With my recent presentation on the media coverage during the US Civil War, I could not help but consider the slanted coverage that the two opposing newspapers took. While Will and myself briefly went over the concept in class, here is my two cents on the matter.
I thought that it was quite interesting how the two newspapers, which represented the two sides of the war, had similar beliefs about certain events. For instance, we told the class that both of the newspapers believed that the Emancipation Proclamation was a bad idea and would only prolong the war and make it bloodier. I felt this was peculiar because I expected the south to oppose the Emancipation Proclamation, however the north opposing it also caught me off guard. It just goes to show how two sides that are fighting against each other can agree on the fact that it might have detrimental effects to the outcome of the war.
We also discovered that newspapers during the Civil War would exaggerate or lie flat out about the outcome of a battle or important event. I found this particularly interesting because the newspaper was one of the only sources of information available at the time and the newspaper was misleading its followers. While I understand that the newspaper might have been trying to keep patriotism high (in either the north or the south) I personally feel that the newspaper has a right to report the truth to its readers.
Now looking at modern day newspapers, it is almost unheard of that newspapers knowingly provide false information to its followers because of the consequences and the information that is available to the public (such as information accessible through the internet). While there are still newspapers that support different sides of the government (such as republican/democrat) with a slanted point of view, newspapers nowadays typically provide accurate information. It is interesting to see the similarities and differences from newspapers during the US Civil War and present day.
9 comments:
i was also surprised about the two papers agreeing about the Emancipation Proclamation. Our history books make it seems like the North was all for freeing the slaves and supporting the Constitution and being moral--but the victors write history, i suppose.
i think the internet is a huge reason behind the relative lack of false information in newspapers today. When we can all access so many sources of news, it's easier to catch someone outright lying.
Jack, I actually wrote my blog about something very similar to your ending thoughts. I talk about how little has changed in the American media since the Civil War. One thing you state in your blog that is proven to be true is that the newspapers from the past could lie while today, networks and other media outlets are reliable for the facts they present. That is a product of a more global society.
I agree with Tess -- much of the reason there is not false information in newspapers or other forms of media is because the public has so much access to other sources. With biased sides, the question becomes, which side do you want to believe? I think I said something similar in another comment, but the information may be true, it is just how the information is portrayed that changes people's opinions. It is the responsibility of the public to discern which side is more reasonable, or in some cases which side is telling the truth.
I agree that media has an obligation to its followers to present the stories as they happened and to always tell the truth. Obviously this idea is a little outlandish and naive because people will always lie about something. Also, as everyone else seems to be saying, media is harder to skew now as the public has such easy access to alternative sources. In the Civil War, as you and I said, people would have to go by the word of their local paper on the happenings of the last few days/weeks.
Will, you say people always have to lie but is that true? Isn't it the responsibility of the newspapers to report what is happening and to report the truth? Not put their own biased perspective on the current situation? Clearly this is not the case with many major news sources today but it is the way it should be. By the way I know what i just wrote in this comment is a little bit optimistic.
Tess has a good point, if you post something false you are bound to be corrected. With our modern technology and our resources we are able to hear news seconds after it happens. The media controls a lot. We know what happens over seas based on the internet or a newspaper. But do we really know the truth? You can say, Sean that is ridiculous. Why would they lie to us? The media can put whatever twist they want to on whatever story and we have no control. What we hear is what we believe. Do we really know that the North opposed the Emancipation Proclamation? No we never will, the media is something that deceives people and can make them believe what ever they want them to believe.
I think Sean brings up a good point in that one of the major roles of media outlets is to get the reader to want to keep following the coverage of the media source. Thus the deception in some of the coverage through the twists it puts on its stories.
There is so much information available to people nowadays that newspapers have to be efficient and fair in their facts. People who read the newspaper just want straight facts and information about the world. Newspapers do a much better job covering the news today then they did during the Civil War, because they can't get away with passing off false information. Media members of a newspaper have to be aware of what they write, since it is in print. Whatever they write is made available to the whole world, so they have to be careful about using factual information.
I think you post is very similar to Ed's post. Again I will say that I think "slants" are just a lesser form of lying. No there is very little completely false information, but that does not mean that the absolute truth is reported.
Post a Comment