Content-Type: text/html
New York City Press and the McKinley Assassination: Debates of Journalism Ethics When a Newspaper Was Accused of Killing a President.
One of the greatest and . . . best presidents that this country ever saw has been shot by a dastardly human beast. Isn't it a fact that sheets like the New York Journal are in large measure responsible for this miserable act?" Letter to the editor, Joseph Kestler, Passaic, New Jersey. (The New York Sun, 13 September 1901).
"Any person who has the nerve to accuse the New York Journal of inciting the assassination of President McKinley is evidently not of sound mind, and is otherwise savagely opposed to the principles of right, education, Christianity and everything that has a tendency to the upbuilding and enlightenment of mankind." Letter to the editor, G.W. P. Garrison, New York City. (The New York Journal, 27 September 1901).
Following the shooting death of President William McKinley in September 1901, the New York Journal and a rival, the New York Sun, promptly engaged in a letters to the editor war over who inspired the assassin. The seeds of that war were planted April 10, 1901. That's when William Randolph Hearst's Journal attacked McKinley in an editorial that ended with the following words: "Institutions, like men, will last until they die; and if bad institutions and bad men can be got rid of only by killing, then the killing must be done."[1] In June Hearst published another editorial that suggested "assassination can be a good thing." Hearst gave an example: "The murder of Lincoln, uniting in sympathy and regret all good people in the North and South, hastened the era of American good feeling."[2]
Three months later, Leon Czolgosz, 28, a self-described "socialist anarchist" shot McKinley in the stomach in Buffalo, New York. The president lingered for a week before dying. This paper examines public reaction and debates about journalistic responsibility published in five New York City newspapers following the president's shooting. The study starts Sept. 6 - the day McKinley was shot - and extends until Sept. 30, 1901. Sept. 30 was the cutoff date because by then discussion of journalistic responsibility for the killing disappeared from the pages of many New York City newspapers.[3]
.
Several scholars have previously studied news coverage of McKinley's assassination. In 1988 historian Don Sneed, in particular, looked at the way many New York and Washington, D.C. papers created anarchist stereotypes in 1901 news reports about the trial of Czolgosz. Using a cultural history approach in 1992, Peter Ausenhus investigated narrative devices used in McKinley assassination news coverage.[4]
In addition, there are numerous studies of Hearst. [5]
But the historical record lacks a description of comments from newspaper readers and editorial writers about standards of journalism of the time. A study of published comment surrounding McKinley's assassination fills this void: such an examination offers a fertile opportunity to discover whether letters and editorials discussed the responsibilities of a free press.
To fill that gap, this paper taps directly into discussion of journalism printed from Sept. 6 to Sept. 30, 1901, in five leading New York dailies - the New York Journal; the Evening Post; the New York Sun; the New York Times; and the New York World. The analysis includes all published editorials - a total of 995 - and all printed letters to the editor - 691 in total. A detailed thematic analysis is then undertaken of 41 editorials that discussed journalistic standards during this time frame, along with 143 letters that focused on journalism.
The questions that drive this research are these:
*What editorials and letters were published about journalism in the wake of accusations that the Journal caused McKinley's death? Who first made that accusation - rival editors or outraged readers?
*How did newspaper rivals handle the charges made against the Journal in their editorials? How did Hearst's Journal respond?
*What journalistic standards were discussed in both the letters and editorials?
The Selection of 1901 New York City Newspapers and Editorial Discussion of Journalism Related to McKinley Killing.
The year 1901 was a vitally important time in both United States and journalistic history. Technology was transforming society. For example, modern medicine extended the average life expectancy to 47. And the horseless carriage, which sold for $900, or a year's wages for the average worker, was spreading in popularity. But newspapers in particular were changing at breakneck speed.
Frank Luther Mott writes that newspapers, thanks to cheaper paper-making technology and advanced presses, were publishing a greater variety of news, pictures, features and editorials. Printing presses were able to handle color, and sequential comics were emerging, especially in the new popular Sunday editions, and photographs were being used.[6]
There were other journalistic changes underway as well. Mott wrote that "1901 marks the beginning of the decline of yellow journalism." For example, Joseph Pulitzer's New York World began to withdraw from its frantic circulation war with Hearst's Journal. Meanwhile, the New York Times was providing an alternative - journalism that its advertisements claimed, "does not soil the breakfast cloth." Adolph Ochs, who bought the Times in 1896, worked to make his new paper "of high quality, conservative in makeup, headlines and news reporting."[7]
While yellow journalism was declining in 1901, professionalism in journalism was emerging. Examining this topic in separate studies, researchers Robert Sobel and Douglas Birkhead write that the notion of the journalist as a professional evolved during the first few years of the 20th century.
Sobel writes that by the end of the 1899 the editor/journalist "took his place alongside the clergyman and doctor as a leading citizen and respected figure," with his own set of ethical standards.[8]
Birkhead writes that by the turn of the new century journalism became "prominent, if not pre-eminent as a profession." Journalists regarded themselves as the "most potent agency for good or evil" and editors saw their role as "the guides of current opinion."[9]
Ironically, while newspapers seemed to be king in 1901 - especially papers in New York City, as evident in their booming circulation and influence - some historians argue it was their last hurrah as the most important opinion-shapers for at least a decade. George Everett maintains that by 1902 many readers felt that newspapers, especially the New York City yellow journals, had grown tiresome with non-stop excesses.[10]
Hearst and Pulitzer were like overgrown children demanding "look at me, look at me," even as their initial cuteness began to wear thin.
Serious journalism, in a form that came to be known as muckraking, began to emerge in magazines such as Collier's and McClure's. In 1901, however, newspapers had arrived at a powerful peak. Newspaper giants such as Pulitzer, Hearst, and Ochs, were like bull elephants charging at each other with reckless abandon. And the ground that shook in the wake of their battles with each other was New York City.[11]
There were 29 daily newspapers competing in New York at this time, fighting for the attention of 3.4 million residents.[12] Even more important for the rest of the country, many newspapers across the United States began to turn yellow. Yellow journalism sprang up in Cincinnati, St. Louis, San Francisco and seven other large metropolitan centers.[13]
McKinley's murder offers a unique opportunity to study letters and editorials in New York City newspapers. These historic documents can reveal a great deal about the relationship readers and editors had with their newspapers and also offer a glimpse at journalistic ethical standards and issues at this time.[14]
Limitations
Such a study of letters offers many challenges, however. For example, the letters do not reflect the entire public conversation about journalism that took place in the past. But as journalism historian David Nord writes, letters to the editor provide a record of at least a portion of the ongoing conversation of a community.[15] It is also true that letters are filtered through editor/gatekeepers. This study cannot determine the extent of such editorial influence. Rather, it focuses on published letters to the editor as historical artifacts: These letters represent what readers saw in print. Simply by being published, the letters to the editor helped set the agenda for public discussion.[16] One researcher described letters to the editor as "more than a hot readership item and more than an access mechanism. It's a regional institution, combining the town meeting, the party line, the loafers' bench on the courthouse square and the continuing referendum."[17]
Literature Review: Letters to the Editor
Despite inherent problems in the study of letters to the editor, there is a small but steadily growing body of literature surrounding the historical study of such letters. Most research on letters to the editor can be divided into three categories: 1) Discussion of the hazards of trying to ascertain public opinion through letters to the editor; 2) Conjecture about who writes letters; and 3) Analysis of why people write letters to the editor.[18] One exception to these three categories is a series of recent articles that studies letters printed in 10 magazines between 1902 and 1912 and then in 1962, 1972, 1982 and 1992.[19]
A more prominent landmark exception to the three categories is the seminal work of historian Hazel Dicken-Garcia. She studied journalistic standards between 1800 and 1900 by reading scores of newspaper editorials, letters and published commentaries about the press in England and the United States. Of particular relevance is her success in discovering that journalists and readers in the 1800s were concerned with telling the truth and wrote about that concern in the editorial pages of newspapers.[20]
This research follows Dicken-Garcia's call to other scholars to study the historic record of published letters to the editor and editorials as one way to discover historical reflections of journalistic ethics. Such a discovery can add depth to modern discussions of journalism ethics.
How the Five Newspapers Were Chosen
Hearst's New York Journal was studied because it published two editorials, one in April and the other in June, blamed for inciting a presidential assassination. Hearst later said he didn't write the offensive editorials and only knew about the June reference to killing after the presses began to run. The record of who wrote the unsigned editorials is not clear. Some references suggest the author was editorial page editor Arthur Brisbane.[21] Others maintain the writer was reporter Arthur McEwen.[22] No matter who wrote the specific words, however, Hearst was blamed for their publication. And there was ample evidence to support that assertion, since Hearst consistently railed against the president and encouraged explosive editorials.
However, the Journal's editorial page was often the talk of New York City long before the infamous "killing must be done" editorial; the Journal often attracted comment because of its colorful owner. Hearst inherited more than $7.5 million from his widowed mother. And he enthusiastically poured money into the paper. He spent $3,000 a day to cover the Spanish-American War, for instance, and issued 40 different editions of the newspaper in a single day. He hired the best editors and reporters, often paying more than twice the standard rate. He then encouraged his reporters and editors to print sensational crime news, scandal and gossip to build readership. But even more outrageous and legendary were Hearst's and Brisbane's crusades on the editorial pages; accompanied with lurid cartoons, the Journal raged against privileges of the wealthy, fought for improved housing for the poor and attacked city corruption.[23]
The Journal was not alone, however, in wallowing in the excesses of yellow journalism. Its chief rival, and arguably the true creator of sensational journalism in the 20th century, was the New York World. This paper was owned and edited by Hearst's exact opposite, a lean, hungry Horatio Alger success story named Joseph Pulitzer. The World was the first to feature the Yellow Kid comic strip character. This bald child in a yellow nightshirt came to represent a lurid style of journalism that featured spicy headlines about such matters as white slavery, murder, embezzling, and adulterous couples.[24]
It is logical to study the World for reaction to charges that Hearst caused the death of a president since Pulitzer and Hearst spent most of their careers struggling to outdo each other in sensationalism, sales and scoops. In 1901 the two papers, the Journal and World, each selling for a penny, claimed to have more than 900,000 daily paid subscriptions.[25] Because of Pulitzer's intense rivalry with Hearst it would be completely in character if Pulitzer printed editorials and letters blaming Hearst for McKinley's murder.[26]
Another potential source of attack on Hearst for McKinley's death would be the sober New York Times. The owner of this 100,000-circulation daily,[27] Adolph Ochs, deliberately stayed above the fray of yellow journalism. But he may have been tempted to take advantage of Hearst's misfortunes and print letters attacking Hearst.
The New York Sun was included in this study because like the World, Journal, and Times, it, too, had a giant circulation; the editors proudly proclaimed that the morning edition sold more than 120,000 copies per day in 1901.[28] But the Sun was neither as serious as the Times nor as wild as the World or the Journal, the two yellow journals. Therefore, it could be argued the Sun is a good barometer of the middle ground of New York City journalism of 1901. Another reason to include the paper in this research is that for many years the Sun was under the direction of another New York City newspaper giant, Charles A. Dana. Dana died in 1897, leaving his son, Paul, in charge. Paul shaped the paper in his father's tradition for several years and continued the paper's role as outspoken critic of Hearst and his Journal.[29]
The Evening Post was studied to give a broader context to this research. The Post, which only claimed a daily circulation of 23,786, was a regular conservative Republican critic of both the yellow journals and the Times. The Post was established in 1801 by Alexander Hamilton and John Jay and designed to be a New York City Federalist organ. It became known chiefly for its reporting on commerce. While the paper was conservative overall, historians say the Post had a powerful and lively editorial page.[30]
Method
One of the first steps undertaken for this research was to establish a record of when the first complaints were printed against the Journal, accusing the paper of complicity in McKinley' murder. Then the ebb and flow of debate over journalistic conduct - who said what - was charted as it moved from letters to the editor, to editorials and back again. The purpose was to discover who first accused the Journal of murder. This record is explained in detail later.
After the public record was ascertained, all letters to the editor published in the five newspapers from Sept. 6 to Sept. 30 - a total of 691 - were analyzed. Those related to journalism, a total of 143, or 20 percent of the letters, were then labeled thematically. The same classification method was applied to the published editorials. A total of 995 editorials were printed in the newspapers during this period, and 41, or roughly 4 percent, discussed journalism. Like the letters, the editorials about journalism were categorized by themes.
A total of nine thematic categories emerged as readers and editors "constructed" journalism in their remarks, describing the functions they thought the press should serve. These thematic categories were derived from readers' and editors' comments. The categories include public service, moral force, political non-partisanship, truth telling, fairness, concern for the common man, money-making, sensationalism, and free press.[31]
Findings: Chronology of Debate - Who Blamed the Journal and When?
In a bold preemptory strike on Sept. 8, Hearst's New York Journal was one of the first newspapers to print accusations that it incited a presidential shooting: in an editorial, the Journal described what it claimed were accusations by rival newspapers that it had instigated the McKinley shooting. By the end of the month, a total of 123 letters were printed in the five newspapers discussing assassination and journalistic responsibility. Of this total, 84 letters were printed in the Journal defending Hearst and clearing him of charges that he inspired murder; 38 letters were published in the Sun condemning the Journal; and one letter was printed in the Post blaming Hearst. Ochs' lofty Times and Pulitzer's usually sensational World remained above the fray; neither paper published any letters on the topic of Hearst's link to the assassination.
Hearst's Journal actually tied with the Sun to be the first to print charges on its editorial page that the Journal was complicit in the attack on McKinley. The president was shot Sept. 6. In its Sept. 8 editorial, the Journal (in an editorial that some suggest was written by Hearst himself), declared that some people were alleging the Journal was responsible for inciting hatred that led to the president's assault. The Journal then debunked this charge by writing:
The Journal regrets, for the honor of journalism, that prominent (New York City) newspapers should take advantage of the suffering of the President and the grief of the people and try to make business capital by assailing the Journal, the opponent of the President's political party . . . Doubtless wherever journalism is sufficiently debased and men are sufficiently vile, editors may be found endeavoring to trade on the national grief and to obtain by appeals to passion and prejudice some advantage. The Journal has too sincere a sympathy for the President, too great a respect for the country's sorrow, too much self-respect, to reply to such men now. Later, when decency permits, the Journal will show what character of men bring such accusations at such a time. [32]
But until the Journal brought this issue to public attention, however, there had been no published reports in the five major New York papers blaming Hearst's paper for the president's shooting. Perhaps not coincidentally, though, letters from readers published that same day in the Sun accused the Journal of responsibility for the shooting. The accusation came in the form of five angry letters to the editor printed Sept. 8 - the first of what would eventually be 38 letters in the Sun accusing Hearst of murder,
" Is it a wonder that Anarchists and cranks and weak-minded people seek to murder the president when such mental food is given them from day to day [by the New York Journal]"? - that is how one letter writer phrased his complaint in the Sun against the Journal.
Another Sun reader wrote that "The editorial comments and cartoons in the Journal, extending over a period of many months, have produced the fruits of a horrible assassination."
An additional five more letters in the Sun published Sept. 9 further denounced the Journal for fomenting attacks against the president. The letters were quite specific in their lists of how the Journal had contributed to the presidential attack. An example of this is a letter that said the presidential shooting was "caused by the detestable, nameless crime committed by the Journal, of appealing to the lowest instincts in its readers and constantly lowering the standard of respect due to high public officers."[33]
From there the printed debate over the Journal's role in the shooting of the president began to multiply; most of the commentary came in the form of published letters to the editor rather than editorials. And the majority of the letters were published in the Journal and in the Journal's rival, the Sun.
In contrast, the Post stayed largely out of the battle; it printed only one letter about journalism Sept. 21, out of a total of only 12 letters published in September. That single letter from the chancellor of Syracuse University said the Journal "helped make the conditions that encouraged assassination."[34]
For its part, the Times printed no letters about the Journal - out of 110 letters it published in September. Six letters in the Times commented on journalism in general, however, and the themes of those letters are examined in more detail later. The World printed 114 letters to the editor. But it too, published no letters about the Journal.
While the Sun's readers leveled charges against him, Hearst behaved with uncharacteristic restraint. He printed only four editorials about journalism in September. The Sept. 8 commentary said the Journal would respond later to charges brought against it. Then on Sept. 13 the Journal wrote that "everywhere 'responsibility' for the attack on the president is laid at the door of some political opponent or business rival. In this disgusting wrangle the Journal refuses absolutely to take the smallest part."[35]
But this doesn't mean the Journal accepted the letters-to-the-editor criticism published in the Sun lying down. The Journal responded to the stream of angry letters printed in the Sun accusing Hearst of inspiring the slaying of the president with its own pack of letters to the editor. The Journal printed 84 letters about the slaying. This was more than twice the number of published letters on the subject in the Sun. Nearly all these 84 letters printed in the Journal, or 91 percent, discussed the paper's role in Czolgosz assassination and defended the Journal and cleared the newspaper of any responsibility for the McKinley shooting. (The remaining 9 percent did not discuss journalism but focused on the shooting.) And in an apparent attempt to preempt charges that the letters were made up, the vast majority of the letters were uncharacteristically signed by the letter writers, using what the paper said were readers' real names, not pseudonyms, as was the general custom. In addition the letter writers' addresses were printed as well, sometime even accompanied by their occupations.
Here are some examples:
The people think nowadays for themselves. I am one of the people. You don't know me, nor I you; but the dastardly attacks of the cruel, ferocious, hypocritical and currish Sun on your splendid and generous - generous in all ways - journal is my excuse for this letter.
That's what John E. M'cann of Fourth Avenue wrote Sept. 23. He accused the Sun of hypocrisy because the paper had sharply attacked presidents in the past. His proof was that "The Sun for four years ran a picture of a President of the United States upon its editorial page with the word FRAUD branded upon its forehead."[36]
J. Reeves of Jersey City wrote: "I noticed an attack in the letters in the Sun, which I think is the work of a jealous newspaper man."[37]
" I hold the New York Sun responsible for this most deplorable attempt to kill our President, Mr. McKinley." That's how reader A. Guilner of New York City started a letter that defended the Journal. The letter continued, "If you look over the issues of the Sun you will at once notice that it defends every action of a certain moneyed power and all trusts, if right or wrong, by the queerest methods. Its pages are full of skillful lies." [38]
Under Hearst's direction, the Journal began its war of letters slowly on Sept. 17. It printed only one letter to the editor that attacked the Sun that day and cleared the Journal of complicity in the McKinley death. But then the paper picked up steam. On Sept. 23 it published nine more such letters criticizing the Sun for accusing the Journal of inspiring McKinley's death. Then five more letters with essentially the same message were printed Sept. 24, 16 letters Sept. 25, and one letter Sept. 26. Another 14 letters against the Sun were printed Sept. 27, 15 letters Sept. 28, nine letters Sept. 29, and finally 16 on Sept. 30. This grouping together of letters to the editor could indicate that readers were responding en masse to charges that Hearst inspired a presidential assassination and were barraging the Journal with letters of support.[39] Or, on the other hand, Hearst may have been hoarding up letters and printing them all together to create an impression of a groundswell of public defense of his paper.
There was no such uprising, real or imagined, however, in published editorials. In comparison to the letters to the editor, editorials printed on the subject of the McKinley murder were extremely mild - and limited in number. A total of only 15 published editorials in all five newspapers - out of 995, or 1 percent - discussed the Journal and charges that the newspaper inspired an assassin. The Journal, for example, published only four editorials commenting on journalism in September. Of these, only two dealt with who was responsible for McKinley's shooting.
The Post, in comparison with the Journal, published 10 editorials about journalism. But only two dealt with the Journal's alleged role in inspiring a killer. And both these editorials defended the Journal's right to free speech. In a Sept. 21 editorial comment the Post said there must be free discussion in newspapers, including sharp attacks on the president. The Post editorial concluded that people offended by the yellow journalism of the Journal should simply stop reading that paper. But, the Post warned, "The theory, which has been seriously advanced, that Czolgosz was led to assassinate President McKinley by reading a certain daily New York newspaper, is without a particle of evidence, and is an affront to common sense."
That same message was published in an earlier New York Times editorial dated Sept. 13 that said, "Gambling is a deplorable vice, but it does not produce typhoid fever. Yellow journalism is loathsome and pernicious, but it does not provoke Anarchists to attempt the assassination of Presidents." [40]
The Times printed 14 editorials about journalism in September. But the one described above was its one and only comment on the Journal and its alleged encouragement of assassination.
The World abstained completely from discussing the Journal in the 176 editorials it published from Sept. 6-30. Pulitzer's paper published only two editorials about journalism during this time - one complaining about false rumors being spread about the alleged torture of the assassin Czolgosz, and another commending the Times for good work on its fiftieth anniversary. This research has not been able to determine why Pulitzer was so uncharacteristically restrained at a time when he could have throttled a hated rival.
One newspaper, however - the Sun - made a crusade of attacking the Journal and accusing Hearst of inciting a presidential shooting. The Sun published a total of eight editorial assaults on the Journal from Sept. 6-30, an average of one editorial every three days. The first attack started mildly enough on Sept. 8 when the Sun asked "Just how long the merchants and the people of New York will tolerate this sort of thing [rabble rousing in the Journal] remains to be seen."
But by Sept. 12 the rhetoric grew hot when the Sun described the Journal as "a menace to our civilization," adding that it
began with vulgarity and indecency, and for that reason was soon excluded from the homes of refined and self-respecting families as a corrupting influence. . . Gradually, however, it has been able to appeal to the consideration of certain uncritical minds . . . Now an atrocious Anarchistic assault on the President has been provoked by the teachings of this journalistic school. Such journalism has now graduated into a serious and studied propaganda of social revolution. . . Never before in the history of civilization anywhere was an instrument of disorder and sedition used so effectually.
The Sun further described the Journal as
journalistic offal . . . that tends to the degradation of the whole body of newspapers in the public estimation. It is likely to bring a noble profession into reproach. . . . It has tainted the whole business and awakened distrust of the newspaper generally."
The Sun concluded that anyone who advertises in the Journal or buys it is "feeding a monster which is using the strength they are giving nutrition to in an effort to strike down the civilization upon which they depend." [41]
The Sun continued with several similar editorials until the end of the month, each time getting a bit more personal and angry in its assault on Hearst. The paper finally wrote Sept. 25:
It is Mr. Hearst's misfortune to be far from popular. He is about as popular as smallpox or yellow fever. His part as breeder of sedition and an inciter of violence, a player upon the passions of the ignorant, a rich fomenter of hostility to wealth, is now generally understood. It has been his favorite diversion to blow into flame the coals of riot and murder that smolder in the homes of society where he finds congenial readers. [42]
Findings: Letters to the Editor and Editorials, Numbers and Themes
The five New York newspapers published a total of 691 letters, spread over 24 days. That means the five papers printed a combined average of about five letters a day. But within that total, each paper varied widely in its frequency of published letters - and the amount that discussed journalism. The Sun was the leader in sheer volume, publishing 221 letters. Only 43 letters discussed journalism, however, which also might surprise modern readers accustomed to regular reader critiques of journalism. The Journal, in comparison, printed 134 letters - and 92 focused on journalism. There were 114 letters published in the World, with only one letter discussing journalism. A total of 110 letters were printed in the Times, with six focused on journalism. The Post printed only one journalism letter out of 12 published letters.
Exactly why one major metropolitan newspaper printed only 12 letters to the editor while a rival printed 221 letters is a question that is beyond the scope of this paper. The five newspapers studied here had no published policy regarding letter selection. And there is no historical record to explain how editors chose which letters to print in 1901. A historical researcher can only judge the text of the printed record of letters to the editor in 1901 - which in this case is comparable to today's standards. Most modern daily newspapers, for instance, print at least six letters a day, and many publish substantially more. [43]
While the number of published letters to the editor in the five 1901 newspapers is close to today's standards, the letter writers' two most commonly expressed views about the purpose of journalism - to serve as a moral force, and to provide a public service - are quite different. Table 1, below, shows that out of the143 letters printed about journalism, 112, or 78 percent, said in effect that the most important goal of journalism was to serve as a moral force in society.
A good example of this theme is a New York Journal letter that said a good newspaper
strives to lift up the masses by advocating the brotherhood of man, the practice of the Golden Rule, the arbitration of strikes and disputes between labor and capital, and which gives hope for the future, which sympathizes with the downtrodden.[44]
The second most commonly expressed goal of journalism was to be of public service, which readers explained as meaning newspapers should provider information needed for everyone to be good citizens. A total of 49 journalism letters expressed this view. In third place in frequency was a total of 31 letter writers that said newspapers should speak for the common man - as opposed to writing on behalf of the rich and powerful. Then there were modern sounding complaints about journalism - 40 letters said the press was too preoccupied with sensationalism, while 27 letters said the press was not living up to its obligations to tell the truth. Twelve letter writers were upset about the fairness of journalists, while nine letters complained about journalism's obsession with money-making. Concerns about political partisanship and attempts to muzzle a free press were discussed in eight and four letters, respectively.
Table 2 shows a similar breakdown of journalistic themes expressed in editorials. Moral force, public service, and a concern with sensationalism are the three most commonly expressed themes in the editorials, matching the themes expressed in letters to the editor.
Table 1-Leading Themes, numbers & percent
(all percentages are rounded off) Sept. 6-30 (total 143)
Themes 1901 - journalism letters
theme %
Moral Force 112 letters
78%
Public Service 49 letters
34%
Sensationalism 40 letters
27%
Common Man 31 letters
21%
Truth 27 letters
18%
Fairness 12 letters
8%
Money Making 9 letters
6%
Political Partisanship 8 letters
5%
Free Press 4 letters
2%
Table 2-Leading Themes, Editorials Sept. 6-30 (total 41)
Themes 1901 - Editorials about journalism
theme %
Moral Force 27 editorials
65%
Public Service 19 editorials
46%
Sensationalism 8 editorials
19%
Truth 4 editorials
9%
Free Press 4 editorials
9%
Political Partisanship 3 editorials
7%
Fairness 1 editorial
2%
Common Man 1 editorial
2%
Summary: Discussion and Findings
The Journal and Sun went to war over who was to blame for the shooting of McKinley. One newspaper attacking another is not unusual in the history of the press. But what is different here is the choice of weapons. Instead of savage editorials berating each other daily, the primary weapon used in this fight was a series of letters to the editor. Clearly the editors were stacking the deck in this fight, choosing which letters to run, and most likely censoring others, since not one letter in the Sun ever criticized the Sun for any failings. The same was true of the Journal, which never published derogatory letters about the Journal.
But why both newspapers' editors decided to use letters to the editor as the vehicle for their contempt for each other when they both had ample opportunity to write an endless series of editorials is a puzzle. Perhaps in an attempt at better public relations, the rival editors thought letters could be heard as the true voice of the people - a voice that might be considered more powerful than editorials - even if this voice was filtered by editors who muted any sour notes.
This finding of letters, as opposed to editorials, carrying most of the attack against Hearst directly contradicts Willard Bleyer's historical account of how New York newspapers reacted to McKinley's death. Bleyer wrote that Hearst was "vigorously denounced" by the New York City newspapers for his "incendiary utterances and cartoons." [45] The implication of Bleyer's analysis is that many newspapers wrote editorials against Hearst. In fact, of five leading New York dailies, only the Sun attacked the Journal, and that attack came largely in the form of letters to the editor.
The lack of editorials on the subject also contradicts what Hearst Jr. wrote about the way the Journal was accused of inciting an assassin. Hearst Jr. wrote that after McKinley was shot "rival newspapers launched a series of all-out attacks on my father."[46] Again, the suggestion here is that newspapers editorialized against Hearst. Hearst biographer Judith Robinson wrote the same basic account in 1991, stating that the "press vilified him [Hearst] as the perpetrator of the dastardly act [of assassination.] [47]
But aside from the Sun, few published attacks, either in letters or editorials, were discovered during this research. Despite this golden opportunity to attack the much-hated Hearst, the three other leading newspapers that were studied essentially stood on the sidelines while the Sun and Journal locked horns. Not only were there few editorials about Hearst, there may have been a blackout on any news coverage of protests against Hearst, as well. Five Hearst histories say there were several anti-Hearst rallies and parades in New York, right after McKinley was shot. Hearst was reportedly hung in effigy several times throughout the city.[48] But no news stories about these events were found in any of the five leading New York City newspapers examined here. In this regard, the Republican Party issued a campaign brochure in 1901 charging a press cover-up. The brochure stated that there were three anti-Hearst rallies, Sept. 18, 19, and 20, 1901, in East New York, New Brunswick, New Jersey and again in East New York, respectively - but no news stories about the events and Hearst's being hung in effigy all three nights.[49]
These findings are significant because until now the historical record has not reflected direct evidence of exactly how readers and journalists reacted to Hearst's editorial call for a presidential assassination. Nor has this record attempted to address the issue of what journalists and readers wrote about journalistic ethics in 1901. This research shows 123 letters were published discussing Hearst's journalistic ethics and his "killing must be done" editorial. It is, however, hard to argue that an accurate voice of the people is represented in these letters; that's because most of the letters defended Hearst and Hearst only published letters defending the Journal. But the sheer number of letters in both the Sun and Journal show that at least some readers were concerned enough to voice their feelings.
This research also uncovers a disconnect between what journalists claimed in editorials was important in a newspaper - moral force and public service - and how they reacted when faced with the reality of a newspaper calling for an assassination. Essentially there was a vast silence on the editorial pages of three leading New York dailies.
The debate about the Journal's role in the assassination of a president came at a significant turning point in the development of the American press. A new form of journalism called muckraking was developing. Yellow journalism was in decline. The myth surrounding this decline is that because of a growing sense of professionalism New York reporters and editors rose up as a group and denounced Hearst and his excesses, thus kicking off yellow journalism's demise. But reality is more complicated; letters to the editor made up the bulk of the commentary on the Journal and its call for murder. Most of these letters were published in the Journal, and some were published in the Sun. The Sun also printed eight editorials against Hearst. In the meantime, three rival newspapers were largely mute. The exception is one editorial each in the Post, and Times, defending the Journal's right to engage in free speech. It has long been said there is an eleventh commandment in the Republican Party - never speak ill of a fellow Republican. Perhaps there was a similar commandment among journalists in 1901 - never speak ill of a fellow journalist, even when he calls for a presidential assassination.
As bits of historical evidence the letters and editorials examined here help develop a picture of what letters-to-the-editors and editorials published in 1901 said was good and bad journalism. Moreover, this research shows how a presidential crisis provoked reader comment about journalism; readers carried the banner of an important debate, while three leading newspaper editors remained silent.
[1] New York Journal, 10 April 1901, 4.
[2] New York Journal, 1 June 1901, 6.
[3] Czolgosz was found guilty of McKinley's murder Sept. 24, 1901 and executed Oct. 29.
[4] Peter Ausenhus, "Journalism in National Crises: A Cultural History of the Garfield and McKinley Assassinations" (Master's Thesis, University of Minnesota, 1992).
[5] Some works about Hearst include: Carlson, & Bates, Hearst: Lord of San Simeon; John Tebbel, The Life and Good Times of William Randolph Hearst (New York: E.P. Dutton, 1952); W. A. Swanberg, Citizen Hearst: A Biography of William Randolph Hearst (New York: Charles Scribners's Sons, 1961); L. Chaney, & M. Cieply, The Hearsts: Family and Empire - The Later Years (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981); Judith Robinson, The Hearsts: An American Dynasty (New York: Avon, 1991); Ben Procter, William Randolph Hearst: The Early Years, 1863-1910 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998); and J. Casserly & William Randolph Hearst Jr., The Hearsts: Father and Son (Niwot, Colorado: Rinehart, 1991).
[6] Frank Luther Mott, American Journalism: A History: 1690-1960, 3rd edition (New York: Macmillan Co., 1962), 577-599.
[7] Adolph Ochs, New York Times, 19 August 1896, 4.
[8] Robert Sobel, The Manipulators: America in the Media Age (Garden City, N.J.: Anchor Press, 1976), 12. In this work Sobel articulates a few standards, such as the concept of a free press, but he is more concerned with explaining the overall development of a separate journalistic identity.
[9] Douglas Birkhead, "Presenting the Press, Journalism and the Professional Project" (Ph.D. diss., University of Iowa, 1982) 114.
[10] George Everett, "The Age of New Journalism, 1883-1900," in The Media in America: A History, 2nd edition, eds., Wm. David Sloan, James G. Stovall, & James D. Startt (Scottsdale, Arizona: Publishing Horizons, 1993), 257.
[11] Will Irwin, Collier's, 4 March 1911, 20.
[12] Alfred McClung Lee, The Daily Newspaper in America: The Evolution of a Social Instrument (New York: Octagon Books, 1973), 731.
[13] Mott, American Journalism, 539.
[14] Kalman Seigel, Talking Back to the New York Times, Letters to the Editor, 1851-1971 (New York: Quadrangle Books, 1972), 3.
[15] David Nord, "The Nature of Historical Research," in Research Methods in Mass Communication eds. Guido Stempel and Bruce Westley (Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice Hall, 1989), 290.
[16] Numerous studies have looked at the agenda-setting process, starting with Maxwell E. McCombs and Donald L. Shaw "The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media," Public Opinion Quarterly, 1972, 176-187. McCombs and Shaw have updated their work, along with co-author David Weaver, in Communication and Democracy: Exploring the Intellectual Frontiers in Agenda-Setting Theory (Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erblaum, 1997). Another relevant discussion of agenda-setting was written by Michael Bruce MacKuen, "Social Communication and the Mass Policy Agenda," in Michael Bruce MacKuen and Steven Lane Coombs, More Than News: Media Power in Public Affairs (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1981), 17- 44.
[17] J. Clemon, "In Defense of Initials," The Masthead 28, 1976, 17.
[18] Public opinion and its connection to letters to the editor is discussed by: David L. Grey and Trevor R. Brown, "Letters to the Editor: Hazy Reflections of Public Opinion," Journalism Quarterly 47 (Autumn 1970), 450- 56, 471; and Paula Cozort Renfro, "Bias in Selection of Letters to the Editor," Journalism Quarterly 56 (Winter 1979), 822-26. The demographics of letter writers is pursued by: Sidney A. Forsythe, "An Exploratory Study of Letters to the Editor and Their Contributors," Public Opinion Quarterly 14 (Spring 1950), 143-44; William D. Tarrant, "Who Writes Letters to the Editor?" Journalism Quarterly 34 (Fall 1957), 501-502; Gary L. Vacin, "A Study of Letter-Writers," Journalism Quarterly 42 (Summer 1965), 502; Emmett Buell, Jr., "Eccentrics or Gladiators? People Who Write About Politics in Letters to the Editor," Social Science Quarterly 56 (December 1975), 440-49; and David B. Hill, "Letter Opinion on ERA," Public Opinion Quarterly 45 (Fall 1981), 384-92. The motivation of letter writers is studied by: John Andrew Klempner, "People Who Write In: Communication Aspects of Opinion Letter Writing," (Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1966); Byron G. Lander, "Functions of Letters to the Editor - A Re-Examination," Journalism Quarterly 49 (Spring 1972), 142; Steve Pasternak and Suraj Kapoor, "The Letters Boom," The Masthead 28 (Fall 1976), 17; and David Pritchard and Dan Berkowitz, "How Readers' Letters May Influence Editors and News Emphasis: A Content Analysis of 10 Newspapers, 1948-1978," Journalism Quarterly 68 (Fall 1991), 388-395.
[19] Brian Thornton, "Telling It Like It Is: Letters To The Editor Discuss Journalism Ethics in 10 American Magazines, 1962, 1972, 1982 and 1992," Journal of Magazine and New Media Research Vol. 1, (Spring 1999) since this is an online article, it has no page number. Also see by Thornton: "'Gospel of Fearlessness' or 'Outright Lies': A Historical Examination of Magazine Letters to the Editor, 1902-1912 and 1982-1992," American Journalism (Spring 1998), 35-55; "The Disappearing Media Ethics Debate in Letters to the Editor," Journal of Mass Media Ethics 13 (No. 1, 1998), 40-55; "Moral Force or Just the Facts: The Debate over the Standards of Journalism in the Muckraking Era." New Jersey Journal of Communication (Fall 1995), 83-102; "Muckraking Journalists and Their Readers: Perceptions of Professionalism,"Journalism History 21 (Spring 1995), 29-41.
[20] Hazel Dicken-Garcia, Journalistic Standards in Nineteenth-Century America (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989), 3.
[21] Casserly & Hearst, The Hearsts, 45.
[22] Tebbel, Life and Good Times, 198.
[23] Hiley H. Ward, Mainstreams of American Media History (Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1997), 284.
[24] Ward, Mainstreams, 254.
[25] All newspaper circulation claims for this period are suspect, however, since there was no Audit Bureau of Circulation yet and no way to confirm paper circulations. See Mott, American Journalism, 537.
[26] For a description of Merrill's work with Pulitzer see James W. Barrett, The World, The Flesh and Messrs. Pulitzer (New York: Vanguard Press, 1931), 68.
[27] Willard G. Bleyer, Main Currents in the History of American Journalism (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1927), 408.
[28] Eugene C. Harter quoted this figure in Boilerplating America: The Hidden Newspaper (New York: University Press of America, 1991), 152-154. He credited the information to the Remington Bros. Newspaper Manual (New York City, 1902), 207-208.
[29] Frank M. O'Brien, The Story of the Sun (New York: George H. Doran Co., 1918), 426.
[30] Sidney Kobre, Development of American Journalism (Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Co. 1969), 269.
[31] Both the categories and coding were driven by the readers' and editorial writers' own words. For example, many letter writers repeatedly discussed moral force in journalism - so that was one of the first categories established. Then other themes, such as public service emerged. Gradually nine categories were created to accommodate journalistic standards mentioned in editorials or letters to the editor. A second coder was used to test whether a letter was indeed a discussion of journalism. Each letter to the editor and editorial could be and often was coded more than once if it discussed more than one journalistic theme. Intercoder reliability, as measured by a formula described by Ole Holsti, exceeded .90 for all tests. For a description of the intercoder reliability test used here see Holsti , Content Analysis for the Social Sciences (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1969).
[32] New York Journal, 8 September 1901, 4.
[33] New York Sun, 9 September 1901, 6.
[34] New York Post, 21 September 1901, 4.
[35] New York Journal, 13 September 1901, 4.
[36] John Ernest M'cann, New York Journal, 23 September 1901, 4.
[37] J. Reeves, New York Journal, 23 September 1901, 4.
[38] New York Journal, 23 September 1901, 4.
[39] All the letters had dates written at the end, indicating when the letters were written. All were dated within a few days of publication.
[40] New York Times, 13 September 1901, 4.
[41] New York Sun, 12 September 1901, 4.
[42] New York Sun, 25 September 1901, 4.
[43] There are few reliable figures on how many letters to the editor each daily newspaper in New York or the United States regularly publishes. But an informal survey undertaken for this article revealed the Washington Post, New York Times and Los Angeles Times published at least eight letters a day in the first week of June, 1998. The Ottoway Newspaper chain published a Spring 1998 newsletter that showed how many letters were printed by each of the papers in the small chain in 1997. Here are some excerpts - The Gloucester Daily Times published 1,152 letters in 1997; The Cape Cod Times published 1,960 letters; The Medford Mail Tribune published 2,007; The New Bedford Standard-Times printed 1,264 letters; while the Salem Evening News published 1,476 letters. The Ottoway chain, which consists of 19 dailies and six weeklies, published a total of 25,778 letters to the editor in 1997. See "The 1997 Letters Count," Ottoway News Extra, Spring 1998, 8-9.
[44] "Believer in Progressive Journalism, " New York Journal, 23 September 1901, 4.
[45] Bleyer, Main Currents, 381.
[46] Hearst Jr., The Hearsts, 45, 46.
[47] Robinson, The Hearsts, 328.
[48] Procter writes that "mobs seized Hearst newsboys, trashing or burning their papers." See Procter, William Randolph Hearst, 168. Robinson writes that Hearst was hanged in effigy and his life threatened in public. See Robinson, The Hearsts, 328. Hearst Jr. writes the same thing as does Carlson and Bates in Hearst, 113, and Tebbel, in Life and Good Times, 198.
[49] McKinley, the Martyr, Republican Party campaign brochure (Allied Printing, Albany, New York, 1901, from the Buffalo & Erie Historical Society). The brochure lists specific times and addresses of anti-Hearst protests.