Britse joernaliste

Britse joernaliste



We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

  • Edward Baines (snr)
  • Thomas Barnes
  • Richard Carlile
  • William Cobbett
  • Samuel T. Coleridge
  • Daniel Defoe
  • Vincent Dowling
  • Pierce Egan
  • Percy Hetherington Fitzgerald
  • Celia Fiennes
  • Joseph Gales
  • William Hazlitt
  • Theodore Hook
  • James Leigh Hunt
  • Charles Knight
  • Charles Lamb
  • James Mill
  • Tom Paine
  • James Perry
  • William Pyne
  • John Saxton
  • Robert Southey
  • Thomas Spence
  • John Tyas
  • John Wade
  • John Wilkes
  • William Woodfall
  • James Wroe
  • Mary Valentine Ackland
  • Guy Aldred
  • Norman Angell
  • Neal Ascherson
  • H. G. Bartholomew
  • Winifred Batho
  • Vernon Bartlett
  • Francis Beckett
  • William Berry
  • Annie Besant
  • Isabella Bird
  • Hubert Bland
  • Robert Blatchford
  • Brendan Bracken
  • Charles Bradlaugh
  • H. N. Brailsford
  • Norah Briscoe
  • Vera Brittain
  • Fenner Brockway
  • Shirley Brooks
  • James Cameron
  • Ada Chesterton
  • Cecil Chesterton
  • Gilbert Chesterton
  • William Clarke
  • Claud Cockburn
  • Cyril Connolly
  • William Connor
  • Alistair Cooke
  • Colin Coote
  • John Cornford
  • Geoffrey Cox
  • Richard Crossman
  • Hugh Cudlipp
  • Nancy Cunard
  • James H. Dalziel
  • Geoffrey Dawson
  • John Thadeus Delane
  • Seftan Delmer
  • Robert Donald
  • Tom Driberg
  • Norman Ebbutt
  • John Freeman
  • Michael Foot
  • Paul Voet
  • Ralph Fox
  • William Forrest
  • Peter Fryer
  • Henry Hamilton Fyfe
  • James Garvin
  • Henry George
  • Philip Gibbs
  • Katharine Glasier
  • Stephen Graham
  • James Greenwood
  • Walter Greenwood
  • John Hammond
  • Beatrice Hastings
  • L. T. Hobhouse
  • Winifred Holtby
  • George Holyoake
  • Tom Hopkinson
  • Frank Horrabin
  • Laurence Housman
  • Edward Hulton
  • Edward G. Hulton
  • Alaric Jacob
  • Blanchard Jerrold
  • Gareth Jones
  • Mervyn Jones
  • Robert Kee
  • Cecil King
  • Arthur Koestler
  • Harold Laski
  • Harry Lawson
  • Colin Legum
  • A. L. Lloyd
  • Charles Mackay
  • William Mellor
  • William Morris
  • Hugh MacDiarmid
  • Dora Marsden
  • Kingsley Martin
  • Henry Massingham
  • C. F. Masterman
  • C. E. Montague
  • Sydney Morrell
  • E. D. Morel
  • John Morley
  • Malcom Muggeridge
  • Henry Nevinson
  • Margaret Nevinson
  • Edith Nesbit
  • Harold Nicholson
  • C. H. Norman
  • T. P. O'Connor
  • George Orwell
  • Kim Philby
  • Percival Phillips
  • Morgan Philips -prys
  • J. B. Priestley
  • Arthur Ransome
  • Angus Reach
  • Douglas Reed
  • Maude Pember Reeves
  • Henry Perry Robinson
  • C. Rolph
  • Herbert Russell
  • Sam Russell
  • William H. Russell
  • John le Sage
  • C. Scott
  • Evelyn Sharp
  • George Bernard Shaw
  • Robert Sherard
  • Herbert Sidebottom
  • George Sims
  • Howard Spring
  • William Stead
  • H. Wickham Steed
  • George Steer
  • William Beach Thomas
  • Margaret Haig Thomas
  • Henry Tomlinson
  • Elizabeth Wilkinson
  • Harold Williams
  • Beatrice Webb
  • H. Wells
  • Rebecca West
  • E. Wilcox
  • Robert Wilton
  • Tom Wintringham
  • Francis Yeats-Brown
  • Konni Zilliacus
  • Anti-Jakobyn
  • Swart dwerg
  • Daily Chronicle
  • Daily Express
  • Daily Herald
  • Daaglikse pos
  • Daaglikse spieël
  • Daaglikse nuus
  • Daily Telegraph
  • Daaglikse skets
  • Daaglikse werker
  • Arm man se voog
  • Rooi Republikein
  • Republikein
  • Reynold's News
  • Sheffield Register
  • Ster
  • Sunday Times
  • Die tye
  • Manchester Herald
  • Manchester Gazette
  • Manchester Guardian
  • Manchester Observer
  • Morning Chronicle
  • Morning Post
  • Northern Star
  • Noord -Brit
  • Waarnemer
  • Pall Mall Gazette
  • Politieke register
  • Aandnuus
  • Aand Standaard
  • Ruil Herald
  • Arbeidsverkieser
  • Leeds Mercury
  • Leeds Times
  • Liverpool Mercury
  • Manchester Chronicle
  • Die week
  • Workers 'Dreadnought
  • Athenaeum
  • Byekorf
  • Blackwood's Magazine
  • Clarion
  • Statebond
  • Cornhill Tydskrif
  • Ekonoom
  • Edinburgh Review
  • Die Egoïs
  • Eksaminator
  • Fraser's Magazine
  • Vryvrou
  • Gentleman's Magazine
  • Grafies
  • Huishoudelike Woorde
  • Leeg
  • Geillustreerde London News
  • Geregtigheid
  • Lansbury's Labor Weekly
  • Lilliput
  • London Magazine
  • Macmillan's Magazine
  • Massas
  • Nasie
  • Nasionale Hervormer
  • Nuwe staatsman
  • Prentepos
  • Punch Magazine
  • Kwartaallikse oorsig
  • Toeskouer
  • Strand Tydskrif
  • Tatler
  • Tyd en gety
  • Times Literary Supplement
  • Tribune
  • Westminster Review
  • Bruce Bairnsfather
  • H. M. Bateman
  • Lewis Baumer
  • George Belcher
  • Cyril Bird
  • Alexander Boyd
  • Henry M. Brock
  • George Cruikshank
  • Isaac Cruikshank
  • James Dowd
  • John Doyle
  • Richard Doyle
  • Sal Dyson
  • Harry Furniss
  • Carl Giles
  • James Gillray
  • Francis Carruthers Gould
  • Leslie Illingworth
  • Charles Keene
  • John Leech
  • F. Lewin
  • David Laag
  • Phil Mei
  • A. Wallis Mills
  • George Morrow
  • Bernard Partridge
  • Frederick Pegram
  • Leonard Raven-Hill
  • Frank Reynolds
  • Linley Sambourne
  • Sidney Sime
  • George Stampa
  • Sidney Strube
  • Edmund Sullivan
  • John Tenniel
  • Bert Thomas
  • Frederick H. Townsend
  • Victor Weisz
  • Jack B. Yeats
  • Philip Zec
  • Rudolf Ackermann
  • Basiliekruidhout
  • William Blake
  • John Cooke Bourne
  • Alexander Boyd
  • Thomas Bury
  • J. W. Carmichael
  • Harold Copping
  • Gustave Dore
  • Augustus Leopold -eier
  • Luke Fildes
  • William Powell Frith
  • Thomas Gainsborough
  • Atkinson Grimshaw
  • Hubert von Herkomer
  • David Octavius ​​Hill
  • William Hogarth
  • Frank Holl
  • Thomas Lawrence
  • William Pyne
  • Allan Ramsay
  • Joshua Reynolds
  • Thomas Rowlandson
  • George Scharf
  • Sidney Sime
  • Abraham Salomo
  • Elizabeth Thompson
  • J. Turner
  • Frederick Walker
  • George Walker

Tinker, kleremaker, soldaat, joernalis

Britse joernaliste - en Britse tydskrifte - word deur die geheime intelligensie -agentskappe gemanipuleer, en ek dink ons ​​moet dit probeer stop.

Die manipulasie neem drie vorme aan. Die eerste is die poging om joernaliste te werf om na ander mense te spioeneer, of om self onder joernalistieke "dekking" te gaan. Dit gebeur vandag en dit gaan al jare aan. Dit is gevaarlik, nie net vir die betrokke joernalis nie, maar ook vir ander joernaliste wat met die spioenasieborsel geteer word. Farzad Bazoft was 'n kollega van my op die Observer toe hy deur Saddam Hussein tereggestel is vir spioenasie. In 'n sekere sin het dit nie saak gemaak of hy regtig 'n spioen was of nie. Hoe dan ook, hy is dood.

Die tweede vorm van manipulasie wat my bekommer, is wanneer intelligensiebeamptes as joernaliste mag optree om tendense artikels onder vals name te skryf. Bewyse hiervan kom maar selde aan die lig, maar twee voorbeelde het die afgelope tyd na vore gekom, hoofsaaklik as gevolg van die fluitjieblaasaktiwiteite van 'n paar afvallige offisiere - David Shayler van MI5 en Richard Tomlinson van MI6.

Die derde soort manipulasie is die mees verraderlike - wanneer propaganda -verhale van die intelligensie -agentskap geplant word op gewillige joernaliste, wat hul oorsprong by hul lesers verdoesel. Daar is - of was tot onlangs toe - 'n baie aktiewe program deur die geheime agentskappe om te kleur wat in die Britse pers verskyn, genaamd as publikasies deur verskillende afvalliges geglo kan word, inligtingsoperasies of "I/Ops". Ek is - ongewoon - in 'n posisie om inligting oor die werking daarvan te verskaf.

Laat ons eers die derde bewering neem. Swart propaganda - vals materiaal waar die bron vermom is - was 'n hulpmiddel van Britse intelligensie -agentskappe sedert die dae van die tweede wêreldoorlog, toe die Special Operations Executive (SOE) allerhande truuks met klandestiene radiostasies op die been gebring het pornografie en pessimisme in die ore van indrukwekkende Duitse soldate. Na die oorlog het hierdie onheilspellende spel verander in die anti-Sowjet-afdeling vir inligtingsnavorsing (IRD). Sy taak was oënskynlik om antikommunistiese verhale in die pers in die ontwikkelende wêreld te plant, maar sy onstuimige verhale oor marxistiese dronkenskap en korrupsie het soms uitgelek om die lesers van die Britse media te verwar.

'N Kleurryke voorbeeld van die manier waarop hierdie tegnieke uitgebrei het om aan die nood van die uur te voldoen, kom in die vroeë 70's toe die lesers van die News of the World 'n plons op die voorblad behandel het, "Russian sub in IRA plot sensation", volledig met lugfoto's van die koninklike toring van 'n Sowjet -sub wat aan die kus van Donegal oorstroom is. Dit was die werk van Hugh Mooney van die IRD, wat uiteindelik in 1977 gesluit is.

Sy gees het egter nie gesterf nie. Byna 25 jaar later het lesers van die Sunday Telegraph die dramatiese verhaal van die seun van die kolonel Gadafy van Libië en sy beweerde aansluiting by 'n valutavalsplan beleef. Die verhaal is geskryf deur Con Coughlin, die hoof se buitelandse korrespondent van die koerant, en dit is valslik toegeskryf aan 'n 'Britse bankamptenaar'. Dit is trouens aan hom gegee deur beamptes van MI6, wat blykbaar al jare lank materiaal aan Coughlin verskaf het.

Die oorsprong van daardie koerantberig in November 1995 het eers aan die lig gekom toe dit onlangs bekend gemaak is deur Mark Hollingsworth, die biograaf van die afvallige veiligheidsdiensbeampte, David Shayler. Shayler het destyds aan die MI5 se Libië -lessenaar gewerk, in samewerking met sy eweknieë in die buitelandse spioenasiediens, MI6, en het 'n gedetailleerde kennis van gebeure en 'n bondel geheime dokumente gekry om dit te ondersteun.

Die bewerings is uit 'n onverwagte rigting bevestig. Die Sunday Telegraph is bedien deur 'n laster deur Gadafy se seun. Die koerant kon nie sy voorstel dat Gadafy junior moontlik met 'n bedrog verbind is, ondersteun nie, maar pleit in werklikheid dat dit deur die regering aan die materiaal verskaf is.

In 'n lang en gedetailleerde verklaring wat die openbare domein betree het tydens 'n uitspraak in 'n tussentydse appèl op 28 Oktober 1998, het die koerant beskryf hoe 'n middagete met die destydse Konserwatiewe Buitelandse Sekretaris onder die redaksie van Charles Moore gereël is, Malcolm Rifkind, waar Con Coughlin teenwoordig was. Deur Rifkind gesê dat lande soos Iran probeer om harde geldeenhede in die hande te kry om sanksies te klop, is Coughlin later deur 'n MI6 -man ingelig - sy gereelde kontak.

'N Paar weke later is hy voorgestel aan 'n tweede MI6 -man, wat etlike ure saam met hom deurgebring het en uitgebreide besonderhede van die verhaal oor Gadafy se seun oorhandig het. Alhoewel Coughlin vir bewyse gevra het, en dit word beweer dat hy bankstate toon, maak die pleitstukke duidelik dat hy afhanklik was van MI6 vir die diskrediteerbare besonderhede oor die beweerde bedrogspul. Hy moes die bron streng vertroulik hou.

Gedurende die formele pleitstukke het die Telegraph die blare van sy bronne bewaar deur na 'n "Westerse regering se veiligheidsagentskap" te verwys. Maar hierdie sluier van gemoedelikheid is deur die stadsadvokaat David Hooper weggewaai in sy boek oor laster wat verlede maand gepubliseer is, Reputations Under Fire, waarin hy sê: "In werklikheid [was hulle] lede van MI6."

'N MI6 -oefening om 'n verhaal te plant, is ongewoon blootgelê. Daar is geen idee dat Con Coughlin oneerlik is in sy werk nie. Hy is 'n volkome pligsgetroue joernalis wat ek verwag het sy bes gedoen om sy feite te staaf en ongetwyfeld in die waarheid daarvan geglo. Tog was hierdie feite moontlik nie waar nie. En ek glo hy het 'n ernstige fout begaan deur sy storie valslik toe te skryf aan 'n 'Britse bankamptenaar'. Sy lesers behoort te weet waar sy materiaal vandaan kom. Toe die Sunday Telegraph in die moeilikheid beland met die laster -saak, lyk dit tog asof dit skielik baie meer spesifiek oor die bronne kon wees.

Dit was nie 'n geïsoleerde voorbeeld van onlangse MI6 I/Ops nie. In Augustus 1997 was die huidige buitelandse redakteur van die Independent, Leonard Doyle, ook in kontak met MI6 terwyl hy op sy vorige pos by die Observer was. Ek weet, want ek het gevolglik betrokke geraak by 'n MI6-geïnspireerde verhaal. Doyle se MI6 -kontak het hom inligting verskaf oor 'n Iraanse ballingskap wat, terwyl hy 'n pizza -onderneming in Glasgow bedryf het, ook probeer het om 'n gesofistikeerde massaspektrometer in die hande te kry, wat gebruik kan word om uraanverryking te meet - 'n belangrike fase in die verkryging van komponente vir 'n kernbom.

Ons is toegerus met 'n massa skynbaar hoë kwaliteit intelligensie van MI6, insluitend toesigbesonderhede van 'n vergadering in 'n hotel in Istanbul tussen ons pizza-handelaar en mans wat betrokke was by Iraanse kernverkope.

Ek moet duidelik maak dat ons nie net op die sê-so van MI6 gepubliseer het nie. Ons het na Glasgow gereis, die pizza -handelaar gekonfronteer, en eers toe hy erken dat hy met verteenwoordigers van die kernindustrie in Iran te doen gehad het, het ons 'n artikel gepubliseer. In die verhaal het ons duidelik gemaak dat ons doelwit deur Westerse intelligensie dopgehou is.

Tog voel ek ongemaklik en belowe om nooit weer aan so 'n oefening deel te neem nie. Alhoewel alle partye, van die buitelandse redakteur af, nougeset opgetree het, was ons verplig om die volle feite vir ons lesers te verberg en uiteindelik as regeringsagente opgetree.

Nou, na die Tomlinson/Shayler -afvalligheid en die daaropvolgende onthulling van die voortgesette I/Ops -program van MI6, waarvan my Iraanse ervaring duidelik deel was, dink ek dat die rede vir eerlike joernalistiek die beste gedien kan word deur eerlikheid. Ons behoort almal skoon te wees oor hierdie benaderings en 'n paar etiek te bedink om dit te hanteer. In ons ydelheid verbeel ons ons dat ons hierdie bronne beheer. Maar die waarheid is dat hulle baie doelbewus probeer om ons te beheer.

Die tweede intelligensietaktiek van manipulasie wat kommer wek, is die gewoonte om spioene onder vals name te laat skryf. Ek vermoed Tomlinson, wat, nadat hy in die omgewing gewerk het, eers die fluitjie hieroor geblaas het. En dit was 'n onlangs gepubliseerde boek - MI6 van Stephen Dorril - wat weer die laaste stuk van die legkaart bygevoeg het.

Twee artikels verskyn vroeg in 1994 in die Spectator onder die bylyn Kenneth Roberts. Hulle was Sarajevo op datum en Roberts het as adviseur saamgewerk met die VN in Bosnië. Eintlik was hy die MI6 -offisier Keith Robert Craig (die skuilnaam was eenvoudig), wie se plaaslike dekking as 'n burger 'verbonde' was aan die Britse militêre eenheid se Balkansekretariaat.

Bosnië was destyds die plek van aanvalle en gruweldade uit die naburige Serwië, en ook die fokus van passievolle beriggewing van Britse joernaliste. Die Britse weermag was daar in 'n VN -vredesrol, maar almal wat Roberts se artikels gelees het, het moontlik begin wonder of dit nie 'n beter beleid is vir Britse troepe om huis toe te gaan en die Serwiërs 'n vrye hand te laat nie.

Die eerste artikel op 5 Februarie het argumente vir 'n VN -onttrekking ingeoefen en daarop gewys dat alle partye gruweldade gepleeg het. Die tweede stuk het ongegrond gekla oor 'krom' en onakkurate beriggewing deur joernaliste, waaronder Kate Adie van die BBC.

Dit is natuurlik moontlik dat Craig bloot oorweldig was met privaat literêre drange terwyl hy op die Balkan was, en dat dit meer polities was om sy eie opinies onder 'n nommer te gee. Maar een van die tradisionele rolle van I/Ops is om stories te plant. Wat nie duidelik is nie, is hoe die inleiding tot die toeskouer gemaak is, of Craig sy werklike beroep aan die destydse redakteur van die toeskouer, Dominic Lawson, vertrou het. In sy onlangse boek oor MI6 wys Stephen Dorril daarop dat Dominic Lawson se swaer, Anthony Monckton, self 'n dienende MI6-offisier was, wat die Zagreb-stasie in die Balkan in 1996 sou oorneem. (Rosa Monckton, sy suster en die vrou van Dominic Lawson, was wyle prinses Diana se goeie vriend.)

Hierdie verhoudings - waarvan die ontnugterde Tomlinson alles geweet het omdat hy hom in dieselfde tyd op die Balkan gedek het - het eers stadig in die publieke domein verskyn. Daar is geen rede om te glo dat die destydse redakteur van die Spectator enigsins iets onbehoorliks ​​gedoen het nie, en beslis geen rede om te dink dat hy as agent van MI6 opgetree het nie, hetsy betaal of onbetaald. Maar as redakteur, wetend of nie, moet dit 'n slegte idee wees om onder 'n vals naam in 'n posisie te beland waar 'n MI6 -beampte vir u publikasie oor politieke polemiek skryf.

Die laaste wanpraktyk wat die afwykings van Tomlinson/Shayler aan die lig gebring het, is die voortdurende doelbewuste vervaag deur MI6 van die lyn tussen joernalis en spioen. Dit is 'n ou misdaad - Kim Philby, voormalige buitelandse korrespondent van die Observer, sou baie stories daaroor gehad het. Maar dit moet blootgestel en gestop word. Tomlinson self, in eie reg, het in 1993 ses maande lank deur Kroasië en Serwië gereis om informante te werf onder die dekmantel van 'n Britse joernalis. Dorril, in sy boek, publiseer die verdere bewering dat die toeskouer self onwetend as dekking gebruik is deur nie minder nie as drie MI6 -offisiere wat in Bosnië, Belgrado en Moldawië werk.

Die mees ontstellende bewering van Tomlinson was dat hy binne MI6 gehoor het van 'n 'nasionale koerantredakteur' wat as agent gebruik is, en tot £ 100,000 aan bedekte betalings ontvang het, verkrygbaar by 'n buitelandse bank, via 'n valse paspoort verskaf deur MI6 self. Hierdie bewering het 'n tint en gil veroorsaak, waartydens die ongelukkige Dominic Lawson, nou redakteur van die Sunday Telegraph, sy ontkenning uitgereik het en ander redakteurs onder verdenking onder die loep gekom het.

Ek glo eintlik dat Tomlinson verkeerdelik aangemeld is. Diegene wat breedvoerig met hom gepraat het, sê dat hy geen eerstehandse kennis het nie, maar net weet van iets wat 'n kollega skuins genoem het. Toe hy die woorde "redakteur" en "nasionale koerant" hoor, spring Tomlinson tot die verkeerde gevolgtrekking en begin dan raai. Spioene is immers baie soos joernaliste in hul metodes - maar net minder betroubaar. Wat die mense in die koerantbedryf weet, is dat daar in die wêreld die verskil is tussen "die redakteur" en "'n redakteur". Koerante het byvoorbeeld opvoedingsredakteurs, omgewingsredakteurs en verdedigingsredakteurs (nie, moet ek sê, dat ek bewyse het teen individuele lede van hierdie kategorieë nie).

En 'n senior joernalis op daardie vlak - wat kon reis, dinge kon sien, terugvoer kon doen - sou in die spioenasiebedryf meer prakties wees as, byvoorbeeld, die redakteur van 'n nasionale koerant. Die jag is nog steeds op soek na die kwaaddoeners. En moenie 'n fout maak nie, hierdie gedrag van joernaliste is gevaarlik en verkeerd.

Ons eerste taak as praktisyns is om te dokumenteer wat op hierdie baie aanstootlike gebied aangaan. Ons tweede taak behoort te wees om 'n oop debat te voer oor wat die regte verhoudings tussen die inligtingsagentskappe en die media behoort te wees. En ons laaste taak moet dan wees om maniere te vind om eintlik verstandiger op te tree.


Die skandalige romanse wat die Britse monargie moontlik gered het

Koning George V het nie groot hoop op sy oudste seun nie. Nadat ek dood is, sal die seuntjie homself binne 12 maande verwoes, en die Britse monarg voorspel onheilspellend van sy vroulike erfgenaam. Soos dit blyk, het koning Edward VIII slegs 11 maande na sy hemelvaart nodig gehad om sy vader se profesie te vervul.

Met 'n gesoek van 𠇎ward RI ” onderaan 'n dokument met twee paragrawe, het die 42-jarige vrygeselkoning die wêreld op 10 Desember 1936 geskok deur die kroon weg te teken en die eerste Engelse monarg te word vrywillig afstand doen van die troon. Die volgende aand het miljoene Britte om hul radio's gekuier om na 'n toespraak deur hul voormalige koning te luister. Ek het dit onmoontlik gevind, en hy het erken oor die knetterende luggolwe, om die swaar las van verantwoordelikheid te dra en my pligte van die koning na te kom, soos ek sou wou, sonder die hulp en ondersteuning van die vrou Ek is mal daaroor. ”

Afskrif van die dokument wat die abdikasie van koning Edward VIII bevestig. (Krediet: Universal History Archive/Getty Images)

Die doel van die koninklike liefde was 'n getroude Amerikaanse geselligheid wat werk aan haar tweede egskeiding, Wallis Warfield Simpson. Die twee het mekaar in 1931 ontmoet tydens 'n partytjie wat deur Edward se destydse minnares Lady Thelma Furness gehou is en hul romanse het voortgegaan nadat Edward in Januarie 1936 op die troon opgevaar het. Die verhouding was bekend aan speurders van Scotland Yard, wat die egpaar in die geheim gevolg het. , en aan Britse joernaliste, maar nie aan hul lesers nie, wat gedurende die grootste deel van die koning se heerskappy in die duister gehou is.

Nadat mev Simpson 'n voorlopige egskeidingsbesluit verkry het en die koning in November premier Stanley Baldwin in kennis gestel het van sy voorneme om met haar te trou, het 'n grondwetlike krisis ontstaan. Gegewe die rol van die koning as titelhoof van die Church of England, wat hertrou na egskeiding as moreel verkeerd beskou het, het die premier protesteer dat 'n twee keer geskeide Amerikaner as 'n Britse koningin onaanvaarbaar sou wees en sou lei tot die bedanking van die kabinet. Baldwin het die monarg se voorstel vir 'n morganatiese huwelik verwerp waarin sy vrou geen regte, rang of eiendom sou kry nie. Op 3 Desember het die krisis uiteindelik nuus op die voorblad in Brittanje geword en openlik in die parlement gedebatteer. 'N Week later teken die koning sy troon af.

Edward VIII het nie eers lank genoeg regeer om tot sy beplande kroning te kom nie, maar die seremonie het voortgegaan soos op 12 Mei 1937 geskeduleer, terwyl die kroon op die kop van sy jonger broer, Bertie, geplaas is. Die huiwerige koning George VI was sedert die kinderjare pynlik skaam en geteister deur 'n stamelaar, en was 'n gewilde soewerein. Tydens die London Blitz het die koninklike familie hulself onderdanig gemaak deur in Buckingham -paleis te bly, selfs nadat dit nege regstreekse treffers gehad het en swaar beskadigde dele van die East End besoek het. Die sterkte wat koning George VI teen die Nazi's demonstreer, versterk die band tussen die monargie en die Britse publiek.

Baie wonder egter of die teenoorgestelde sou gebeur het as Edward VIII op die troon sou bly. Elke druppel bloed in my are is Duits, en hy spog eens met die vrou van die Britse Fascistiese leier, Sir Oswald Mosley. Die Duitse bloedlyne loop inderdaad diep in die Britse koninklike familie, en die koning praat vlot Duits en reis gereeld na Duitsland in sy studentedae. Toe die Nazi's aan bewind kom, verwelkom Edward dit as 'n teengewig van die Sowjet -kommuniste, wat hy nooit vergewe het omdat hy sy peetpa, tsaar Nicholas II, in 1918 vermoor het nie.

“ Ek is oortuig dat sy vriendelike geaardheid teenoor Duitsland 'n mate van invloed sal hê op die vorming van die Britse buitelandse beleid, ” het die Duitse ambassadeur in Groot -Brittanje in 1936 berig. Volgens Andrew Morton se boek 17 Anjers: die koninklikes, die nazi's en die grootste bedekking in die geskiedenis, het die koning Baldwin aangespoor om geen optrede teen die Nazi's te neem nadat hulle die Rynland in Maart 1936 beset het nie.

8 Desember 1936: Nuutste koerantuitgawes te koop, met die nuutste nuus van Edward VIII se abdikasie. (Krediet: J. A. Hampton/Topical Press Agency/Getty Images)

Sommige geleerdes het bespiegel dat die koning se nazi -simpatie eerder as sy romantiese bande die ware motivering was agter die politieke stoot vir sy abdikasie. Joachim von Ribbentrop, goeie vriend van die Nazi -leier Adolf Hitler, het ook so gedink. Die hele huweliksvraag was 'n valse front wat Baldwin gebruik het om van die koning ontslae te raak weens laasgenoemde se pro-Duitse sienings, en dat hy by die F ührer aangemeld het.

Die bande tussen die voormalige koning het deur sy broer die titel van hertog van Windsor verleen, en die Nazi's het eers verdiep na sy abdikasie. Op 3 Junie 1937 trou die hertog in ballingskap met Wallis Warfield in 'n Franse kasteel in die besit van die miljoenêr Charles Bedaux, wat gereël het dat die egpaar 'n deel van hul verlengde wittebrood in Nazi -Duitsland deurbring. Daar eet die hertog saam met propagandaminister Joseph Goebbels, drink tee saam met die stigter van Gestapo, Hermann Goering, en ontmoet Hitler tydens sy toevlugsoord in die Beierse Alpe. Dit is jammer dat hy nie meer koning is nie, en Goebbels het geskryf nadat hy die hertog ontmoet het, en saam met hom kon ons 'n alliansie aangegaan het. ”

Vroeg in die Tweede Wêreldoorlog was die Nazi's so vol vertroue in hul vermoë om Groot -Brittanje te verslaan dat dit 'n plan opgestel het, met die kodenaam Operasie Willi, om die hertog te ontvoer en terug te keer na die Britse troon as 'n marionetskoning. So besorg was die Britse regering oor die hertog se nazi -neigings wat premier Winston Churchill in Julie 1940 gereël het dat die voormalige koning die goewerneurskap van die Bahamas sou aanvaar gedurende die oorlog, wat die Nazi -operasie in die wiele gery het.

Edward en Wallis ontmoet Hitler, 1937. (Krediet: ullstein bild/Getty Images)

Hoe vreemd dit ook al lyk, destyds kon die abdikasie van koning Edward VIII 'n nog groter krisis voorkom wat die Britse monargie fataal kon wees. Dickie Arbiter, 'n voormalige sekretaris van die pers in Buckingham Palace, aan die Yorkshire Post dat dit 'n bedekte seën was, gegewe die flirt van die koning met Duitsland en die daaropvolgende behoefte aan sterk leiding in die oorlog. Hy was 'n swak koning wat nie in staat was om besluite te neem nie, en daar was 'n gevoel dat Wallis aan die toue getrek het, 'het Arbiter gesê. Maar met George VI het ons 'n goeie koning gekry, en sy vrou was 'n baie sterk Britse vrou en 'n gevestigde belang in die land. ”

Richard Toye, professor in geskiedenis aan die Exeter University in Engeland, was dit eens dat King George VI beter geskik was om op die lang termyn te regeer as sy broer, wat heeltemal nutteloos sou gewees het. baie geïnteresseerd om die werk te doen, het Toye aan die Press Association van Britain gesê. U moet uself afvra of hierdie hele episode werklik handel oor sy ongelooflikste, diepste liefde vir mevrou Simpson en of hy onbewustelik op soek was na 'n uitstappie. ”

Die abdikasie het ook gebeure aan die gang gesit wat daartoe gelei het dat koningin Elizabeth II uiteindelik op die troon sou klim in 1952. As Edward VIII, wat in 1972 gesterf het, 'n kinderlose koning sou bly, sou dit die bewind van die langste regerende monarg van Brittanje verkort het teen twee dekades was daar 'n koninkryk waaroor sy kon heers.


1 Antwoord 1

Is waar. Die Vlasov -leër het byvoorbeeld duisende mense gehad, almal (insluitend die generaal Vlasov) voormalige Sowjet -soldate en offisiere.

Die bestaan ​​van Russiese weermag soldate en offisiere wat van kant verander het, was alombekend tydens die oorlog, so daar was geen rede om dit te verbloem nie. Wat deur die Britse pers bedek was, was dat die Britse en Amerikaanse regerings na die oorlog Russiese gevangenes (wat van kant verander het en dan aan die bondgenote oorgegee het) na die USSR gestuur het, waar die meeste van hulle onmiddellik na hul terugkeer vermoor is.


Opstel oor die geskiedenis van joernalistiek in Britte

Dit was onder Charles in Brittanje dat 'n nuwe era van joernalistiek ingelui is met die publikasie van die .Oxford Gazette in 1665. Geredigeer deur Muddiman terwyl die koninklike hof van die Londense plaag vlug, was dit streng gesproke die eerste tydskrif vir voldoen aan al die vereistes van 'n ware koerant.

Dit is twee keer per week deur koninklike owerheid gedruk. Na 24 uitgawes het die publikasie die Londense koerant geword toe die hof terugkeer na die hoofstad. Dit word deur die loop van die twintigste eeu steeds as die amptelike hoforgaan gepubliseer.

Dit lyk asof die ou lisensiebevoegdhede verbrokkel het toe die herstelperiode tot 'n einde gekom het. Dit was deur geen keuse van die owerhede nie, maar meer waarskynlik as gevolg van die toenemende neiging tot klas- en politieke belyning. In 1679 het die Parlement toegelaat dat die Lisensiewet van 1962 verval.

Dit is van tyd tot tyd herleef, maar met die toenemende spanning tussen Crown en die parlement, probeer elke party sy eie woordvoerders beskerm. Die wet op die regulering van druk, of lisensiëring, het in 1694 verstryk, nie omdat die owerhede oortuig was van die onreg van lisensiëring nie, omdat dit polities ongesond was.

Van 1694 tot die aanvaarding van die eerste seëlwet van 1712 was die enigste kontroles die verordeninge van verraad en oproerige laster en regulasies teen die aanmelding van die parlement. Tevergeefs het Charles probeer om sy ou prerogatiewe tydens sy bewind te herstel. Joernaliste was meer en meer geneig om sy gesag te ignoreer. 'N Paar is egter gestraf.

Benjamin Harris

Een so 'n slagoffer was Benjamin Harris, 'n onbesonne en ietwat roekelose joernalis. Harris is skuldig bevind aan die oortreding van die King ’s -wette. Hy is beboet en gepil. Omdat hy nie die boete kon betaal nie, het hy twee jaar tronkstraf deurgebring. Toe daar weer in 1686 op sy kantoor toegeslaan word, het Harris met sy gesin na Bristol gevlug en na Amerika gegaan waar hy die uitgewer van een van die eerste koerante in Amerika geword het.

Na die Revolusie van 1688, wat 'n verandering aangebring het. monargiese instelling, kry joernaliste aansienlike vryheid

William en Mary was heerser volgens die reg van die publieke opinie en hulle het die gesonde verstand om nie drukkers en uitgewers teen te werk nie, wat faktore was in die ontwikkeling van die openbare mening. Daar was geen ernstige vervolging tydens hul bewind nie.

Teen 1694 sterf die ou Lisensiewet aan seniliteit en verwaarlosing. Met die opkoms van die tweepartstelsel tydens die bewind van William en Mary, was dit moeilik om lisensie te handhaaf. Sonder die beslissende optrede van die ou monarge was dit onmoontlik om so 'n argaïese stelsel voort te sit.

Die aanval op die Bet in Commons het gesentreer rondom die kommersiële onregverdigheid van die monopolie -stelsel, die beperkings op die drukkersbedryf, die neiging van vermeende oortreders om omkopery te gebruik en die ontoereikendheid van sensuur.

Parlement vs monarge

Parlementslede wat die meeste jaloers was op hul eie voorregte, was dikwels die ernstigste kritici van 'n vrye pers. Baie hiervan was welwillendheid en was bereid om die pers te beperk, nie uit kwaadwilligheid nie, maar uit deeglike oorweging van die kwessies.

Hulle staan ​​dus vir vrye uitdrukking in die parlement, waar 'n valse verklaring of 'n gevaarlike gevoel onmiddellik reggestel of weerlê kan word. Maar hulle kan beswaar maak teen vrye uitdrukking in die pers omdat 'n vals of gevaarlike verklaring nie beantwoord kon word voordat skade aangerig is nie.

Die wet op oproerige laster is derhalwe ingeroep teen drukkers en skrywers wat diegene in die amp, in Engeland en Amerika, tot aan die einde van die agtiende eeu teëgestaan ​​het. Tog is daar vordering gemaak met die verkryging van meer vryheid van uitdrukking oor kwessies en idees.

Hierdie vordering is bespoedig deur die ontwikkeling van die party -regeringstelsel. Dit is opmerklik dat partye ontstaan ​​het op die oomblik dat die koerant 'n rol begin speel het in die politieke en sosiale aangeleenthede van mense wat meer en meer in die regering belangstel.

Die beskrywing is gedruk tydens die doodsnikke van 'n verouderde sosiale stelsel. Engeland beweeg geleidelik van feodalisme, waarvan die ekonomiese verskynsel produksie vir gebruik was, na kapitalisme, wat ekonomies omgesit word in winsgewende produksie. Die verandering het sosiale spannings meegebring omdat die een klas ten koste van 'n ander die mag aangryp.

'N Nuwe tipe burger het homself begin bevestig. Hy was die kommersiële mens-die handelaar, handelaar en (later) die vervaardiger. 'N Groot middelklas het ontstaan. Dit het voordeel getrek uit die verwerking en verspreiding van goedere, tussen die produsent en die verbruiker. Sodoende het dit gehelp om die lewenstandaard tot die hoogste vlak te verhoog.

Die Tudor -beheer van die pers is gehandhaaf in die belang van openbare veiligheid. Van Henry VIII tot Elizabeth het die Kroon opgetree volgens die beginsel dat vrede die onderdrukking van ongegronde onenigheid vereis.

Die Tudors was oor die algemeen bekwame en selfs briljante administrateurs. Hulle was sensitief vir die publieke opinie en verstaan ​​hul mense so goed dat hulle weet hoe ver hulle arbitrêre heerskappy moet stoot. Hul onderdane bewonder hulle, met enkele uitsonderings, soms meedoënloos en wisselvallig.

Onder die Tudors het die land groot nasionale trots ontwikkel. Die Tudors het die gevoel van die land gehad en was meer gereeld geïnteresseerd in die algemene welsyn. Weerstand teen hulle was dus uit die oogpunt van joernalistiek onbeduidend.

Die era van vinnige ontwikkeling

Onder die Stuarts, wat begin met James, het die opponerende faksies strydlyne gevorm. En aangesien die pers in so 'n klimaat floreer, kan die beperking van die beperkings miskien die vinnige ontwikkeling van die joernalistiek gedurende die sewentiende eeu gedeeltelik verklaar.

Die agtiende eeu van Britse joernalistiek oorvleuel die kinderjare van die Amerikaanse pers, maar omdat koloniale redakteurs deur hul Britse tydgenote beïnvloed is, is dit van belang om enkele van die latere persontwikkelings in die buiteland te noem.

The first half of the eighteenth century produced some great journalists in England. Defoe, Swift, Addison, Steele, Fielding, and Samuel Johnson edited news­papers, or wrote essays and other pieces for the popular prints at one time or another. The standard set by them was widely imitated in the American colonies. While this material cannot be classed as news, it served to entertain and elevate the reader. And it did meet the craving for more popular literary fare.

The newspapers were the medium for such expression, just as in modern times the popular press offers non-news material in great quantities to meet a demand. The ordinary citizen was also beginning to participate in journalism. Much of the newspaper content was contributed by readers during the eighteenth century.

The popularity of the newspaper was so great that publishers were encouraged to print daily issues. On March 11. 1702, the Daily Courant appeared on the streets of London. It was the first daily newspaper printed in the English language.

Apparently established by Elizabeth Mallet, the real hero of the Daily Courant was Samuel Buckley, who revived the daily. He decided upon reporting factual news, rather than opinion. He used his advertising revenue to free him from political control. Thus, he made a successful enterprise of the first English newspaper to bring news to its readers six days a week.

Great English journalist of the period was Daniel Defoe, who edited Mist’s Journal from 1717 through 1720. Steele probably got the idea of his Tatler series from reading Defoe’s brilliant offerings in earlier papers. Some authorities go so far as to hold that Defoe was the father of the modern editorial. He discussed all manner of topics in a most charming and persuasive style. He, too, was widely copied by American journalists.

Tories Vs. Whigs

In the great controversy between Tories and Whigs, Dean Swift wrote some of his greatest satires. That was while he was editing the Examiner (1710). The conflict brough out other great writers, whose ideas were conveyed to the masses mostly through the newspapers. Iufluential both in England and America were the so-called “Cato Letters,” written by John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon under the pen name, “Cato”, The series appeared between 1720 and 1723 in the London Journal, later called the British Journal. In convincing, readable form, they discussed theories of liberty, representative government, and freedom of expression.

In 1724 this series was collected and published in four volumes. Copies were in great demand in the colonies, where the first stirrings of revolution were beginning to be felt. Through American newspapers and pamphlets the influence of “Cato” can be seen right upto the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

Glorious Revolution And After

As England moved from the absolute rule of the Tudors to the more limited administration of the Stuarts and on to the still more representative government after the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the restrictions on the press were withdrawn accordingly. There were setbacks along the way. Men had to suffer and die to bring greater liberty to the press. But the progress was nevertheless apparent. As absolute rule waned and other groups began to challenge authority, the press began to function as the critic, the loyal opposition, and the watchdog of public affairs.

18th Century Developments

While the first London daily newspaper was published in 1702, it was not until one hundred and fifty years later that a daily news­paper was issued from any part of England outside the capital city. There were many reasons for this. Communications and transport were poor. There were heavy taxes which severely hit the news­papers. There was the stamp duty which had to be paid on every copy of newspaper that was sold.

There was a tax ona dvertisement, and there was a duty on paper. These handicaps were not entirely disposed of until the period between 1855 to 1861, and then began the great development of the daily newspaper. The years between 1870 and 1914 may fairly be described as the golden age of journal­ism at any rate from the viewpoint of the owners if not of the staffs.

The outbreak of the First World War caused a setback and the newspapers had not really had time to recover when the coming of the Second World War hit them again. But since 1945 there has been a steady improvement and there seems to be no reason why the golden age should not return in spite of the competition of other means of news communication such as broadcasting and television. Increased prosperity must mean larger-sized newspapers and larger staffs.


British Journalists - History

Press Release
Release date: 4 June 2021

The Chartered Institute of Journalists has written to the Secretary of State for planning, Robert Jenrick, calling on him to review a decision by the City of London Corporation to approve the demolition of iconic Fleet Street buildings and monuments which are part of the vital free press and newspaper heritage of London.

Institute President Professor Tim Crook says “This is a terrible desecration of the history and significance of a highly significant section of Fleet Street which has been the inspiration for media freedom everywhere in the world. The 1924 Chronicle House was built for and named after one of our great campaigning Liberal newspapers.”

The Institute is also appalled that the new development involves the removal of the bust to the reforming newspaper editor and Parliamentarian T P O’Connor and with its memorable words “His pen could lay bare the bones of a book or the soul of a statesman in a few vivid lines.”

T P O’Connor founded the London Evening Star newspaper in 1888 which campaigned for the rights of the homeless, poor and destitute. Its opposition to the Boer War and exposure of the unacceptable face of capitalism led to brokers burning it on the floor of the Stock Exchange.

O’Connor was a Fellow of the Institute and left a bequest which created a charity in his name that has benefited hundreds of journalists in need since his death in 1929.

Professor Crook says “There is no reason why the new development could not have imaginatively retained the architecture and symbolism of this memorable and famous section of Fleet Street, which has been the case with Beaverbrook’s Express building and the former headquarters of the Daily Telegraph group.”

A feature article for the Institute’s forthcoming edition of The Journal is now available online at: https://cioj.org/thejournal/saving-the-iconic-history-of-fleet-street-and-british-journalism/

The Institute is supporting the campaign by SAVE Britain’s Heritage which has launched a petition to persuade Mr Jenrick and the government to intervene.

Professor Crook is also writing to the Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Minister for the Cabinet Office, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Michael Gove because of their professional journalism background and the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, Oliver Dowden.


The Secret History of Women and Journalism

You may remember that I posted about her book The Death Beat a while back. I was fascinated with the fact that, in addition to her main character Poppy Denby being a journalist in the 1920s, Fiona is an experienced journalist herself. So I reached out to her and asked whether she may be interested in telling us a bit about being a women and a journalist in yesteryears, and she kindly accepted.

She presented me with an awesome article, which I can't wait to share with you.
Lees verder!

Poppy Denby, 1920s Reporter

Die Poppy Denby Investigates books are about a young, female reporter sleuth in the early 1920s. Poppy Denby works for a tabloid newspaper in London called The Daily Globe. She initially gets a job as an administrative assistant to the editor, but when the lead journalist dies under mysterious circumstances, she picks up his story and takes over the investigation – eventually earning herself an appointment as a ‘proper’ reporter. By the end of the first book she is working as the arts and entertainment editor, dabbling in a bit of crime reporting on the side.

Poppy, in some ways, is based on my own experience as a young, female journalist working on a newspaper in Cape Town in the 1990s. I covered a broad range of stories, including crime and, on occasion, murder. I also covered art and culture, as the area in which I lived and worked was one of the main arts quarters of Cape Town. So a mix of arts and crime was part of my daily experience (professionally speaking, of course!).

Back then, two-thirds of the news room and the entire managerial staff was male. I now teach modules in journalism at a British university and the students are 75% female. So women have come a long way in the profession. But in Poppy’s day, and certainly before that, women journalists were a rarity.

Awesome Woman and a Journalist of the 1800s and Early 1900s

Before the 1960s the women who worked on newspapers were mainly in secretarial roles. Those who did make it into the editorial department as writers were usually expected to cover domestic issues, celebrity gossip, fashion and so-forth. However, there have been some notable exceptions which gave me scope to develop the character of Poppy Denby.

The first woman in Britain to earn a salary as a journalist was Eliza Linton who worked for Die Morning Chronicle from 1848 to the end of the 1860s. She, like me, was also a novelist. Unfortunately, she was renowned for her virulent anti-feminist views.

A supporter of women’s rights was journalist Margaret Fuller, who worked for The New York Tribune in the 1840s. She was also a leading advocate for the abolition of slavery. As a journalist she travelled to Italy to cover the 1848 Italian Revolutions. She was given the job by the editor of Die Tribune, Horace Greeley, who had no problem seeing the worth of women. He also appointed Jane Grey Swisshelm as the first female political correspondent to cover sittings of the US Congress. Horace (who shares his name with my grandfather) was partly the inspiration for Poppy’s editor, Rollo Rolandson.

Also in America was the incredible Nellie Bly, one of the pioneers of investigative journalism. Nellie went under cover for The New York World (edited by Joseph Pulitzer) in 1887, spending ten days pretending to be a mentally ill patient in a New York asylum. She exposed the horrific conditions in the asylum and her article – and subsequent book – sparked public outrage and reform. I had not heard of Nellie before I wrote my book The Jazz Files, in which a woman is held against her will in an asylum for seven years. Poppy and her friend Delilah enter the asylum in disguise, posing as nurses. It was only when the book came out someone told me that it reminded them of the real-life antics of Nellie Bly.

Nellie also went around the world in 72 days, inspired by the Jules Verne novel Around the World in Eighty Days, and wrote travel articles about her experience. She raced against another woman journalist, Elizabeth Bisland, who wrote for Cosmopolitan. Bly and Bisland left New York on the same day, travelling in opposite directions. Bly won the race by four days.

WWI and the 1920s

In Sweden, women were prominent in journalism from the beginning. In 1901 The Swedish Union of Journalists was founded and had female members from the very start. However, after WWI, the introduction of the ‘women’s section’ in newspapers worldwide – funded by advertisers – ensured that female reporters were compelled to cover domestic issues.

This was a major setback for women in journalism as the First World War had provided the opportunity for a number of notable women to make their mark in the field, including the American, Winifred Bonfils, who wrote under the byline ‘Annie Laurie’. Before heading to wartime Europe, Bonfils made her name doing sensational undercover exposés of polygamous Mormon communities in Texas (where she disguised herself as a boy) and the appalling conditions of a leper colony in Hawaii. Women journalists of the time were renowned for tackling difficult subjects of social injustice, and this is something that I pick up on in my Poppy Denby books.

During the 1920s strong-minded female journalists continued to break the mould, including Ester Blenda Nordström, the Swedish investigative reporter and explorer. Nordström made her name working undercover as a teacher in a Sami (Eskimo) community in Lapland, where she exposed racial injustice and abuse. The trend continued during the 1930s culminating in the start of the Second World War being broken by British war correspondent, Clare Hollingworth, working for The Daily Telegraph. In between her journalistic work, she helped run a refugee relocation programme, saving thousands of Jews and Communists from the Nazis. Hollingworth went on to be one of the leading foreign correspondents of the Cold War period.


The Americanization of the British Press, 1830s-1914: Speed in the Age of Transatlantic Journalism

This impressive book brings together two strands of media history to create a new narrative, attempting to explain how and why newspaper journalism in Britain and the United States was transformed between the 1830s and the first decades of the 20th century, establishing the popular style of journalism we know today. It is the culmination of many years’ scholarship by the author, a Professor Emeritus of History at the City University of New York, whose sizeable contribution to 19th-century newspaper history includes two pertinent essays on the ‘new journalism’ or ‘yellow journalism’, as this phenomenon is known in Britain and the United States respectively. The two essays are a 1988 chapter, ‘How new was the new journalism?’ and his 1994 development of one strand of that chapter, ‘The Americanization of the British press, 1830–1914’.(1) Here he has fleshed out the latter article into book form, although the broader framework of the earlier piece would have made a better monograph.

In that 1988 essay, Professor Wiener argued that British journalistic genres from publishing ‘platforms’ such as the radical unstamped press, the disreputable Sunday newspaper, provincial papers and magazines were slowly adopted by London daily newspapers – alongside American innovations such as the interview and investigative journalism – to create the ‘new journalism’ of the late 1880s onwards. London morning papers were the last type of newspaper to combine these tropes into a formula that has defined popular journalism ever since. This fruitful and persuasive thesis has generated much useful subsequent work, such as Graham Law’s study of the new journalism element of serial fiction in newspapers (2), revealing structures and relationships that bound together periodicals, the provincial and metropolitan press and Scottish, English and American publications. Rather than pursuing this line, Professor Wiener has written a book with a much narrower and more contentious argument: that a more democratic American society produced a more demotic writing style, focusing on ‘human interest’ stories such as crime rather than high politics, inventing the newspaper interview, deifying speed in reporting and publishing, and presenting this news in a more visually attractive way, with illustrations and bold headlines. This more populist style reached mainstream newspaper journalism much earlier in the US than in Britain. For,

While popular journalism in Britain pioneered the retailing of gossip and the use of pictures, most of the key transformations in journalism occurred a little earlier and had a greater impact in America (p. 4).

As the book is likely to have more significance for British journalism historiography, this review concentrates on that aspect.

To summarise, the first of two short introductory chapters sets out the purpose and scope of the book, briefly acknowledging theoretical approaches whilst stating that the aim is instead to present a long view of changes in 19th-century journalism that incorporates the complex, evolutionary nature of change, propelled by a cast of bit players as well as great men such as James Gordon Bennett, Randolph Hearst, W. T. Stead and Alfred Harmsworth. Next, chapter one surveys the British fear of an ‘Americanized’ press, contrasted with the ‘higher journalism’ of the monthly and weekly review periodicals and the leader columns of the more serious daily papers. Most of the writers quoted are either higher journalists or authors, a literary elite who felt threatened by America’s cultural democracy, and whose attacks became shriller as a distinctive American literary culture developed towards the end of the century.

Subsequent chapters, despite their apparently thematic titles, follow a chronological structure. Chapter two traces some American developments of the 1830s back to British popular oral and print culture, whilst others are distinctively American, such as James Gordon Bennett’s investigative journalism on his New York Herald, and his delayed release of information about shocking crimes to create an extended, suspenseful and melodramatic news narrative. Chapter three explores the ‘democratization of news’, first in the US, where newspapers were integral to a burgeoning democratic society, and later in Britain, where a culturally rather than politically more democratic society was enabled by the repeal of the newspaper taxes at mid-century. Developments included faster printing and faster reporting, the growth of news reporting (as opposed to opinion) as a journalistic activity, the telegraph and news agencies, and illustrated journalism – all except the last originating in America. The appearance of innovative publications such as the Illustrated Times and the better known Geillustreerde London News is successfully integrated with broader narratives.

The strongest chapter, ‘The stimulus of war’, argues convincingly that the American Civil War (1861–5) was ‘a decisive turning point in the history of journalism’ (p. 80). It created a huge demand for news, led to changes in the physical size, visual appeal and writing style of US newspapers, established war reporting as a staple ingredient of journalism and emphasised speed, largely thanks to the telegraph (p. 85). Similar changes occurred in British journalism during the Franco-Prussian War (1870–1). Chapter five, ‘Expansion of the press’, examines the implications of the huge growth in newspaper titles and circulations in the third quarter of the century in both countries, in regional centres as well as the two metropoles. Developments in advertising and distribution are dealt with, alongside the growth of investigative journalism in America and the separate tradition of social exploration by British journalists such as Henry Mayhew and James Greenwood.

Chapter six, ‘Gossip and other matters’, argues that American journalistic tropes such as gossip and the interview were transmitted by individual journalists moving between the two countries or working for each other’s papers. Chapters seven and eight compare and contrast two journalists apiece to follow developments in the 1880s (Joseph Pulitzer and W. T. Stead) and the 1890s (William Randolph Hearst and Alfred Harmsworth). The former are seen as similar in their use of sensationalism in the service of high ideals, while the latter epitomised ‘Anglo-American popular journalism [in the] form that was to characterise it for much of the succeeding hundred years’ (p. 183). Although Hearst and Harmsworth both had democratic instincts, they invested more capital, applied more industrial methods and acquired more titles than ever before, borrowing magazine formats and using sensation chiefly for commercial ends.

The final chapter takes stock of newspapers on both sides of the Atlantic in the years before 1914, finding that British popular dailies were now Americanized in their processes and contents. They had fewer, smaller leading articles, less Parliamentary news, more features, and their news was more sensational, and gathered using intrusive, competitive, proactive ‘American’ techniques. Occupational debates within journalism over class differentials, professionalization and training are discussed, before a half-page conclusion.

Professor Wiener is an expert on British press history, having edited two influential collections on the unstamped press and the new journalism, among many other works.(3) Here he attempts a synthesis of two national historiographies that have been kept apart for too long, spanning eight decades – an unusually long period in recent British media historiography, a field which still struggles to provide a coherent account of what happened to newspaper journalism across the 19th century as a whole. For this synthesis and periodization, Professor Wiener should be applauded.

His comparative approach ensures that the sum is greater than the parts, casting new light on familiar stories, and future studies of a cultural practice as inter-textual as journalism would do well to pursue this approach. Comparisons also reveal the contingency of journalistic developments on each side of the Atlantic, for example the use of the telegraph. In America, newspapers only began to fully exploit its potential two decades after its invention, thanks to wartime demand for news in the early 1860s in Britain, changed market conditions after the telegraph companies were nationalised in 1870 (not 1868 [p. 97]) enabled commercial arrangements favourable to the largest newspaper market, the provincial press, only months before another war stimulated widespread use. So much for technological determinism.

Professor Wiener focuses on the titles published in two newspaper cities, New York and London, presumably to make his project manageable. He acknowledges that American journalism had many centres, with different histories, but chooses New York as the ‘epicenter’ of journalistic change throughout the 19th century, and the magnet drawing journalistic talent from across the nation. The choice of London is less problematic, he believes, because a ‘London-centered “national press” existed from the outset of the nineteenth century’ (p. 7), ‘key elements of mass circulation journalism’ came from London, and because, like New York, it drew the brightest and best to a ‘forcing ground for journalistic creativity’ (p. 5). These parameters are problematic: while London was the centre of British journalism, the majority of the nation’s newspapers – which were weeklies rather than dailies – were published elsewhere for most of Professor Wiener’s period, and there was no ‘national’ press, as we understand the term today, until the 20th century.(4) This focus on an unrepresentative minority of the press – metropolitan dailies – immediately limits the significance of Professor Wiener’s conclusions. To foreground London dailies in a history of new journalism is rather like choosing Saudi Arabia for an international study of women’s suffrage interesting, but not where the action is. Most American newspapers were undoubtedly more dynamic, innovative and interesting to read than London dailies, but to choose these publications as the British comparators is to misrepresent this country’s Victorian press, whose magazines and weekly newspapers, in London and throughout the British Isles, responded to a growing readership of women, children and working-class men in many exciting ways.

The book’s unrepresentative scope is related to its unrepresentative sources. Professor Wiener brings order to a wide array of secondary literature (books rather than journal articles), but his primary sources are chiefly memoirs and biographies of well known journalists and contemporary comment from elite metropolitan periodicals, with occasional reference to the newspapers themselves. Lucy Brown described journalists’ memoirs as ‘usually of very poor quality, rambling, and anecdotal’, inaccurate and vague (5), but Professor Wiener is less sceptical. Such memoirs tend to follow a rags-to-riches plotline, in which any mention of reporting rather than editing, or provincial rather than metropolitan experience, is confined to the early chapters and used as a narrative device to emphasise the heady heights of the writer’s later career. This biographical material shares another problem with the periodical comment (selected mainly from critics of the new journalism) in that both sources emphasise change at the expense of continuity, making invisible the many aspects of journalism that continued as before. Here, more use of the trade press would have helped. More surprising, in the era of digitised newspapers, is the lack of content analysis to support the quantitative claims of a study arguing for change and causation in specific types of editorial material, many of these trends easily tracked by word-searching. Instead, this is a journalists' history of journalism, from the viewpoint of the industry’s great men. Indeed, the choice of illustrations – eight portraits – confirms the largely biographical approach. A book partly about how newspapers changed their appearance would have benefited from examples of typography, layout and newspaper illustration.

The lack of content analysis occasionally leads Professor Wiener to make unsupported assertions or factual errors. For instance, he argues that ‘serious’ news was being replaced by ‘feather-brained’ features or sensational reporting at the turn of the century (p. 219) my own content analysis of a handful of British newspapers in the second half of the 19th century confirms Mark Hampton’s more nuanced view (6), that old and new types of journalism ran in parallel. The huge increase in the number of titles, physical size and pagination of newspapers meant that there was more of everything, whether measured in column inches or percentages (methods which often produce different results). Provincial publishers segmented their local markets, offering new journalism in halfpenny evening papers, in the weekly miscellany newspaper/magazines so ably studied by Law or in separate supplements, alongside the ‘old journalism’ of morning titles and traditional weekly papers.

Professor Wiener says that advertising in British newspapers ‘took off’ after 1853, when it was no longer taxed, but was ‘less of a fixture of journalism than in the United States’ (p. 107) – in fact, it had already taken off in Britain. In 1850, adverts made up around 50 per cent of Die tye and some profitable county weeklies, well above the 25 per cent mark quoted for American papers, and increased until the 1870s. Further, British papers may have had fewer disreputable personal ads, but commercial announcements for abortifacients such as penny royal (guaranteed to clear ‘female obstructions’) and cures for sexually transmitted diseases, premature ejaculation (‘Manhood: the causes of its premature decline’ ) and the effects of ‘solitary habits’ were commonplace.

Content analysis also contradicts the assertion that, before the 1830s, papers in both countries ignored local news (pp. 34–5, 63–4). In fact, London dailies and provincial weeklies alike published plenty – metropolitan papers such as Die Times, Standard en Morning Chronicle carried reports of London’s district courts and vestry meetings, while non-metropolitan papers saw their prime duty as publishing a much broader array of local news, including courts, local government, sport, market prices, shipping news, births, marriages and deaths and columns of ‘human interest’ news headed ‘Offences, Accidents &c’. The lack of provincial news in London papers was not a sign of lack of interest (p. 67), but a sign that Die tye and other London dailies functioned as local/regional papers, circulating largely in south-east England.

The decision to exclude the provincial majority of newspapers from his account leads Professor Wiener into other errors. 'N Paar voorbeelde sal volstaan. Die London Evening News only ranks as one of the first papers to publish a Saturday football special (p. 202) if the dozen or so provincial ones launched from the early 1880s onwards are discounted. Professor Wiener correctly identifies an important strand of British gossip journalism in ‘London letters’, Parliamentary sketch-writing and Parliamentary lobby reporting (pp. 141–6) but dates these developments too late: provincial newspapers published ‘postscripts’ and ‘London letters’ from the late 18th century onwards, long before this genre appeared in the London daily press the lobby system for sourcing political gossip was also a provincial press innovation. At mid-century, especially after 1855, the huge expansion of provincial newspaper publishing does not support the claim that American ‘regional newspapers flourished to a degree unimaginable in Britain’ (p. 57), while evidence of newspaper-reading from public reading rooms and newsagents clashes with Professor Wiener’s belief that ‘London newspapers maintained a large circulation lead among provincial readers’ in the third quarter of the century (p. 107). Professor Wiener suggests that reporters in Britain were mere shorthand stenographers until the third quarter of the century, when they adopted the mid-century American practice of actively seeking news. Yet the ‘paragraphist’, and the activity of ‘paragraphing’ or seeking out gossip and anecdote – ‘human interest’ stories -- was established in Britain from the 1820s at least, among freelance penny-a-liners and provincial district correspondents and staff reporters.

The book’s stated lack of engagement with theory (p. 5) means that it is stronger on the who, what, where and when than the why or the how there is little attempt to explain why particular developments happened when they did and where they did. Speed, highlighted in the book’s subtitle, is presented as a motif rather than a theory, but is never conceptualised. What was the significance of speed, beyond competitive advantage when more than one title operated in any one market? Increasing speed is often a theme in retired journalists’ memoirs, both because printing and reporting genuinely became faster, but also because the feeling that the world is moving faster is a common part of the ageing process. Publishers and journalists like to boast about speed, but how important was it to readers? Other terms would benefit from definition and examination, such as ‘cultural democracy’, ‘reporting’ or the ‘human interest’ genre of journalism.

Professor Wiener justifiably identifies the turn-of-the-century Daaglikse pos as the epitome of new journalism in its combination of ‘an Americanized emphasis on news’ and magazine features (p. 202). Indeed, the ‘magazinization’ (7) of the British press might be a more fruitful motif than speed, capturing the migration of many journalistic genres from magazines to papers. Some of these, such as illustrations and others not discussed here such as serial fiction and reader competitions, were either unrelated or actually opposed to speed. Magazinization could also be read as feminisation, surely an undertone in Matthew Arnold’s description of the new journalism as ‘feather-brained’.

Finally, a book about the transmission of cultural practices from one place to another requires discussion of the mechanisms of such transmission. Professor Wiener’s biographical approach provides convincing evidence for one transmission route, showing how personnel moved back and forth across the Atlantic (pp. 129–36), but the movement of journalists within the British Isles was also significant Stead, for example, began his working life (as an editor, never a reporter [p. 174]) in the distinctive journalistic culture of North-East England, which in turn was influenced by the print tradition of Scotland, another more democratic country. Stead borrowed ideas from both Scotland and America to turn the Northern Echo into a daily organ of new journalism (it is unlikely that he was influenced by Pulitzer [p. 170], who only bought his first St Louis paper in 1879, eight years after Stead began editing the Northern Echo). However, there is little mention of another route, the conscious and unconscious imitation of journalistic genres made possible by the circulation of newspapers and the reading practices of publishers and journalists.

In conclusion, while this book’s scope, sources and methods seriously misrepresent the breadth and dynamism of 19th-century British journalism, it has many strengths. It provides a convincing long view of changes to daily papers in two important cities (offering a biographical route into the web of mutual influence), adds empirical support to the current interest in links between journalistic and novelistic genres, and is a useful exercise in comparative, transnational history in a field sorely in need of such approaches.


Isaiah Berlin


Sir Isaiah Berlin was a Russian-British political theorist and historian of ideas. One of his most famous works was &ldquoHistorical Inevitability&rdquo which was published in 1954. It discussed the relationship between people and society, and how the two are influenced by exceptional individuals. He also wrote &ldquoKarl Marx: His Life and Environment&rdquo and &ldquoThe Age of Enlightenment: The Eighteenth-Century Philosophers&rdquo, among others.


A History of the British Sporting Journalist, c.1850-1939: James Catton, Sports Reporter

At the heart of this text strides James Catton, less than five feet tall but a giant in the field of sporting journalism. It is the story of his career, from boy reporter in 1870s Lancashire to editor of the influential Manchester-based weekly Athletic News and then grand old man of Fleet Street sports writing in the 1920s and ’30s. The book also presents the story of others, too—the first journalists to turn action into news as raw, carnivalesque, violent pastimes were replaced by codified and commercialised games. Detailing the history of their trade, the book searches for the roots of sports journalism, pushing, for the first time, the newspaper reporter to the foreground in the shared history of the press and sport. Editorial recruitment, training, writing styles, pay, status, rivalry and camaraderie, technology, celebrity, the press box, the player-reporter and drinking culture are all examined, as are the values men like Catton claimed sport, at its best, represented.

Dr Stephen Tate is the author of numerous articles and essays on the history of the newspaper journalist. He has published articles in the journals Sport in History, Archives and Manchester Region History Review, and contributed 20 entries to the Dictionary of Nineteenth-Century Journalism. He is also the author of a chapter and a case study in the second and third volumes of the History of the British and Irish Press. A former journalist, having worked on the daily press across the north of England for more than 30 years, his PhD examined the professionalisation of sports journalism in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. He currently teaches History at Blackburn College University Centre, UK.

“Stephen Tate’s exhaustive study of sports journalists and how they went about their business […] is a very welcome addition to the literature on an area about which we still know very little […] there are so many plums to be picked from this rich pudding. […] Of the twin projects which this single volume embraces, historians will benefit most directly from Tate’s account of journalistic custom and practice as sport transitioned from pre-modern into recognisably modern forms. This is intertwined with a biography of James Catton, whose career in journalism from the 1870s to the 1930s coincided with the emergence of the new world of sport and the rise of the popular press. Newspapers and sport found each other and developed a mutually beneficial relationship based on the rapid transmission of sporting intelligence of all kinds. A small army of journalists was required to sustain this relationship and it is their story which Tate tells here in Illuminating detail. […] Though historians of modern sport often rely heavily on press sources they generally have little to say about sports news as a commodity, the process by which it was created, or the reporters who made it. Tate’s book is invaluable here. […] Tate’s fascinating study points to the symbiosis of sport and the media in Britain as they developed in tandem across the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries.”
Professor Dilwyn Porter
Sport in History, September 2020

“Long before The Athletic, there was the Athletic News, essential reading for sports fans on either side of the First World War. The editor was James Alfred Henry Catton, considered a pioneer in the world of sports journalism and his career forms the backbone of A History of the British Sporting Journalist, the fruition of many years of research for a doctoral thesis by journalist-turned-academic historian Stephen Tate, it tells the story of the formative years of our industry. Catton may have been a giant in terms of achievement, but physically he was not a tall man. The young Neville Cardus, a cricket writer with what was then the Manchester Guardian, penned a memorable description. He wrote: ‘Incredibly small in height, red in the face, round as a ball, gold spectacles, white moustache, bald head at the front, twinkling eyes, he was as though born from Bacchus out of Mr Pickwick.’ Another colleague wrote fondly of ‘my guide philosopher and friend (pocket edition).’ Catton took a while to learn. Tate notes that in an early match report, he did not give the result until the 41st line. Much later, when editor of the Athletic News, Catton instructed his reporters to say ‘what happened, how it happened and why it happened.’ […] A journalist never normally reveals sources but in this case an extensive bibliography and over 40 pages of references are welcome tools in a real heavyweight volume. […] [This] is a fascinating evocation of a lost era of sports reporting.”
Philip Barker
The Sports Journalists’ Association

“Tate’s professed aim in this study is to rescue writers like Catton from anonymity and recognize the key role they played in the formation of our sporting literature. […] The book is particularly rich in its researches into the world of Manchester newspapers and periodicals, their proprietors, and the working culture they presided over, including their hiring practices, wages, and conditions of employment. Tate’s discussion of Catton’s contemporaries, such as Joe Stoddart, Edmund Walmsley, and Tommy Edge, enables us to see the wider picture beyond Catton’s own microhistory. […] As a former journalist himself, Tate is acutely and intelligently aware of the material conditions which obtained within print culture in this period. Through his detailed engagement with the various archives, he is able to identify some of the key challenges facing a changing and emergent profession in search of financial success, respectability, and greater regulation. […] Catton himself emerges as a formidable pragmatist of considerable energy and skill. Tate’s energetic work in the archives shows us the extent to which Catton was ‘the beneficiary of a new order within the world of sport, and a new focus and urgency within the newspaper industry’. […] For Tate, Catton is diminutive in physical stature but a major figure in the history of sports journalism, a writer unrivalled in his combination of sports reporting and news management. As this study makes clear, Catton is valuable not only for his own contribution but for the insight he provides into the working practices at the birth of a recognizably modern sports journalism.”
Professor John Whale
Victorian Periodicals Review, Winter 2020

Hardback