I've wanted to be a writer for as long as I can remember. I've written poems, short stories, 2/3 of a novel (so far) and a boatload of columns, sports stories, features and hard news. Well, make that two boatloads. I have a degree in print journalism and have taken a class called "History of Print Journalism." I even have the textbook on my bookshelf at the office. Yes, I'm a nerd.
But I don't remember names like Benjamin Franklin Bache, John Fenno and James Callender. I don't remember learning about Sam Adams' time behind the quill or Alexander Hamilton's stints owning newspapers. I did know Benjamin Franklin was a newspaperman. I knew Thomas Paine did some writing. But the early days of "journalism" in America were pretty dark for me. So I read "Infamous Scribblers: The Founding Fathers and the Rowdy Beginnings of American Journalism" by Eric Burns.
Burns did a lot of research in writing this book, and he quotes America's early newspapermen extensively. I can't really call them reporters because, while they did report a little, the majority of what they wrote was their opinion about the British, the president, the opposing political party or their competition.
These guys were not nice. At all.
Their style of "news writing" would not pass muster today. I doubt their works would even appear on opinion pages in most of today's newspapers. Some didn't even care if their attack had foundation or even merit. If it gave them the chance to pillory the editor of the other newspaper, that was good enough for them.
Some, like Adams, used their pages to encourage Americans to stand up to the British. Others, like Callender, took the opportunity to share scandal. Still others, like Hamilton, found themselves on both sides of the page at different times in their lives. Hamilton was the subject of scandal but also owned a couple newspapers before he died in his dual with Aaron Burr.
Burns chose a scholarly voice for his book, which got distracting and overbearing at times, especially when he slipped his opinion into the text. While I boast a pretty good vocabulary, he was using words I'd never heard of. I could figure out their meaning from the context, but don't ask me how to pronounce them. I got the sense that this book was a doctoral thesis with phrases like "which will now be considered at length" popping up.
Overall, however, the information provided was fascinating and offered a different glimpse into the beginnings of American journalism and the early days of the USA. While I don't necessarily agree with the vitriol that covered the pages of those early papers, I do think today's newspapers may have gone a little far the other direction. We don't question, we don't challenge, we don't cajole, we don't encourage. We feel we have to be really careful with what we say for fear of lawsuits or, gulp, hurting someone's feelings. Those early reporters didn't care. They were willing to take a stand, make a bold statement and stand by it. Some were sued and spent time in jail for the sake of the cause.
Times have changed. People have changed. Newspapers have changed. But knowing where we've come from can help us shape the future. So, my fellow journalists and writers, let's make it a different shape.
