EOTO: What I learned from my peers

Like always, the EOTO presentations that we did in class were amazing. I always enjoy listening to and learning from my peers about different journalism heroes. This week was special, because we got to learn about modern day journalism heroes. 

Riley Manion, presented on Barbara Walters and it was so inspiring. I had definitely heard of Barbara Walters before, but I had never really given her contributions to journalism much thought before. 

Barbara Walters

Her first job was as a publicity director's assistant for an NBC show. She then went on to become the youngest producer at that station. 

In 1961, she became the first woman to host Today. 14 years later she became the first female anchor at ABC. She got let go shortly after she was hired, because the public did not like seeing a woman. 

Barbara Walters was a trailblazer in many ways. After she received criticism for nothing more than being a woman, she went on to start two shows that were massively successful: The Barbara Walters Special and The View. 

The biggest takeaway from Riley's presentation was that Barbara Walters is the epitome of a trailblazer. She is such an inspiring journalist and I learned a ton from Riley. 

Another presentation that resonated with me was by Laura Plant. She presented on Robert Capa. What stood out to me about him was the fact that he was very different than the other journalists we learned about. 

Capa was an amazing war photographer who hated war. He choose photography because he thought it was the closest he could get to journalism without it actually being journalism. 

Robert Capa

His claim to fame was his coverage on the Spanish Civil War. His photographs were spectacular and he was named the greatest war photographer in the world by Picture Post. 

Capa went on to cover several other historic events such as D Day. He lost is life in Indochina when he stepped on a landmine. 

What was so inspiring about Capa was his dedication to the field of photography and the vast amount of events he covered. 

EOTO presentations are my favorite part about this class and I am very sad that it is over for this class. I am constantly inspired by my peers and their coverage of fascinating journalists. 

United States' Phony War on Iraq

At this point, the war in Iraq has been going on practically my entire life. Prior to my research for this post, I did not know practically anything about the war other than the fact it was started by George W. Bush and has lasted forever. 

I watched the documentary and did plenty of research for this final blog post and honestly I left everything feeling really disheartened by the United State's government. 

I always thought prior to this class that the government upheld the constitution in every way possible. Now, I am starting to think that the government has laws for every other party to follow other than themselves. 

The Iraq War started in 2003 by the Bush administration. This is still one of the most controversial issues in politics, because there was never a clear-cut reason as to why we should go to war in the first place. 

Bush talking to troops 

The Bush administration originally stated that their intent in starting the war was to remove "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the demands of the United Nations and the world."

The United States then justified invading Iraq because they said that the relied on the authority of the UN Security Council Resolutions 678 and 687.

If the above statement did not make sense to you, that is because it should not. If a country is trying to justify going to war based on some very specific resolutions, there is a good chance they should have never went to war in the first place.

Troops in Iraq

The United Kingdom also supported the United States invading Iraq on the basis that Saddam Hussein was supposedly developing weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. has always been a fan of nobody having the weapons of mass destruction except for themselves.

President Bush was working hard to build a case against Iraq, largely because of the events of September 11th. I think he was so blinded by rage, that he seriously did not think this through and because of that so many lives have been lost. 

After the U.S. invaded Iraq, the Central Intelligence Agency and multiple other intelligence agencies discredited evidence against the claims of an Iraqi weapons force. They also discredited evidence that Al-Qaeda has any links to Iraq. 

It is remarkably shady that these American intelligence agencies discredited the Bush administration claims very shortly after they invaded. It makes me wonder if they were sitting on this information, because they knew an invasion was coming. 

Instead of admitting fault for invading on false claims, the Bush administration immediately started trying to rationalize it. They shifted gears to claiming that the needed to promote democracy in Iraq and that Hussein's government had a terrible human rights record. 

At this point, the public opinion of this phony war was not good. Most polls showed that people were not in favor of a war unless the UN mandated it. Other countries started seeing the U.S. as more of a threat because they invaded a country under a false pretense. 

There was an intense manhunt for Hussein where he was captured and later found guilty of crimes against humanity. He was hanged on December 30, 2006. 

Even though Hussein was killed in 2006, the war in Iraq officially did not end until December 15th, 2011 during the Obama administration. 

It is important to note that throughout over ten years of war, no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. 

So where are we now? Sadly, there are still troops in Iraq even though the war is over. Since the Bush administration invaded, there have been issues and civil unrest in Iraq. 

Our troops are cut down to 2,500 to keep the peace and help defeat ISIS. This is a classic example of why George Washington warned against getting involved in foreign affairs when he left office. It is messy and completely unnecessary.

All of this strangely does relate back to journalism and its influence. We allowed this war in Iraq to go on because we were so angry about 9/11. We were blinded by the facts which is not acceptable when it costs human lives. 

If journalists were super diligent and cared about dispersing the truth, maybe they would have used their influence to further turn the public against this war. 

As a society, it is important for every individual to make up their own mind about every situation, because the government is hardly ever right. 

It is important that as a society we learn from our mass failure that is Iraq and do better so that we are not stuck in this pointless wars. 

Do Journalists influence who takes the Coivd-19 vaccine?

The Covid-19 pandemic has affected the lives of every single person on this planet. It took so many lives and almost everyone was impacted negatively because of it. 

This time last year, everyone was hoping and praying that a vaccine would come out. It usually takes years for a vaccine to come out, yet alone be approved by the FDA for mass use. 

However, with all of our resources and money pouring into the development of a Covid-19 vaccine, it actually happened. Multiple companies came out with their own version of it. 

When the vaccine first came out, Donald Trump was the president of the United States. I remember people doubting whether or not the vaccine was effective or not. 

During the Vice Presidential debate in the fall of 2020, Kamala Harris said that "if Donald Trump tells us we should take it, I'm not going to take it." This was controversial at the time, because right leaning sources were dragging her for saying something so ignorant while left leaning sources were praising her. 

As soon as Biden took office, all of the people who previously said they would not take it because of Trump, started taking the vaccine and mass promoting it. 

This development made me seriously question the role of journalism on the everyday lives of citizens. 

If Trump was still in office, would journalists still be questioning the effectiveness of the vaccine rather than pushing people to get it? 

The sad part is that I cannot confidently answer that question. I want to believe and have faith in our journalistic system, however I think that some biases trump the truth. 

Just recently, there was a hiccup with the Johnson and Johnson vaccine. In North Carolina, the government put an 11 day pause on the vaccine because nationwide there were 6 cases of women developing a rare and severe blood clot.

This caused mass hysteria throughout the United States. People who did not get the vaccine yet, did not want to get it and people who had already gotten it were terrified. It is important to recognize that only 6 people out of 6.8 million vaccinated by that particular vaccine got affected.

Johnson and Johnson Vaccine

People got really mad by the government and press reaction to the Johnson and Johnson vaccine, because there are common medicines with worse side affects that don't get any attention at all. For
example, women who take birth control pills are more likely to develop a blood clot than get one from a COVID vaccine. 

This led people to believe that the media only wanted to report something juicy rather than the fact that they actually care about the health of citizens. 

I know that journalists have immense power over every single citizen on this planet, whether I admit to it or not. The press will change their minds on even the most severe of issues as long as it benefits them. 

The biggest takeaway from this situation is to always think for yourself. Examine the facts before letting the media circus change your mind. 

Read more here: https://www.newsobserver.com/news/state/north-carolina/article250628134.html#storylink=cpy

Citizen Kane: Greatest Movie ever?

In my senior year of high school, I took a film literature class. We learned about all things from the origination of black and white film, to Alfred Hitchcock, to modern day techniques. However, my teacher never stopped telling us about how Citizen Kane was one of the greatest movies of all time. 

Poster for Film 

Citizen Kane is a film that Orson Welles produced, co-wrote and directed that depicted the life of William Randolph Hearst. The film is regarded as one of the most influential in film history because of the innovative use of different shots. It also experimented with different lights and shadow, deep focus, and camera angles.

Citizen Kane is also a huge achievement, because Welles was only 25 at the time it came out. It was his debut film and he managed to be written in history for it. 

Personally, I can appreciate what the film did in terms of film history. Before this movie, nobody took risks in filmmaking. There was a way people did things and that was that. 

Expressionistic Lighting

I think that because Welles had something to prove and he was so young led to him taking more risks in his debut film. He inspired so many people with his use of deep focus and expressionistic lighting that utilizes shadows like it was never seen before. 

Another cool thing that is utilized in Citizen Kane is low angles. This was not used before this film, because it meant that the sets had to have ceilings. 

All of the ceilings in the film were constructed out of cloths so that the crew could place microphones above the actors heads. 

Welles had already made a name for himself in radio before taking on this project, so it makes sense that his film would utilize fantastic audio techniques.

Welles used overlapping dialogue for the first time. This meant that the characters talked over each other which was very unlike films prior to this, but led to a more realistic narrative. 

Plot wise, the film structure is also unique. It is presented in a non-linear structure which means that the events do not take place in chronological order.

The order of events make the movie more interesting to watch, as it is presented like a detective style film.

I have talked so much about why the film is so innovated, but I have not yet touched on the plot of it. The whole film is about trying to decipher the meaning behind Charles Kane's last word (Rosebud). 

Filming a Low-Angle Shot 

In the end, it is revealed that his last words did not represent anything more than the simplicity of his home life with his mother. Even though Kane lived a life filled with fame, in the end he just wanted the simple, warm comforts of his home before all of that. 

Regardless of how innovated this film was, the public perception was not always good. William Randolph Hearst was so furious at the depiction of him in the film, that he banned any of his newspapers from running ads on the it.

Hearst was most angered by the depiction of his second wife in the film, Marion Davies. He did not like that she was shown as a showgirl and called it a "dirty trick."

Hearst was so angry about the film, that he threatened to go to war against the Hollywood studio system in general. 

There was so much drama surrounding the original release of the film, that it barely broke even. It was nominated for nine Oscars, but only won one for best screenplay. 

I personally have loved Citizen Kane since high school, because it represents a time that was so influential in film. I love the fact that a movie that is often considered the best film ever is centered around the life of a journalist. 

No matter whether you agree that Citizen Kane is the greatest movie ever, it is universally agreed upon that it was one of the most influential films of all time. 

The History of Yellow Journalism

Yellow journalism is such a common phase in history, that the average person probably does not know exactly what it means and what it is. As a society, we have come to realize that it was a practice that was not based in facts. 

Yellow journalism evolved in the late 19th century and it heavily relied on using sensationalism rather that clear cut facts. Relying on the public opinion can be a really beneficial and crucial thing for the government. 

The term "yellow journalism" originated out of a battle between Joseph Pulitzer's New York World and William Randolph Hearst's New York Journal.  Popular papers as they were, both of them were heavily accused of sensationalizing the news to drive up the circulation. 

The term came from a comic from Pulitzer's New York World called "Hogan's Alley," which showed a character dressed in yellow that was named "the yellow kid." 

Hearst copied Pulitzer and published a cartoon that was exactly like his. Hearst even hired the original cartoonist. This battle was crazy and sensational. The battle of the "yellow kids" led to this journalistic style to be coined as "yellow journalism."

The Yellow Kid 

Erwin Wardman, the editor of the New York Press was the first to publish the term "yellow journalism" to refer to news that is twisted into being more than just the facts. In 1898, an English magazine noted "All American journalism is not 'yellow', though all strictly 'up-to-date' yellow journalism is American." 

Yellow journalists helped sway the public opinion in favor of the United States and Spain in war in Cuba and the Philippines in 1898.

The World's article on The Main Explosion

 Journalist's Pulitzer and Hearst saw a golden opportunity in sensationalizing war. They published articles talking about a false plot to sink a United State's battleship, The Maine, which sank from an explosion.

Pulitzer and Hearst realized that they could drive their name into history by turning the public opinion in favor of war. Yellow journalism at the time had a massive unforeseeable impact. 

The war benefited the United States because the got ahold of overseas territory. This is why the Spanish-American war is often thought of as the first media war. So it is important to not underestimate the affect of journalism. 

I think that yellow journalism is not covered or talked about as much in the present day, because it is so common. I almost expect that everything I read will be false or sensationalized to a degree. 

There are infinite news sources and articles, so it makes sense that things would be written in hyperbole to grab the attention of the reader. 

It is important to realize that wars have been started due to false information feed to us by yellow journalists. 

The Legacy Henry Louis Mencken left behind

Henry Louis Mencken (1880-1956) was one of the most influential journalists of his time. Walter Lippmann coined Mencken as "the most powerful personal influence on this whole generation of educated people." 

Mencken grew up in Baltimore, Maryland where he attended a private school. His father was a successful businessman who ran a tobacco business. Mencken was expected to continue the business his father ran, however he ultimately choose a completely different path.  

Henry Louis Mencken 

Mencken attended Baltimore Polytechnic Institute where he graduated as valedictorian. His father wanted him to work in a factory or for his business. Mencken followed his father's wishes and worked in a factory until his father died. 

In 1899, he became a reporter for the Baltimore Morning and in 1906 he got hired by Baltimore Sun. He coedited The Smart Set from 1914 to 1923. It was a witty urban magazine that Mencken helped bring great success to. 

When he and George Jean Nathan edited it together, their circulation was around 40,000 to 50,000. That made the magazine one of the most far-reaching ventures of it's time. Mencken's work on The Smart Set paved the way for great writers such as F. Scott Fitzgerald and James Joyce. 

In 1924, Mencken and Nathan founded the American Mercury. It was aimed for the "civilized minority" and talked it blended politics, art, and science. It was the first magazine edited by white people to publish the works of African Americans. 

Mencken's Paper 

Mencken wrote elegant irreverent observations of America and it was very popular. The magazine's circulation took a hit after the stock market crash. Mencken left in 1933 after he sold the magazine. 

Mencken is still considered to this day as one of the best literary critics of the 20s. From 1919-1927 he wrote a series of six volumes of essays and reviews titles Prejudices. These essays were filled with satire that critiqued the critics. 

Mencken argued that instead of criticizing artists on their "righteousness" they should be criticized on their actual artistic merits. In his first volume, Mencken jeers at literary and cultural critics for demanding that the artist become a good role model instead of just being good reporters in human nature. 

Mencken kept making fun of organized religion, American business models and the middle class. He worked on trying to get recognition for newcomers in literature rather than the recognition going to "fraudulently successful writers." 

In the 40s, Mencken became slightly less popular because subjects such as the Great Depression were not fair game for his satire yet. People had been going through this terrible thing and he still kept his satirical nature and a lot of people were not welcome to it. 

Another large contribution Mencken made was his publication in 1919 of The American Language. The volume was about language that was specifically American and not English. To this say it is ranked was one of the top 100 influential books in the United States. 

The book included American expressions and idioms and it instantly became a hit. Every year there was a new edition that came out and by the time Mencken was dead he was considered the leading authority of his own country's language.

Mencken's big belief was that he was a lover of liberty and he hated fraud of any kind. All of his writing and actions reflect that. 

Mencken believed that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were sacred documents that should absolutely be taken seriously. Mencken said that "I know of no other man who believes in liberty more than I do."

Mencken fought for equal liberties for all people, regardless of their skin color. He got death threats and people boycotted Baltimore goods for writing articles against lynching.  

He worked with the NAACP to promote the Costigan-Wagner Anti-Lynching Bill. He continued to fight for equality and wrote several articles against segregation. 

It was not just equality of races that Mencken promoted. When Franklin Roosevelt did not let Jewish refugees into the United States who were fleeing persecution from Nazis, he was the first journalist to denounce Roosevelt's action. 

Mencken's articles on the Scopes Monkey Trial was revolutionary. He was a fierce protector of the first amendment, so when a teacher was arrested for teaching students about the theory of evolution, Mencken wrote defending his actions. 

In addition to defending freedom of speech, Mencken also fiercely defended freedom of the press. He said that he believed that "a newspaper should tell the truth, however unpleasant." Gerald Johnson said that Mencken stood out because he had wit and honesty and courage. 

Public opinion of Mencken during the time he was alive is varied. Carl Van Vechten knew Mencken and wrote about him stating "his ebullience is boundless and even casual observation of any object or person stirs him to expression." 

People who knew Mencken personally and knew what he was trying to accomplish seemed to really like him and believe in him. 

Alfred A. Knopf wrote about how pleasant it was to work with Mencken in his piece written in the Yale University Library Gazette. Knopf said that Mencken was an absolute pleasure to work with and he never asked for a raise in royalties or demanded things before his work was done. 

However, he got criticized for his radical ideas. Whenever someone has unpopular ideas, they are bound to be criticized and Mencken got his fair share of death threats for standing up for people's rights.

An interesting journal article I came across was written by Charles Angoff titled Mencken Twilight. Angoff was "the best managing editor in America" according to Mencken. In his article, Angoff wrote that Mencken's "failure to attend an institution of higher learning gnawed at him his whole life." 

Angoff's jarring criticism of Mencken in this piece is raw and as real as it comes. Angoff said that "the trouble with Mencken as a literary critic was that he was so obviously not at home in criticism." The whole 17 page piece criticizes Mencken ruthlessly.

There is a plethora of things written about Mencken during the time he was alive and it is all contradictory. He was controversial and that led to a mass about of criticism but the people that knew him loved him. He is still to this day considered one of the best and most influential journalists. 

What the World thought of Mary Ann Shadd

When I was doing my original EOTO research on Mary Ann Shadd, I was immediately impressed and inspired. This woman did so much for the time period she was in. She was a black woman who had everything stacked against her, yet she persevered and became the first African American woman to publish and edit a weekly newspaper. 

So why is there almost nothing written about her in that time period? When I was first searching the databases that were given to us in class, I could find no primary resources from the time Shadd was alive. The only primary sources I could find were ones from the last fifty years. 

This indicated to me the true importance of Shadd's life work. She knew the true values and morals that should have been instilled in everyone. She lived her life according to what she knew was right and never stopped her work according to what anyone else thought. 

The general public did not like that Shadd was outspoken. That is probably why her voice was silenced from the other papers. They did not like that she was trying to free black people and get them to move to a less oppressed place. Shadd also wrote under a pen name that would have made her unrecognizable by the general public. 

Through all of my searching, I was able to find one primary source from the time Mary Ann Shadd was alive. I found this source on Gale Primary Sources.  It was from the Liberator magazine that was based out of Boston, Massachusetts. The Liberator was William Loyd Garrison's daily newspaper and much like Shadd's paper, it wanted to end slavery. The article I found was published on Friday April 28th, 1854. 

The Liberator Magazine from April 28th, 1854

The article published about Shadd was about her newspaper, The Provincial Freeman. The short three paragraphs act as an informational blurb about the paper. It wishes the paper good luck because of its work to help Canada's colored people. 

It mentions a lot of names, before it briefly mentions Shadd at the end stating that "in the absence of Mr. Ward, who has not yet returned from his European mission, Miss Mary Ann Shadd acts as his pro tem." 

Basically, the article gives every major credit it can to everyone but Shadd, which is very disappointing. Now, we look back on The Provincial Freeman and the only name that pops up is Shadd. Nobody liked that she was an African American woman doing something that was not standard back in the day. 

Even though there are no primary sources that document it, I am sure that Shadd's involvement in the paper was controversial. Her paper was even shut down shortly after it opened, because it was so unpopular. The best way to punish someone for being controversial, is to just leave them out of history altogether. 

Shadd statue in Chatham, Canada

Another reason why I assume it is hard to find Mary Ann Shadd in primary sources, is because her paper only laster a little under ten years. She wrote in a time where it was easy to get hated, but hard to get true exposure for good work. She would have had to rely on other Black newspapers, who unfortunately were probably also sexist. 

I am surprised that I can't find any primary sources from the days that she spoke at the national black convention or from any other good work that she did. I have to assume that the world just wasn't ready for her. I also hope that I am just searching the wrong databases. I don't like that fact that Shadd did so much good in her life and yet there is almost nothing written about her during the time she lived. 

There are, however, a lot of primary sources from Shadd herself. From those, we can see just how special she was and her true vision for African American's across the globe. She was a helper, abolitionist, and a truly good person wanting to enact change. 

I am glad that history finally caught up and now a lot of people talk about how influential Shadd was and the good work she did helping people from all sectors of life.