Partisan Press

 Partisan Press

Elise Coby

https://theburgnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Screenshot-2018-01-30-09.35.39-300x137.png

   In the reading "Down the Rabbit-Hole, A historical partisan press perspective: an absence of toleration", there are notable parallels to our journalist society today. I found this quote interesting: "The press rapidly gripped the power to influence public opinion after its invention in the 15th century because of its ability to mass duplicate information for public dissemination whoever controlled the press had the best position to control the minds of men". This quote is interesting to me because from the quote's perspective, it directly states that the press has the upper hand in influencing opinion amongst individuals. The parallel to this is that today, because the press has so much weight and attention, the government recognizes how easy it is to persuade people to believe information, most importantly to them – something that could make them look bad. Conversely, as the reading states, the first three newspapers were established at the colony's largest town, Boston, and the Puritan Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In 1689 Samuel Green, Jr. published the first American newspaper attempt, while simultaneously news bulletins that appeared later in the year were suppressed by the government as they were "tending to the disturbance of peace."

  Through this parallel, we can observe a correlation between the Partisan Press period and modern-day through  push back against the government regarding freedom of the press. The idea of freedom derives from the English Puritan religious beliefs that emphasize discipline for "the fearful struggle against wickedness". With the rising numbers of individuals settling into the 13 colonies, people became increasingly annoyed with the English rule. The system's order was starting to disintegrate and rebellion/anarchy was cultivating within the colonies 12 columns of the first American newspaper attempts regular issue filled the first page with inaccuracy and rumors put in place by a man named Benjamin Harris. As the reading states, "Harris believed a newspaper editor had the right to publish whatever he desired even though the paper's articles included information about inaccuracy, rumor, and bigoted remarks as news." Reading this reminded me strongly of the Julian Assange issue we've been following so closely. However, the difference between these two situations is that Assange reported correct information and got in the most trouble. I have a very hard time understanding that. It almost seems you can publish correct and incorrect information and somehow manage to "fall down the rabbit hole" in a slew of trouble. What's most fascinating to me, is that this perpetual pattern that has gone on for so long has remained so strong after all of these years.

  In another example, in 1721, James Franklin who was the older brother of Ben published a Boston paper called the New England Courant (messenger) which entailed editorials centered on current issues in the weaknesses and characteristics of people. "Franklin's feisty paper added the ascendancy of Anglicism, give gossip and sarcasm the dignity of print, and quickly gained a wide audience." The editorial even went as far as to attack religious and political leaders of the community and at one point even suggested that the governor be sent back to England. The government did in fact attempt to censor and indict Franklin but failed when the local Grand Jury ran short as Franklin's paper was the last paper the government tried to censor by license "with authority" in Massachusetts. The closest this reading comes to a parallel is when it states "Franklin illustrated that a newspaper's aggressive service to the public cause can elicit sufficient support to protect it from powerful foes." Powerful foes. Who are Julian Assange's powerful foes? You called it, it's still the government. Once again, a prime example of a publishment that gained the attention of a wide range of audience that resulted in tension and consequence. (Once again not encouraging Assange's behavior/ actions, refer back to previous article for further background.)

  Well, these are just a few of the many examples in history in which publication and press have gotten into hot water with the government, I think it's frustrating and interesting at the same time that this perpetual pattern has yet to be broken. Personally, I do believe that the idea of the government silencing journalists is becoming more extreme as time goes on and quite honestly it's scary. It was interesting to look back and reflect on historical events parallel to what is going on today and how little has changed. I'm shaking my head. So, I leave you with this question, can this pattern of silencing be broken? Or are we not destined to change because of the power above our heads?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Film: They Wont Forget

Journalism Heroes Pt. 2

Presentations Reflection