Old-School Editorializing
Just a quick note, as we all watch the New Hampshire Republican primary results come in.
What struck me about New Hampshire's contest, being in the midst of historical research into such things, was the old-school nature of the Union Leader, a very conservative New Hampshire newspaper. It struck a lot of the media as interesting as well, but I didn't see anyone else commenting on such historical context.
The Union Leader is known for its endorsements of candidates, not so much for running an exemplary track record of picking the winners (for instance, this year they endorsed Newt Gingrich), but for their full-throated support of those whom they do decide to endorse.
Here's a short article in the Huffington Post on today's Union Leader, to show what I'm talking about. This article has a link to an image of the front page of today's Union Leader, to illustrate.
The Union Leader is known for running such front-page editorials, in support of those they endorse politically. This is greeted with bemusement by other "journalists" covering the action in New Hampshire, who don't quite know what to make of such naked displays of political boosterism in the media today.
This is, to be blunt, because they don't know beans about the history of American journalism. This used to be standard operating procedure for just about every newspaper in the country. "Endorsing" a candidate didn't just mean one single milquetoast editorial, buried in the back pages weeks before the election, it used to mean full-throated endorsement, in the literal sense of the word.
Once a newspaper had made its mind up, to put it another way, it jumped into the fray with both feet. Coming out for a particular candidate meant throwing the weight of the paper behind that candidate full-force, with daily front-page editorials about why their candidate was the best thing America had ever seen in a politician, and why any of the other clowns and pretenders running would be an absolute disaster for the future of our great country.
If you think this is exaggerated prose, it is not. It is, in fact, severely understated.
So while we all wait and see how big a margin Mitt Romney racks up in New Hampshire tonight, take a moment and check out that front-page image. This is where media editorializing was born, and I for one am glad to see one small paper in New England continuing such American journalistic traditions.
Even if I believe that Newt Gingrich would be an absolute disaster for the future of our great country, should he be elected. [Heh.]
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
The opposite end of the spectrum from today's practices is William Randolph Hearst -- see Citizen Kane for a quick and easy lesson on that -- but I don't think most papers were that extreme. Even I remember when they were a lot more involved.
it used to mean full-throated endorsement, in the literal sense of the word
They signed the candidates' backs?
Once a newspaper had made its mind up, to put it another way, it jumped into the fray with both feet. Coming out for a particular candidate meant throwing the weight of the paper behind that candidate full-force, with daily front-page editorials about why their candidate was the best thing America had ever seen in a politician, and why any of the other clowns and pretenders running would be an absolute disaster for the future of our great country.
Rather ironic that, back in the day, newspapers would be so political..
I say ironic because, back in the day, they also practiced REAL journalism... :D
Michale
yeah. Old School. Like Hearst with Yellow Journalism (which actually referred to cartoon characters, but was perfectly adaptable to anti-Chinese fervor).
Speaking of Hearst, do you mean journalism like the media driven war with Spain?
Be careful what you ask for. You might get it.
Even if I believe that Newt Gingrich would be an absolute disaster for the future of our great country, should he be elected. [Heh.]
funny thing, for all his flaws and foibles, i happen to believe that newt would be the LEAST disastrous of the bunch.
dsws -
OK, I was tired. The word "literal" was not appropriate. Mea culpa!
DerFarm -
Actually, I was going back even further, to the period roughly between 1790 and the Civil War. See if Wikipedia has anything on the "Washington Globe" newspaper, for instance...
But you are right about the "Yellow Kid" being the origin of the Yellow Journalism moniker!
:-)
-CW