen-agers.” The article goes on to describe one of the bands that followed The Beatles into America, The Rolling Stones. “The Stones are not handsome or even cute. One of them looks like a chimpanzee. Two look like very ugly Radcliffe girls. One resembles the encyclopedia drawings of pithecanthropus erectus.” The irony is that this obviously unsavory description of The Stones probably did more to heighten their popularity than to belittle them, as they were publicized to be the ugly antithesis of the Beatles. The article ends by assuring the American public that rock and roll is not taking over the music industry by summoning record sales of the year. The author points out that Sinatra and big band record sales were equal to that of “teen beat” groups like The Beatles and The Stones. What the author fails to realize, however, is that the popularity of these rock bands had only just begun earlier that year and would rise steadily for the rest of the sixties while also reforming teen culture into the “adversary culture” by 1965.
These two articles are composed very differently and leave the reader with different meanings. Firstly, the London article quotes many American papers and makes the point that the Beatles had been accepted fully in America. Perhaps in showing a few examples where American papers had accepted the Beatles the author felt he had enough to make Londoners believe that this was really the case. The second article, however, shows that The Beatles were still met with much resistance, and would be for much of their careers. Secondly, it is clear in reading these two stories that the London article championed the Beatles while the Los Angeles article reviled them. This discrepancy of ideas represents a change in journalism that occurred in the sixties. More and more people were becoming disheartened with the government. Just “getting the facts” or the official story was not enough to hold people over anymore. “…objectivity in journalism, came to be looked on as the most insidious bias of all. For objectivity reproduced a vision of social reality which refused to examine the basic structures of power and privilege.” A shift toward more interpretive journalism was occurring. As a result, we get two articles that leave the reader with exact opposite interpretations of The Beatles in America.
SOURCES: http://0-infotrac.galegroup.com.opac.sfsu.edu/itw/infomark/946/453/62214328w16/purl=rc1_TTDA_0_CS136406603&dyn=7!zoom_2?sw_aep=sfsu_main
http://0-proquest.umi.com.opac.sfsu.edu/pqdweb?did=472388452&sid=4&Fmt=10&clientId=17866&RQT=309&VName=HNP
Jour 300
In 1964 The Beatles took America by storm when they came across the Atlantic to play their British rock music on their first U.S. tour. In doing so, the four young chaps from Liverpool opened the flood gates for many other British musicians and brought about rapid changes in popular youth culture. At the time journalists, along with most everyone else, were torn as to whether The Beatles, with their long hair and teenage aimed music, were just a harmless pop band or a threat to American society. This difference of opinions is reflected in the news stories written in 1964.
The first news article I found entitled “Americans Decide The Beatles Are Harmless” was published in the London Times on February 10, 1964. The article explains the highly built up image of The Beatles and goes on to state that once Americans “had satisfied their highly stimulated curiosities about these four remarkable young men,” the feeling was “one of relief”. The band had basically been given a bad reputation, to the point that Americans were outraged about them without having ever seen them play. Fears were also heightened because in 1964 the last major teen occurred with Elvis. When another craze was finally adopted by teenagers; its results would be “uncontrollable.” Once The Beatles were televised from “coast to coast” in America, people dispelled rumors. The article quotes a New York critic saying, “We can put away our spray guns. The Beatles are harmless.” Another quote from the Washington Post explains that “The Beatles are not such bad chaps after all. They behaved in a more civilized manner than most of our own rock-and-roll heroes.” An interesting point in the article links The Beatles to better British-American understanding. The author believed that the band had opened Americans eyes to the merits of foreign nations. After the long and arduous cold war, perhaps Americans had lost touch with the outside world and the Beatles were remedying this. The author even ends this point by proposing that, in bringing this new understanding, The Beatles may perhaps help America’s problem with Cuba.
The second article I found seems cynical, even bitter about the arrival of the Beatles in America. It is entitled “After Beatles Came the Deluge,” and appeared in the Los Angeles Times on December 6, 1964. The article basically addresses the British Invasion before it was called that. In winning over adults and disarming critics, The Beatles opened “the door for all their hairy mates back home. The blokes are entering the door by the dozen now.” The author’s use of British slang serves to belittle the bands, making them sound silly. The term “hairy” refers to their longer hairstyles of the Beatles and others which many American teenagers were already emulating at the time, as “suddenly, almost anything British was desirable to American teen-agers.” The article goes on to describe one of the bands that followed The Beatles into America, The Rolling Stones. “The Stones are not handsome or even cute. One of them looks like a chimpanzee. Two look like very ugly Radcliffe girls. One resembles the encyclopedia drawings of pithecanthropus erectus.” The irony is that this obviously unsavory description of The Stones probably did more to heighten their popularity than to belittle them, as they were publicized to be the ugly antithesis of the Beatles. The article ends by assuring the American public that rock and roll is not taking over the music industry by summoning record sales of the year. The author points out that Sinatra and big band record sales were equal to that of “teen beat” groups like The Beatles and The Stones. What the author fails to realize, however, is that the popularity of these rock bands had only just begun earlier that year and would rise steadily for the rest of the sixties while also reforming teen culture into the “adversary culture” by 1965.
These two articles are composed very differently and leave the reader with different meanings. Firstly, the London article quotes many American papers and makes the point that the Beatles had been accepted fully in America. Perhaps in showing a few examples where American papers had accepted the Beatles the author felt he had enough to make Londoners believe that this was really the case. The second article, however, shows that The Beatles were still met with much resistance, and would be for much of their careers. Secondly, it is clear in reading these two stories that the London article championed the Beatles while the Los Angeles article reviled them. This discrepancy of ideas represents a change in journalism that occurred in the sixties. More and more people were becoming disheartened with the government. Just “getting the facts” or the official story was not enough to hold people over anymore. “…objectivity in journalism, came to be looked on as the most insidious bias of all. For objectivity reproduced a vision of social reality which refused to examine the basic structures of power and privilege.” A shift toward more interpretive journalism was occurring. As a result, we get two articles that leave the reader with exact opposite interpretations of The Beatles in America.
SOURCES: http://0-infotrac.galegroup.com.opac.sfsu.edu/itw/infomark/946/453/62214328w16/purl=rc1_TTDA_0_CS136406603&dyn=7!zoom_2?sw_aep=sfsu_main
http://0-proquest.umi.com.opac.sfsu.edu/pqdweb?did=472388452&sid=4&Fmt=10&clientId=17866&RQT=309&VName=HNP
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Tragedy Struck "Unsinkable" Titanic
The staggering story of the “unsinkable” Titanic falling down deep into the depths of the Atlantic Ocean will forever be embedded in our minds as a tragedy that stole many lives. Reading the articles that were written about this event by the Washington Post and the San Francisco Chronicle were both very interesting. Unfortunately, since the writers were not present during the sad sinking of the ocean liner, it was difficult for them to lay out the scene for the reader, which was expected. But I do feel that the San Francisco Chronicle did a better job than the Washington Post because I felt that while both articles were successful in laying out many facts and quotes and information for the reader, the San Francisco Chronicle executed it better. And because it was difficult for the scene to be painted for the reader by the writer, the Chronicle was able to embellish the story with some sentences that did draw the reader’s imagination to vaguely envision the starry night with the disappearing ship.
With such a colossal story as this, I think it is important to not just lay out the facts because most newspapers will all have the same facts anyways, but to also conjure emotions and some sort of empathy as well. With the case of the Titanic, people will read the stories and should be moved by the disastrous event that occurred and be shocked at how many did not survive the night. The eeriness should breath out from the newspaper and really grab the reader, which these articles do as best that they can.
It also shows effective how much information both papers have, especially the Washington Post. With the massive flow of facts, the reader can fully comprehend what has just happened even if there are not really familiar with ships or anything of the sort. I think it was smart to include photographs, names, and all of the bulk of the incident as long as the force of the story isn’t dulled by it, in these cases I don’t believe that it was. And sources were named, although it was difficult to get things completely verifiable.
People of that time truly believed that the ocean liner, Titanic, would be unsinkable. And so, the public was completely in shock of the news of its sinking, which was definitely an angle that the newspapers took in writing the stories. Both papers tapped into how shocked the public would be in discovering what had happened and how devastating it was that only a fraction of the passengers aboard the Titanic were saved. The irony being revealed in the papers of how warnings were ignored, the speed of the ship was nearing risky, how lies were said to appease surrounding ship, it all added to the irony and the tragedy that just befell the world. The coverage of both papers were exceptionally done and it went in their favor to add any details of controversy and irony to garnish the story with a little bit more tragedy.
LINER TITANIC RAMS ICEBERG :Largest Vessel Afloat Sinking Off Newfoundland. VIRGINIAS SPEEDS TO AID Women Being Taken Off in the Lifeboats. MANY NOTABLES ABOARD Maj. Butt, President Taft's Military Aid; C.M. Hays, J. Bruce Ismay, W.T. Stead, Isidor Straus, and Others Among Passengers -- Steamer Olympic Asked to Find Sister Ship -- Other Liners Going to Aid of Disabled Ves- sel Off the Banks of Newfoundland. Start of First Trip Marred by an Ac- cident at Southampton.. (1912, April 15). The Washington Post (1877-1954),p. 1. Retrieved April 9, 2009, from ProQuest Historical Newspapers The Washington Post (1877 - 1992) database. (Document ID: 141451462).
San Francisco Chronicle (1869-Current File); Apr 16, 1912; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The San Francisco Chronicle (1865-1922)
pg. 1
With such a colossal story as this, I think it is important to not just lay out the facts because most newspapers will all have the same facts anyways, but to also conjure emotions and some sort of empathy as well. With the case of the Titanic, people will read the stories and should be moved by the disastrous event that occurred and be shocked at how many did not survive the night. The eeriness should breath out from the newspaper and really grab the reader, which these articles do as best that they can.
It also shows effective how much information both papers have, especially the Washington Post. With the massive flow of facts, the reader can fully comprehend what has just happened even if there are not really familiar with ships or anything of the sort. I think it was smart to include photographs, names, and all of the bulk of the incident as long as the force of the story isn’t dulled by it, in these cases I don’t believe that it was. And sources were named, although it was difficult to get things completely verifiable.
People of that time truly believed that the ocean liner, Titanic, would be unsinkable. And so, the public was completely in shock of the news of its sinking, which was definitely an angle that the newspapers took in writing the stories. Both papers tapped into how shocked the public would be in discovering what had happened and how devastating it was that only a fraction of the passengers aboard the Titanic were saved. The irony being revealed in the papers of how warnings were ignored, the speed of the ship was nearing risky, how lies were said to appease surrounding ship, it all added to the irony and the tragedy that just befell the world. The coverage of both papers were exceptionally done and it went in their favor to add any details of controversy and irony to garnish the story with a little bit more tragedy.
LINER TITANIC RAMS ICEBERG :Largest Vessel Afloat Sinking Off Newfoundland. VIRGINIAS SPEEDS TO AID Women Being Taken Off in the Lifeboats. MANY NOTABLES ABOARD Maj. Butt, President Taft's Military Aid; C.M. Hays, J. Bruce Ismay, W.T. Stead, Isidor Straus, and Others Among Passengers -- Steamer Olympic Asked to Find Sister Ship -- Other Liners Going to Aid of Disabled Ves- sel Off the Banks of Newfoundland. Start of First Trip Marred by an Ac- cident at Southampton.. (1912, April 15). The Washington Post (1877-1954),p. 1. Retrieved April 9, 2009, from ProQuest Historical Newspapers The Washington Post (1877 - 1992) database. (Document ID: 141451462).
San Francisco Chronicle (1869-Current File); Apr 16, 1912; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The San Francisco Chronicle (1865-1922)
pg. 1
Abortion Ruling
I looked at two articles from Jan. 22, 1973, the day Supreme Court ruled in favor of legalizing abortion. The L.A. Times article, “Mother Knows Best,” cited an attorney, Norma Zarky who was active in changing abortion laws, different states’ abortion laws, and the Supreme Court. Weaver’s article was short compared to the NY Times article. It stated the facts and one side of the controversy. The only perspective that the article gave came from one Zarky who explained that the problem with the Abortion ruling was that states would have no control if an abortion occurred within the first three months of pregnancy, which could mean that the state would have no power to require that first trimester abortions be done in hospitals. The article said that the court’s decision could force every state to liberalize its laws on abortions.
The NY Times article, “High Court Rules Abortions Legal the First 3 Months,” by Warren Weaver, Jr., was more well rounded and in-depth. The article explained the facts and gave quotes from judges, gave the opinion of president Nixon, the opinion of Women’s rights groups, and the contrasting viewpoints of the judges.
The NYT article told which judges voted which way and seemed more balanced than the L.A. Times article.
Both articles noted that abortion was a controversial issue.
Abortion is still controversial today and is still discussed in the media.
The book, “Discovering the News,” examines the news story as being a “social form, tightly restrained by the routines of news gathering. Officials are the sources relied upon in newsgathering, therefore, “newsgathering itself constructs an image of reality which reinforces official viewpoints.”
The article from NYT gives the perspectives of officials to validate both sides of the issue. The NYT article uses objectivity as a “strategic ritual which journalist use to defend themselves against mistakes and criticism.” The NYT article uses contrasting opinions of official sources to evaluate the issue. The L.A. Times article does not do this and therefore appears less objective.
The writing style of both articles was pretty un-sensational and fact-heavy.
Much of what I see in journalism today seems to be more literary and interpretive probably because writers are trying to be more entertaining. I still see the use of objectivity as a strategic ritual to some degree today.
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0122.html#article
ABORTION RULING: MOTHER KNOWS BEST
Los Angeles Times (1886-Current File); Jan 22, 1973; ProQuest Historical Newspapers Los Angeles Times (1881 - 1986)
pg. 1
Discovering the News, Michael Schudson
The NY Times article, “High Court Rules Abortions Legal the First 3 Months,” by Warren Weaver, Jr., was more well rounded and in-depth. The article explained the facts and gave quotes from judges, gave the opinion of president Nixon, the opinion of Women’s rights groups, and the contrasting viewpoints of the judges.
The NYT article told which judges voted which way and seemed more balanced than the L.A. Times article.
Both articles noted that abortion was a controversial issue.
Abortion is still controversial today and is still discussed in the media.
The book, “Discovering the News,” examines the news story as being a “social form, tightly restrained by the routines of news gathering. Officials are the sources relied upon in newsgathering, therefore, “newsgathering itself constructs an image of reality which reinforces official viewpoints.”
The article from NYT gives the perspectives of officials to validate both sides of the issue. The NYT article uses objectivity as a “strategic ritual which journalist use to defend themselves against mistakes and criticism.” The NYT article uses contrasting opinions of official sources to evaluate the issue. The L.A. Times article does not do this and therefore appears less objective.
The writing style of both articles was pretty un-sensational and fact-heavy.
Much of what I see in journalism today seems to be more literary and interpretive probably because writers are trying to be more entertaining. I still see the use of objectivity as a strategic ritual to some degree today.
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0122.html#article
ABORTION RULING: MOTHER KNOWS BEST
Los Angeles Times (1886-Current File); Jan 22, 1973; ProQuest Historical Newspapers Los Angeles Times (1881 - 1986)
pg. 1
Discovering the News, Michael Schudson
Roaring Flames Demolish San Francisco
Reading about the San Francisco fire that wreaked pure and endless havoc, after the seismic quakes, to our city that we are all so accustomed to and greatly respect was really a unique experience. I used articles from the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times that I thought were very beautifully written. Coverage of this event in history was very difficult due to the fact that getting eyewitness accounts and reliable sources was beyond adverse to acquire from the decimating city. Yet, despite that, the articles were suffice to provide the reader with more than just a glance into the current state of the burning city.
Firstly, the article from the New York Times was more brief than that of the Los Angeles Times but very adequate for the reader. Both were able to include statistics of the current dilemma as well as give insight on the buildings that have been drastically affected by the fires. I thought the the Los Angeles Times did an amazing job on letting the reader what was going on in little blurbs throughout the article. Also, making a short list of the identified dead was very successful in grabbing the reader, especially if it was a reader from that day.
Both articles had similar angles to how the story was framed, which was that tragedy befell San Francisco; it’s hard to not see things from this angle. But the most satisfying thing from the way the stories were written was that it could have been written very weak and with dull word usage but thankfully, it was not. Both stories dived into the chaos that swept the Bay area, especially the article from the Los Angeles Times. During the reading of these articles, I found myself thrust into a captivating story of chaos and misfortune, and then realized, wait, this really happened. The power of the way that these stories were written was so poetic in form that the reader can almost smell the smoke, taste the ashy air, feel the warmth of raging flames, and clearly see the emblazoned city disintegrating before their very eyes.
I feel that journalism now, has lost some of that compelling power to steal the reader and not only inform of the occurring news but to invoke infinite interest. A great article should be written to make the reader’s heart rate rise, especially when the content of the story is so groundbreaking as the San Francisco fires. The coverage today of events can be so draining to read because of the lack of power in the journalist’s words. With a story like this you can even get a sense of the melancholy in the writer because you know that he or she knows what fatal effects this fire will have on the city of San Francisco. Now, looking back on this event from the future, because of the framing of the story and from being a San Franciscan myself, you cannot help but truly sympathize with what had happened. Even with more than a century after the fires, making a reader feel something from the article is truly the most amazing way to cover and write a piece.
HEART IS TORN FROM GREAT CITY :San Francisco Nearly Destroyed By Earthquakes and Fire--Hundreds of Killed and Injured--Destruction of Other CoastCities--California's Greatest Horror.. (1906, April 19). Los Angeles Times (1886-Current File),I1. Retrieved April 9, 2009, from ProQuest Historical Newspapers Los Angeles Times (1881 - 1986) database. (Document ID: 349538652).
ALL SAN FRANCISCO MAY BURN; CLIFF HOUSE RESORT IN SEA :Flames Carried From the Business Quarter to Residences PALACE HOTEL AND MINT GO; BIG BUILDINGS BLOWN UP. Other Shocks Felt During the Afternoon -- Insane Asylum Is Wrecked and Hundreds of Former Inmates Are Roaming About the Country -- Reports of Heavy Loss of Life at San Jose.. (1906, April 19). New York Times (1857-Current file),p. 1. Retrieved April 9, 2009, from ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2005) database. (Document ID: 101775031).
HEART IS TORN FROM GREAT CITY :San Francisco Nearly Destroyed By Earthquakes and Fire--Hundreds of Killed and Injured--Destruction of Other CoastCities--California's Greatest Horror.. (1906, April 19). Los Angeles Times (1886-Current File),I1. Retrieved April 9, 2009, from ProQuest Historical Newspapers Los Angeles Times (1881 - 1986) database. (Document ID: 349538652).
ALL SAN FRANCISCO MAY BURN; CLIFF HOUSE RESORT IN SEA :Flames Carried From the Business Quarter to Residences PALACE HOTEL AND MINT GO; BIG BUILDINGS BLOWN UP. Other Shocks Felt During the Afternoon -- Insane Asylum Is Wrecked and Hundreds of Former Inmates Are Roaming About the Country -- Reports of Heavy Loss of Life at San Jose.. (1906, April 19). New York Times (1857-Current file),p. 1. Retrieved April 9, 2009, from ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2005) database. (Document ID: 101775031).
“We Don’t Want Another Oswald!”: The Media’s Reaction to Robert F. Kennedy’s Assassination
The panic and confusion following the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy the night he won the Democratic nomination in California translates to the television and written coverage of his death. Because the assassination occurred during an important event, the media was able to provide the public with a shaky yet strong understanding of the night that RFK was assassinated by Sirhan Sirhan, an unstable man who claimed that he wanted more attention directed towards Palestinians.
The public first found out Kennedy was assassinated through the TV news. An article published by Time on June 14, 1968 titled “What Was Going On” relays how the media reacted. The article has no byline; it was probably a group effort by the editors.
Because the press was so hotly covering the celebration, members of the media became subjects of news articles and radio and TV broadcasts. Members of the media who had been injured or near the assassination understood the necessity of eyewitness testimony more than a normal person would. Thus, elaborate and panicked accounts were available for newspapers and networks.
An especially notable—and widely used—description came from Andrew West, who worked for a radio network. West recorded his reaction to the shooting while it was happening. According to the Time article, he said:
“Senator Kennedy has been . . . Senator Kennedy has been shot! Is that possible? It ispossible, ladies and gentlemen! It is possible! He has . . . Not only Senator Kennedy! Oh myGod! . . . I am right here, and Rafer Johnson has hold of the man who apparently fired theshot! He still has the gun! The gun is pointed at me right this moment! Get the gun! Get the gun! Get the gun! Stay away from the guy! Get his thumb! Get his thumb! Break it if you have to! Get the gun, Rafer! Hold him! We don't want another Oswald! Hold him, Rafer . . . The Senator is on the ground! He's bleeding profusely . . . The ambulance has been called for, and this is a terrible thing! . . . Ethel Kennedy is standing by. She is calm, a woman with a tremendous amount of presence . . . The shock is so great my mouth is dry . . . We are shaking as is everyone else. I do not know if the Senator is dead or if he is alive . . ."
The way West spoke about the shooting and how the Time article was written depicts how devastated and shocked the media was. Time’s respect for and mourning of the figure reflects a loss of hope that even the media could not hide. There were few attempts to be objective. The article also reflects how much the media wanted to make sense of the assassination and deliver that understanding to the public.
Following the assassination, the print media focused more on the aftermath and the chronology than the shooting itself. On June 6th, a day after the assassination, the Los Angeles Times wrote a story titled “Despair Grips Youth in Wake of Shooting: Hopes for New Politics Dashed.” The press accurately depicted the youth’s devastation. “I have a sort of gut feeling, deep down inside, that this shooting and whatever happens to Kennedy will make young people completely unreachable,” one girl said. In many following articles, the focus was more on the despair people felt; this despair seemed to be shared by the media and proponents for changeas well.
In an interview almost a year after the assassination, Sirhan claimed that he wished the president was still alive, but he believed that “the cause of the Palestinian Arab people was worth both Senator Kennedy’s life and his own.” In an article published by the New York Times “Sirhan voices regret at having killed Kennedy,” the focus of the article was more about the fact that Sirhan wished the Senator was still alive to be President than that Sirhan, in his mentally unstable mind, assassinated Kennedy in order to draw attention to injustice in Palestine (Israel becoming a state is also one of the top 100 stories of the century). Although the article contains his comments about the Palestinian people, the headline and the pull quote—the parts of the article that receive the most attention—are about him wishing Kennedy could have been President.
The public first found out Kennedy was assassinated through the TV news. An article published by Time on June 14, 1968 titled “What Was Going On” relays how the media reacted. The article has no byline; it was probably a group effort by the editors.
Because the press was so hotly covering the celebration, members of the media became subjects of news articles and radio and TV broadcasts. Members of the media who had been injured or near the assassination understood the necessity of eyewitness testimony more than a normal person would. Thus, elaborate and panicked accounts were available for newspapers and networks.
An especially notable—and widely used—description came from Andrew West, who worked for a radio network. West recorded his reaction to the shooting while it was happening. According to the Time article, he said:
“Senator Kennedy has been . . . Senator Kennedy has been shot! Is that possible? It ispossible, ladies and gentlemen! It is possible! He has . . . Not only Senator Kennedy! Oh myGod! . . . I am right here, and Rafer Johnson has hold of the man who apparently fired theshot! He still has the gun! The gun is pointed at me right this moment! Get the gun! Get the gun! Get the gun! Stay away from the guy! Get his thumb! Get his thumb! Break it if you have to! Get the gun, Rafer! Hold him! We don't want another Oswald! Hold him, Rafer . . . The Senator is on the ground! He's bleeding profusely . . . The ambulance has been called for, and this is a terrible thing! . . . Ethel Kennedy is standing by. She is calm, a woman with a tremendous amount of presence . . . The shock is so great my mouth is dry . . . We are shaking as is everyone else. I do not know if the Senator is dead or if he is alive . . ."
The way West spoke about the shooting and how the Time article was written depicts how devastated and shocked the media was. Time’s respect for and mourning of the figure reflects a loss of hope that even the media could not hide. There were few attempts to be objective. The article also reflects how much the media wanted to make sense of the assassination and deliver that understanding to the public.
Following the assassination, the print media focused more on the aftermath and the chronology than the shooting itself. On June 6th, a day after the assassination, the Los Angeles Times wrote a story titled “Despair Grips Youth in Wake of Shooting: Hopes for New Politics Dashed.” The press accurately depicted the youth’s devastation. “I have a sort of gut feeling, deep down inside, that this shooting and whatever happens to Kennedy will make young people completely unreachable,” one girl said. In many following articles, the focus was more on the despair people felt; this despair seemed to be shared by the media and proponents for changeas well.
In an interview almost a year after the assassination, Sirhan claimed that he wished the president was still alive, but he believed that “the cause of the Palestinian Arab people was worth both Senator Kennedy’s life and his own.” In an article published by the New York Times “Sirhan voices regret at having killed Kennedy,” the focus of the article was more about the fact that Sirhan wished the Senator was still alive to be President than that Sirhan, in his mentally unstable mind, assassinated Kennedy in order to draw attention to injustice in Palestine (Israel becoming a state is also one of the top 100 stories of the century). Although the article contains his comments about the Palestinian people, the headline and the pull quote—the parts of the article that receive the most attention—are about him wishing Kennedy could have been President.
Clinton Impeached
In 1998 President Clinton was impeached over his illicit affair with Monica Lewinsky. Although the public was outraged over Clinton’s moral wrongdoing and lies, many did not feel Clinton’s personal cheating was enough to have him impeached. Others believed he was a liar and not to be trusted and wanted him to be impeached. However, the outcome of the trial was that Clinton was in fact impeached of both articles he was charged with. I examined two articles from varying coasts, New York and San Francisco, to find out what the underlying message of the article was and how it was presented to readers. The first article by The New York Times,
“Impeachment: The President” does a thorough job describing the tone the day Clinton was impeached. The San Francisco Chronicle article “Clinton Era Marked by Scandal, Prosperity” describes how even though Clinton left office with a tarnished reputation, the change he brought to the administration is not forgotten.
“Clinton Era Marked by Scandal, Prosperity” describes the State of The Union address as one that was beyond original, mostly based on the fact that six days previous the Washington Post published an article accusing Clinton of his infamous affair. This article does a really good job of setting the stage for the reader with all of the emotional undertones, for example, “Never before had the nation seen its leader so publicly embattled by such intimate matters.” The article goes on to discuss how scholars will remember the Clinton era as either prosperous or regretful. This article does not discuss the process and depth of the impeachment so much as the aftermath.
“Impeachment: The President” talks more about Clinton’s denial of being impeached, saying he never used the word “impeached” because he didn’t want it to be bound to his name. This article tells how the whole ordeal began, starting with Kenneth W. Starr’s investigation. This article gives more detail about the actual events rather than just focusing on the mood.
Both articles give the reader a lot of information about the event, but they also bring their own ideas. It seemed like in “Clinton Era Marked by Scandal, Prosperity” the author really wanted to make the point to discuss how this whole process would affect the Clinton name. It also used some details that may be deemed unnecessary. “Impeachment: The President” did a really good job of incorporating quotes, but some seemed a little biased on Clinton’s side, maybe using them for reader apathy. However, both articles did a fine job on staying impartial, you couldn’t tell a clear bias from either side. Additionally, both articles offered concrete facts for the reader so that they could make up their own minds on whether Clinton being impeached was a good or bad thing.
“Impeachment: The President” does a thorough job describing the tone the day Clinton was impeached. The San Francisco Chronicle article “Clinton Era Marked by Scandal, Prosperity” describes how even though Clinton left office with a tarnished reputation, the change he brought to the administration is not forgotten.
“Clinton Era Marked by Scandal, Prosperity” describes the State of The Union address as one that was beyond original, mostly based on the fact that six days previous the Washington Post published an article accusing Clinton of his infamous affair. This article does a really good job of setting the stage for the reader with all of the emotional undertones, for example, “Never before had the nation seen its leader so publicly embattled by such intimate matters.” The article goes on to discuss how scholars will remember the Clinton era as either prosperous or regretful. This article does not discuss the process and depth of the impeachment so much as the aftermath.
“Impeachment: The President” talks more about Clinton’s denial of being impeached, saying he never used the word “impeached” because he didn’t want it to be bound to his name. This article tells how the whole ordeal began, starting with Kenneth W. Starr’s investigation. This article gives more detail about the actual events rather than just focusing on the mood.
Both articles give the reader a lot of information about the event, but they also bring their own ideas. It seemed like in “Clinton Era Marked by Scandal, Prosperity” the author really wanted to make the point to discuss how this whole process would affect the Clinton name. It also used some details that may be deemed unnecessary. “Impeachment: The President” did a really good job of incorporating quotes, but some seemed a little biased on Clinton’s side, maybe using them for reader apathy. However, both articles did a fine job on staying impartial, you couldn’t tell a clear bias from either side. Additionally, both articles offered concrete facts for the reader so that they could make up their own minds on whether Clinton being impeached was a good or bad thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)