Outline of Vietnam War

I. 1965-1967: American Support

• America enters Vietnam War
• Troops numbers increase
• Coverage is extremely favorable to U.S. involvement in war
• Brutal war images are shown to Americans, including burning of Vietnamese villages, Americans are shown how gruesome the war is becoming.

II. 1968: Support Shrinking

• Tet Offensive is portrayed in the media as a U.S. defeat, despite military personal claiming it as a Viet Cong failure. Media rejects proposal of producer Jack Fern that NBC begin a series showing Tet as a victory.
• Viet Cong prisoner is shot point blank in the middle of the day in front of everybody. Americans are shown in graphic detail the execution of the prisoner and complained that it was in bad taste to air the footage. 
• Americans tired of the graphic images showing U.S. lives being lost, begin questioning involvement in the war.

III. 1969-1971: Opposition Reigns Supreme

• Walter Cronkite, highly respected and influential journalist travels to Vietnam, portrays the war as unwinnable.
• Other members of the media follow suit and demand U.S. to pull out of the war.
• New York Times and Washington Post produce documents showing U.S. intentions for entering war were political and not humanitarian or democratic.
• American opinion shifts from semi-favorable to overwhelmingly unfavorable.
• President Johnson announces the reduction of U.S. troops, in addition to his announcement that he will not run for reelection. 

Personal Thoughts On The Media's Involvement In The Vietnam War

     In all of my blog posts, I've tried to link the events I've studied to events going on right now. After reading the chapter about television's involvement in the Vietnam War, I can't help but think of the war going on right now in Iraq. At the start of the Vietnam War, most Americans were in favor of the country's involvement, but through time, support started to dwindle, until opposition outnumbered supporters. Television had a huge role in that shift. Americans were getting tired of seeing brutal images on their tv sets night after night, with no resolve. Much like America's support of the Iraq War quickly turned sour once weapons of mass destruction were not found.
     Respected, trusted journalists like Walter Cronkite were picking sides. Americans looked at in the sense that, if someone as unbiased, impartial, and trustworthy as Cronkite felt they had to risk their reputation to speak out about the war, then they knew something we didn't, and we should follow their judgement.
      It was the first and last war televised without censorship, and judging by the outcome, we can understand why it was the last. The media drastically changed America's involvement in the war. Their portrayal that Americans were fighting a losing battle was enough to push the public to oppose the war altogether.
      Now, obviously, this is what war is. It's one side of human beings killing another side, until one party caves in. We all know that; Americans back then knew that, but being aware of what happens in times of war, and actually seeing it for yourself are two different things. People don't want to turn on their tv sets and see their own being killed every night. I don't think that is unique to the Vietnam War but rather war overall. Like I said before, this was the first time Americans were able to get this much insight into what was going on. They weren't used to such brutality, so naturally, they were going to be shocked. The media took this, rightly or wrongly, as an opportunity to put America on their side and fight for what they thought was right, which was ending the U.S. involvement in this war. If that meant they had to portray the Tet Offensive as a major win for the Viet Cong, when most military officials said, if anything, it was actually a failure, then so be it. Americans didn't need much convincing. You turn your tv on every night and see people from your country getting killed, and trusted members of the media are saying we should pull out; you're more than likely going to agree with that sentiment.
      The role the media had in this war changed the outcome of the war. Who's to say the war doesn't end differently if they spin the story differently? If they show the war effort as a success, do Americans continue to support it? Do we keep our troops in Vietnam longer? Does the war end up being considered a success? You never know. Never underestimate the power of the media. They have more pull than most people realize.

Summary On the Media's Coverage of The Vietnam War

In the mid 1960's, things were different. Thanks to technological advances, most Americans were getting their news from television sets as opposed to periodicals. Imagery was a big part of the media's involvement in the Vietnam war, and you can accomplish a lot more when your images are video clips of the actual war, as opposed to just still pictures or political cartoons. This was as raw as it gets. Horrific scenes of violence shown right there on your television set.
     In 1965, America officially entered the war by sending in ground troops and ordering bombing raids over North Vietnam. Coverage during this time was mostly favorable and Americans, although concerned about the amount of violence going on within the war, felt the war was necessary, and supported the government's stance that we needed to be there we needed to support South Vietnam in the name of democracy.
     As the years went on, so did the increase of American troops, as well as an increase in ratings for television news channels. People were glued to their sets, and news channels were providing every gorey detail of the war on a nightly basis. Some of the material was questionable, like American troops shown burning down entire villages with cigarette lighters and harming not only the enemy, but innocent civilians. American viewers started to see this war as nothing more than senseless violence at the expense of american casualties. In other words, a war that doesn't seem as just and necessary as it once did. The Tet Offensive in 1968 helped strengthen this belief, and so began the decline of American support.
     Already unfamiliar with the guerilla warfare tactics of the Viet Cong, Americans and their South Vietnamese allies were taken by surprise during the Tet Offensive, a simultaneous attack on hundreds of sites in South Vietnam including not only military sites, but villages and cities as well. The element of surprise always count for something, and not only were troops initially stunned, but their American audience back at home were also shaken up. The difference here is, after the smoke cleared, military officials saw this attack as a failure on the part of the Viet Cong, and the American public saw this as yet another reason to pull out. Unfortunately for those in government who wanted the war to continue, the media took the side of the people.
     Soon after this, the war seemed to get more violent, and senseless in the eyes of the American people. A Viet Cong officer shot point blank, execution style in the middle of a town as opposed to a battlefield is one of the most horrifying images shown not just then, but ever. Americans wanted out. They needed someone they trusted to side with them, and show them that yes, they were right for feeling how they did. Walter Cronkite became that man.
     Already one of the most influential voices of his time, Mr. Cronkite was the most respected journalist at that time. People trusted him to bring them the cold hard facts, the truth behind every story. Although they didn't know him personally, Americans shared a connection with this man on a somewhat emotional level. With all the craziness going on in this war, they needed someone there to make sense of it all. Someone to do damage control and regain the support Americans once had for the war. So when Cronkite traveled to Vietnam to see just how bad it really was, the outcome all but officially ended the war.
     Prior to him traveling to Vietnam, Cronkite was a firm supporter of the government. He trusted their judgement, just like American viewers trusted his; and although journalists are taught to just report the news for what it is, and not take sides, Cronkite jepordized his credibility and did what he felt was right on a very human level, for the sake of the country. He did this without the use of propoganda, without lies, without false information. He showed the war for what it was, and it was ugly. Cronkite looked like a somber, beaten man. A man who was ready to accept defeat and move on out. The tone of his reporting was depressing, and put the nail in the coffin of any hope the government had of gaining support from it's people. President Johnson, after watching Cronkite's piece on the war is quoted as saying "I've lost Cronkite, I've lost the war".  This was the beginning of the end for America's involvement in Vietnam.
     It wasn't long before other media sources joined in. In 1971 the New York Times and the Washington Post began producing secret documents showing America's interest in Vietnam wasn't in the name of democracy or humanity, but rather political gain. Anti-war demostrators were increasing, voices were getting louder, and soon the U.S. had no choice but to pull out of the war. It wasn't long after Cronkite's piece that President Johnson announced the reduction of U.S. troops, and his decision not to run for reelection. It is yet another moment in our storied history where journalism played a big role in shaping our country.
    

[Videos] Vientam News Coverage

Walter Cronkite on his Tet Offensive Editorial

According to the source, this is an interview from 1996:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDNJL0mTHWI

Source: http://www.youtube.com/user/Newseum

News coverage on the war

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oPMnVef1t4

Source: http://www.youtube.com/user/RealAgentOfSHIELD

[Photos] Images From The Vietnam War

                    Wounded GI's in battle
Source: http://www.esuhistoryprof.com/vietnam_online.htm

South Vietnamese general assassinating Viet Cong officer
Source: http://pulitzerprize.org/photography/vietnam/

Journalism and The Vietnam War

Up until this point, I've been showing journalism in one medium only. Newspapers and magazines. In the historical examples we've looked at thus far, newspapers and magazines were enough to bury opposition. Articles exposing injustices and corruption, cartoon images, all printed on black and white paper were enough to do serious damage at this point. However, what happens when technology advances, and the culture changes. When people are getting more news from their televisions than they are from newspapers. You bring the movement to their living room. The Vietnam War was the first and last war shown to Americans without censorship. Brutal, vivid, extremely violent images were shown to American families all around the country and positively or negatively, impacted America's involvement in the war. We'll be looking at how journalism, for better or worse [we'll get to opinions later] changed the war on a massive scale.

Muckraking Summary

     The Gilded Age of American history saw a huge increase in industrialization and the economy was booming. Corporations were creating factories and new jobs at an alarming rate and the country was flexing it's dominance as a world power.
     New inventions were being made, advances in technology and medicine were on the rise, and big businesses were at the top of the food chain. Unfortunately, with money and power comes abuse of such power, in the hopes of obtaining even more money.
     Corruption was running rampant, and not just corruption, but unsafe practices within factories and unsafe, untested medicines were being given to the public without them knowing the harmful effects they may cause. The American people were obviously unaware of what was happening around them, and who could blame them? They had no way of knowing. Fortunately for the country, big business wasn't the only thing booming; journalism was too. Thanks to the muckrakers of the early 1900s, this country went under serious reform.
     In 1902, a man by the name of Lincoln Steffens, who would go on to be credited as the first muckraker, got a job with McClure's, a popular journal during that time period. His investigative reporting and stories about municipal corruption alarmed the public and helped bring a wave of political change. The District Attorney of St. Louis at that time, Joseph W. Folk, credited his public support and eventual election into the governor's seat to Steffens and his eye opening journalism. Steffens did not stay in Missouri but rather went from big city to big city, hoping to raise awareness and bring the public together to fight the corporate machine.
McClure's didn't stop at political corruption. You don't get the title of the greatest muckraking magazine by exposing one subject. Ida Tarbell, a daughter and sister to oil refinery workers, shared her experiences with The Standard Oil Company and exposed John D. Rockefeller's quest to be a one man powerhouse. In her series "History of The Standard Oil Company", she explains how Rockefeller pays off railroad companies in exchange for cheaper shipping costs, roughly half the cost his competitors paid, which ultimately means other small, developing businesses never had a chance to grow, or compete with his growing monopoly. Her articles, packed with facts, numbers, and witty language didn't just get people talking; they got people acting. In 1906 Congress passed the Hepburn Act, which penalized railroads caught making preferential deals with select businesses. Then in 1911, after being found guilty of several accounts of fraud charges, and violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, Standard Oil was forced to break up its monopoly into thirty eight different companies.
As noted before, political and corporate corruption weren't the only things on the minds of muckrakers. Public health was also a major concern. More importantly, the safety and quality of the food and drugs Americans were consuming. Upton Sinclair, another muckraker that would be up there with some of the best, was hired by the newspaper Appeal to Reason to do some investigative work. Sinclair exposed the disgusting practices found within meatpacking plants and in his series "The Jungle", he goes into shocking and disgusting detail of what really goes on in these plants. Although it was written as fiction, there was nothing phony about this. He got his information from real sources, questionig real people and investigating real plants.
Another muckraking icon was Ladies Home Journal editor Edward Bok. His attacks were aimed at the drug companies, claiming their products were unsafe and sometimes deadly. Other publications joined in his crusade including McClure's, and Collier's, which printed a cartoon with a skull representing the Patent Medicine Trust, showing once again as Thomas Nast did that imagery is just as effective as words, if not more so. In 1906, Ladies Home Journal published a simulated bill demanding its readers send it into their congressmen and reform the drug companies. They did just that, and President Theodore Roosevelt would go on to advocate a law regulating food and drugs, and congress would pass the Pure Food and Drug Act, which required all food and drugs to be analyzed, inspected, and approved.
     Not everybody appreciated the work of muckrakers. Some politicians opposed them, obviously because they saw the influence and power these journalists had, and knew sooner or later, their day would soon be coming. The muckrakers delivered. David Graham Phillips, writing for Cosmopolitan magazine, aimed his attacks at politicians and accused many of them of corruption and treason. His words were strong enough to bring voters to the polls and one by one, every politician he accused was voted out of office in the elections that followed. Changes were also made within the political arena in 1913 when a constitutional amendment made it so that senators were elected by the people, not state legislatures.

Personal Thoughts on Muckraking

     Before reading this chapter, and before doing some research on the topic, I figured muckraking was mostly a giant smear campaign aimed at certain companies or politicians, not knowing who was responsible for it or why. The fact is though, it isn't. It was one massive expose after another made by bold journalists and their publications that did it not for profit, but for the good of the people. Exposing unsanitary practices within food establishments, exposing the harmful and sometimes deadly ingredients found in patent medicines, exposing corrupt business owners and politicians; and not only bringing these stories to the public, but challenging the public to do something about it. Real change took place here.
     This wasn't over-hyped, or exaggerated. People were outraged, and they displayed their outrage in a variety of ways. Voting corrupt politicians out of office, calling for stricter laws regarding food and drugs, harsher penalties for those who didn't follow those laws, and fighting to keep our political system more balanced, giving more power to the voters as opposed to more power to the politicians.
     It is hard to pick a chapter in this book that I can say without doubt is the most important or, biggest example of journalism shaping our country; but so far this takes the cake. It was one solid punch after another coming from these muckrakers to bring about real change.
     In one excerpt from the chapter, Teddy Roosevelt brings this idea that although the journalists are doing a solid job of exposing evils, they're only focusing on said evils, and not shedding light on the good side of humanity. However, the numbers speak for themself. Look at how circulation for these publications increased once these stories broke out. Sales doubled or more than doubled for some newspapers and magazines. Stories were written in a way that was alarming, and sensational, and drew the audience in. The public, in my opinion, reacts to negative stories much louder than they do to positive ones. It's the same reason you build a good guy image by doing 100 good deeds and lose that title the second you do one bad one. Yes these stories were negative, but it was the only way to let the public know what was going on. I admire the passion these journalists had and the courage they had to show the public what was going on, knowing they were going up against something much more powerful than them.
     They showed what should already be known. A government should fear it's people, not the other way around. Strength in numbers. If we unite against a particular cause, there is almost no way to stop us, our voice is too loud, our force is too powerful. The journalists during this era helped show just how much power we really have. If it wasn't for them exposing these evils, who knows where we would be now.

Outline of Muckraking

I. The Start Of Muckraking (1902-1903)
        •Lincoln Stevens, widely known as first muckraker, joins McClure's, a journal at that time. Would go on to be the greatest muckraking journal.
        •Writes an article about corruption within St. Louis.
        •Ida Tarbell writes first issue of her "History of the Standard Oil Company" series, exposes Rockerfeller's monopoly.

II. Making Strides  (1904-1905)
       •St. Louis DA Joseph Folk gains public support from the help of Steffens' articles. Goes on to become governor of Missouri.
       •Editor of Ladies' Home Journal Edward Bok urges readers to boycott patent medicines.
       •Upton Sinclair writes an article for the newspaper Appeal to Reason exposing the conditions of meatpacking plants.

III. Reformation (1906-1913)
       •Congress passes Hepburn Act, penalizing railroad companies for preferential arrangements. Shady dealings with railroad companies started to come to an end.
       •Standard Oil Company is found guilty on several charges of fraud, company is forced to break up monopoly and form thirty-eight smaller businesses.
       •Ladies' Home Journal prints a simulated bill named "An Act to Regulate the Manufacture and Sale of 'Patent' Medicines", President Roosevelt advocates a law regulating food and drugs.
       •David Graham Phillips begins attack on political system, accusing politicians of treason and corruption.
       •Dozens of senators that Phillips attacked lose their senate seats and more followed in the next few years.
      •Constitutional Amendment changes the election of senators from being voted on by state legislatures to being voted by the American people.

[Photos] Meet the Rakers

Ida Tarbell
source: Library of Congress
https://www.msu.edu/~elenbaa6/webquest/resources.htm

Lincoln Steffens
Source: Associated Press
http://www.findingdulcinea.com/docroot/dulcinea/fd_images/features/profiles/s/lincoln-steffens/features/0/image.jpg

   

        Upton Sinclair

      Source:http://www.bobfelton.com/?p=6523

"The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair, series that exposed the horrors of meatpacking plants.
Source: http://www.capitalcentury.com/jungle.jpg

[Video] Rockefeller and the Standard Oil Co.

Click here for Rockefeller video

unfortunately the video wont embed even though I used the same code as last time. I will try to edit it later and see if it works. According to the source, this was from PBS's American Experience. Ida Tarbell gets mentioned and some muckraking cartoons are also shown.

source: http://www.youtube.com/user/CitizenInvestigator

"Literature of Protest": Muckraking and Reformation

As a follow up to my first blog topic about Boss Tweed and political corruption, I decided to do my next topic on muckraking. Think Boss Tweed, but on a larger scale.
A defining moment in American journalism, muckraking helped bring to light many of the horrors and corruptions found within our financial, social, and political systems. Just like I selected the Boss Tweed story because I felt it was relatable due to our recent financial meltdown, partially caused by greed and underhanded dealings; I find this muckraking story relatable as well for many of the same reasons. The big corporations trying to get over on the public, and journalism standing up for the little guy and exposing the truth, regardless of consequences. It's moments like these that really helped make journalism the powerhouse it is today and it is also a moment we should look back on and learn from.
I feel our country currently lacks this kind of raw, hard hitting journalism that asks tough questions and exposes what's really going on behind the scenes.I will once again be using Rodger Streitmatter's Mightier Than The Sword: How the News Media Have Shaped American History as a reference, as well as images and videos I find along the way.

Personal Thoughts About Tweed Ring

     I have to salute Thomas Nast for his role in bringing down the Tweed empire. For pretty much every site I visited for information about Tweed, Thomas Nast and his cartoons were not far behind. They follow him everywhere, even to this day. History has sewn them together.
     Again, that speaks to the influence and the power of journalism, even back then. Without the technology we have today, where we are able to spread word faster, and to a bigger audience. He was a solitary man going up against an entire system, and he took them down. Was it solely his doing? Of course not. Ultimately the people who went to the polls that year and voted Tweed and his goons out of office should receive some of that credit; but to say his cartoons didn't play a significant role in the downfall of the Tweed ring is simply ignorant, in my opinion.
     That's something I feel we lack in today's world of journalism. With so much corruption in politics and business, who is going to stand up and speak out for us? Who is going to risk their jobs (even lives) to bring us the truth and help open the eyes of this country. With major corporations owning major news networks, it's hard to get that done, but at the same time, we all have a platform now. Thanks to social networking, blogs, youtube, etc., we all have a voice that can be heard now. Maybe we don't need a solitary man or woman to help bring about change. Maybe we can start a grassroots movement and bring even bigger change than Nast did with his cartoons.
     Regardless, it just gives me hope that we don't always have to solve problems with money, or violent protests. Something as simple as a pen and paper can get the job done. If we can master a language, and target and audience, we can do more than power and money ever could. We can plant ideas in peoples' minds, we can bring about a movement. Hopefully my generation will take heed to this and use that kind of power for good. After reading up on the Thomas Nast/Tweed conflict, I feel more inspired to get something done.

Outline of Tweed Ring

I. 1864-1869: Height of Tweed's Power

• Holds several positions of power including NYS Senate seat, NY Democratic Party Central Committee chairman, highest official of Tammany Hall.
•  Election fraud, extortion, city contracts used to the monopolize city.
•  Pays newspapers to keep quiet on corruption schemes in order to maintain a clean image.

II. Late 1869: Thomas Nast Attacks

•  Political cartoons are aimed at Tweed and Tammany Hall, depicting them as greedy, vicious animals.

III. 1870: The Movement Picks Up Steam

•  New York Times board of directors member James B Taylor dies, New York Times runs its first anti-Tweed editorial.

IV. 1871: The Beginning of the End

•  New York Times gets documents and incriminating evidence from former supporter of Tweed Ring, James O' Brien. Publishes massive exposé showing Tweed corruption in great detail.
• Nast continues attack with cartoons. Audience continues to grow. Support increases.
• Elections take Tweed and his co-conspirators out of office.

V. 1871-1876: Goodbye Tweed

• Tweed goes to jail on fraud-related charges
• Bribes his way out of jail and flees to Spain
• Nast political cartoon gets Tweed captured

[Photos] Nast Political Cartoons

                        "The Brains"

  
























Photo From: http://www.visualeditors.com/apple/2008/11/another-spoof-harpers-weekly-lays-off-cartoonist-thomas-nast/?
                                                      "Tammany Tiger"

Photo From: http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/USRA_Pol_Machines.htm


Cartoon That Led To Tweed's Capture

Photo From: http://blog.cagle.com/news/2009/09/15/father-of-american-cartoons-eligible-for-nj-hall-of-fame/

Tweed Ring Summary

After reading Chapter 4 in Rodger Streitmatter's Mightier Than The Sword: How The News Media Has Shaped American History titled "Attacking Municipal Corruption, this is what I gathered:

     From the 1860's all the way up to the early 1870's, William Marcy Tweed ran a well oiled machine. Backed by Tammany Hall, a political organization at that time, he gained power through manipulation, election fraud, extortion, and the list goes on. Holding multiple positions simultaneously, including a New York State Senate seat, construction supervisor for the New York County Court House, and the highest official of Tammany Hall, Tweed and his pals (who also held high positions within the city's political system) made their money from city contracts, creating a monopoly in the city and buying out anyone who tried to compete.
     His reign and dominance was no secret to those involved in businesses and/or politics. It wasn't that those people didn't know about his corruption, but rather they didn't have the fire power (money, political pull, etc) to bring him down. It also helped that he had ironclad control over the media. It's kind of hard to expose somebody when they are keeping you employed and cutting your checks. Because of this, he was able to stay clear of any bad publicity, thus keeping the general public in the dark about everything that was going on around them. Arrogantly pushing his agendas through the city, he dared anyone to get in his way, issuing a challenge to any takers; "Well, what are you going to do about it?" Luckily for the city, and for journalism in general, one man accepted this challenge.
     Thomas Nast, a German immigrant with a passion for drawing (and exposing truths, as we would soon find out) landed himself a job at Harper's Weekly in 1862. A large publication at the time, due to its ability to speak to the common man. The newspaper was for everyday people, not just elitists. That in itself played a key role in bringing down the Tweed powerhouse. The more people you have on your side, the better.
     Nast, who had already gained notoriety from his coverage of the Civil War, began his assault on Tweed in 1869. Nast used vivid imagery to get his point across and open the eyes of the public. Images like portraying Tammany Hall as a vicious tiger, devouring the laws and ballots of the city, and his cartoon titled "The Brains" which depicted Tweed as a greedy fat man with a bag of money for a head, Nast didn't mince his words or shy away from his opinions. He went at Tweed and his circle of friends and he went at them hard, and consistently, waking up a sleeping giant inside of the hearts of New Yorkers, and bringing to light the corruption of Tammany Hall.
     It wasn't long before other publications and politicians got behind Harper's Weekly and Nast, and helped drive the public to the polls to rid themselves of this toxic reign. In 1871, Tweed was found guilty of fraud-related charges and actually did jail time. He bribed his way out of jail and made his way to Spain, which, in complete irony, was caught by officials because of a drawing Nast did of Tweed grabbing hold of a child, which Spanish law enforcement perceived as a wanted poster for a kidnapper. This just goes to show that sometimes imagery is more powerful than actual words. Images cross boundaries that language sometimes can't, and because of that, Tweed was brought down and his days of corrupting the public and the media were over.

[Video] Boss Tweed & Thomas Nast

According to the source, this was taken from a 1999 documentary about New York



Source: http://www.youtube.com/user/keefestudios

The Tweed Corruption Ring

I will be blogging about William Marcy "Boss" Tweed, his power over New York city businesses and politics, and the driving force of journalism that ultimately led to his demise. I will be using the text Mightier Than The Sword: How the News Media have Shaped American History by Rodger Streitmatter as reference.

     I chose this story because in some ways I find it relatable today. Corruption within the corporate and political arenas are nothing new to this country, it happened then, during the 1800s, and here we are in 2010, and not much has changed. Where we had Boss Tweed running his agenda for the financial benefit of him and his buddies, we now have politicians pushing their agendas in favor of different corporations and special interest groups. Wall Street executives abusing the lack of regulation in our market and giving themselves bonuses in the millions (and sometimes more). Where we had clever cartoonists like Thomas Nast using wit and humor to bring to light real problems to the common man, we now have political satirists and shows like The Daily Show that use similar devices to expose the hypocrisy and abuse within politics and corporations and do so in a way that is relatable to those not familiar with the intricacies of those issues. They break them down for the everyday citizen to understand, and helps them form a better opinion of what's going on around them.
     I believe the way in which you present your news to an audience is just as important as the actual news you are reporting. If you can't find a way to target an audience, your plea will fall on deaf ears. People need to be reached. Whether it's straightforward reporting like newspapers and news on television, or more creative approaches like cartoons and imagery, you need to be able to capture the attention of the people, and Thomas Nast did just that. As humorous as his political cartoons were, they did bring about serious reform, and awoke a public who, without his drawings, would have most likely been in the dark about what was truly going on at the time. This just goes to show how powerful journalism truly is. As long as you have an audience, you have power.

William Marcy Tweed: Original Gangster

New Yorkers, and Americans in general, are no stranger to political scandals and financial corruption. Right now we are still feeling the economic effects of Wall Street greed, special interests groups influencing Washington, and unregulated policies running our financial system. Before these people were exploited, however; there was the originator. William Marcy "Boss" Tweed. I will be posting information on one of the biggest corruption rings in American history, and how journalism helped bring down this evil empire.

Introduction

Greetings to everyone reading this. My name is Dave and this is my blog. In the coming weeks this blog will be filled with tons of info, opinions, and resources regarding various milestones in history, and journalism's influence on those milestones. How important is journalism in shaping our world? What specific, historic examples can be given to show how powerful it truly is? These questions will be answered throughout the semester. I hope to get some dialogue going and expand our views and opinions on various subjects, and hopefully open some eyes. See you guys later.

-Dave