Professor Masiello
GSI: Matthew Gonzales
Comparative Literature 60AC
Discussion 102
23 September 2016
1918. People in this time believed that this terrible war would be the war to end all wars and — as
a result — referred to World War I as The Great War. The devastation of this war was so great
that peace became a global priority and many nations swore off war as a solution to international
conflict. Although that peace was short lived, the massive destruction of The Great War forever
changed global attitudes towards war.
Given the statistics for how deadly World War I was, it’s quite surprising to consider how
optimistic most Americans were about the war and how eager they were to join. The overall feeling
of positivity toward World War I from Americans — despite its gross bloodiness — could be largely
attributed to the work of the Committee on Public Information, which controlled the propaganda
arm of the American side of the war.
The Committee on Public Information, or the Public Information Committee as it’s
referred to in The 42nd Parallel by Jon Dos Passos, supplied information on the war for thousands
of publications and newsreels, distributed millions of pamphlets in multiple languages on
information regarding the war and America’s place in it, conducted speaking campaigns for the
war like the Four Minute Men campaign, provided cable news services worldwide, and established
and enforced the rules of censorship regarding information about the war. The Committee was
created by President Woodrow Wilson and run by George Creel, who stated in a report to the
President, “We shall not discharge our full duty to the national defense until we have reached
every community in the United States by written or spoken word or motion picture; until every
individual, native, naturalized, or alien, has it seared into his consciousness that this war is
a war of self defense, and that it has got to be master of his every thought and action.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmYK0ve2hh0&list=PL87xvTtT7XfH1_Qu9p3_U11iUYW9TvDWk&index=1
Although Creel adamantly defended the Committee’s actions of censorship and argued
that the Committee’s aims were solely to present relevant information to the world about the war,
one must question the purity of these goals as much racist propaganda was peddled to Americans
about the German threat, heightening domestic relations between German immigrants and other
groups of people in the United States. As demonstrated in The 42nd Parallel, Janey left her job
at Dreyfus and Carroll when German immigrants began to work there because she did not want to
work with “Huns.”
But in addition to peddling racist propaganda and interfering with the right to free press,
the Committee on Public Information reflects a larger trend in the modern era revolving around the
disconnect between reality and its portrayal. In reality, the war was bloody and thousands of
Americans died of illness or wounds in tight, dirty trenches, but in its portrayal, the war is
described as an opportunity for Americans to defend worldwide freedom and defeat the forces of
evil. This mentality is reflected by the characters in The 42nd Parallel, such as J. Ward
Moorehouse — an advertiser who joins the Public Information Committee himself — who
hide their true identities in order to seem better off than they actually are. Overall, the Committee
on Public Information represents the political institutionalization of the societal norm of deception
typical of the modern era.
Questions:
- How do the newsreels in The 42nd Parallel enhance the ideas of fakery and sensationalism common for this time period? Using your prior knowledge of early 20th century reporting and what you’ve learned from this blog on the Committee on Public Information, how reliable or relevant do you find the information and stories presented in the newsreels to be? Would you question the reliability of the newsreels even without knowing any historical context of this time period?
-
Why do you think global attitudes towards war have changed over the years, spanning from the pre-World War days to the present era? Think of the frequent wars that took place in Europe for centuries to the devastation of the World Wars to the aggressive anti-war protests that took place during the Vietnam War. What role has the media played in molding public opinion towards war? Can we trust our sources?
Works Cited
IndiaToday.in New Delhi, April 17, 2015 | UPDATED 15:55 IST - http://indiatoday.intoday.in/ education/story/5-worst-wars-in-history-of-the-world/1/430718.html
Passos, John Dos. The 42nd Parallel. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 2000. Print.
United States. Committee on public information. [from old catalog]. The Activities of the Committee On Public Information ... Washington: Govt. print. off., 1918.
Advertising- isn't it all a form of deception? I agree with you that the Committee certainly played between the real and the fake, often portraying the war as a glorious quest when in reality it was a war of destruction.
ReplyDeleteWhat strikes me most is the interplay between the observed and unobserved, especially Creel's quote that each individual should have the ideal of war "seared into his consciousness". This is an advertising war, too, of creating a crowd of like-minded people who support all efforts in the battle.
Yet where does this leave the dissidents? This is where I think Haoming Tang's piece on expatriates comes into place, and thus concludes the full circle of modernism.
To answer your first question, I would argue that all news, whether sensationalized or not, should be questioned. Blindly accepting the opinions of others can be dangerous for individual acquisition of knowledge, and while newspaper reels should be observed and considered, the press should be taken with a grain of salt.
In order to avoid the world of "fakes," we should pay particular attention to the motive of each newsreel or media outlet as they try to dictate the way we perceive an experience. A consistent problem with news coverage and the media is that the media, in this case the Committee, attempts to make a "falsey" experience feel real in order to mold our opinions and perceptions. By painting an image in America's mind of the "beauty" of war and the possibility for each American to be the hero, the Committee is successful in convincing Americans to join the war as they mistakenly attempt to match these artificial experiences with real world experiences.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe enthusiasm for war has certainly decreased since the World Wars, mainly accounting for the devastation of these wars with the new machinery that changed the meaning of war from that in previous centuries). The media has also been quick to emphasize tension and quite honestly makes money off of war so it is in their advantage to try to stir pro-war sentiment. Even today this can be seen on basically every news channel about trouble at home and international strife. However, there have been counter measures by independent artists (musicians like Elton John, Dolly Parton, Bruce Springsteen, John Lennon as well as photojournalists like Marc Riboud, Phillip Jones Griffith, and Hyun Cong Ut). The efforts of such artists and many other significant public figures have been able to serve as a challenge to the media and as a sign to the national audience that we cannot trust those media outlets.
ReplyDeleteDuring the late 19th century and early 20th century, yellow journalism was a huge trend among the press. Yellow journalism refers to sensationalist media based on crude exaggeration. Many journalists wrote excessive and hyperbolic headlines in order to gain the public's attention, particularly about foreign affairs. Because of this, people became obsessed with whether or not the US would and should become involved in the war. Knowing how sensationalized many headlines during this time were, I know that the newsreels may not be accurate portrayals of the time period. In fact, the newsreels may do more to portray the fakery and sensationalism that characterize this time period rather than portraying the actual historical context.
ReplyDeleteEmilie
I once read that it is easier to detect bias and misinformation when it is read than when it is seen. The reason for this, if I remember correctly, is due to the fact that we are using our imaginations and our own experiences to understand the text whereas when we are looking at an image we just accept it as is without considering the context of its creation.
ReplyDeleteSeveral times, when I have participated in an event that I know will be covered by the media, I went out of my way to watch the coverage on the news. It is mind-blowing, even when the media is not pushing an agenda, how poorly the media represents the event.
During the mid-80s, I went to a protest of the US’s involvement in Nicaragua. The protest occurred at the state capital.The itinerary included some speeches by nuns and priests who had seen the atrocities being committed in Nicaragua. At the end of the protest, there was a march to the governor’s mansion. Everyone carried crosses and sang “Give Peace a Chance.” When we arrived at the governor’s mansion, we stuck the crosses in the lawn.
The next day, I read about the event in the Daily Oklahoma, a conservative newspaper. The photo they published was taken before the march while the nuns and priests were speaking. The protesters were facing away from the camera. In the foreground was the pile of crosses on the capital steps. It looked like we had thrown the crosses down and were walking away. Considering how religious many people who read the Daily Oklahoma are, this was a very offensive image.
I think the newsreels from WWI should not be taken as fact. One must try to consider that there is a context in which the filming occurred. One must always consider the actions of the photographer and the editor in order to detect bias and misinformation.
Prior to World War I, going to war signified wealth and the possibility of advancement in society. In the Medieval Ages, the rich would go into battle for glory, the chance of claiming new land, and the possibility of gaining knighthood. However, the devastation that resulted from World War I showed people that war can not longer be idealized and glorified. With millions of military personal and civilians killed, there is no reward from war.
ReplyDeleteAs the world stage become more globalized and integrated, the issues that pull countries into war are no longer simple and straight forward, and the ends results from the war can be ambiguous. Now, wars drag in allies and neighboring nations that may have no stake in the war. As a result, people are now increasingly questioning why their governments are choosing to be in these wars.
A nation is most unified, at least superficially, during a war. Whether this war serves to protect the nation's homeland, some other nation's homeland, or destroying someone else's homeland, in a war people of that nation are in an excited mental status. As long as the press and media demonstrate a little stimulation, in this case, how great it is to fight for America, the readers tend to believe in partial (in this case even racial) information. It is this irrational hysteria for one's nation that drives one's rational mind out of the way.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to look at Newsreel XIX, the last Newsreel section in the book, which starts with the bold headline "U.S. At War." This is the second-shortest Newsreel in the book, as if all that needs to be said is contained in that brief headline. The Newsreel mixes patriotic music with sections about stocks, "millions paid for golf," and "billions for allies," creating an image of patriotism and propaganda covering up the hidden costs of the war.
ReplyDelete-Ian
It's definitely interesting to look at the way in which attitudes towards war and violence have changed so much in such a short time. What's especially interesting to me is how seemingly simple it is to alter the people's perceptions of certain topics solely through the mass media. You mentioned the Vietnam War as one of many turning points for the general population's view on war. I'd also like to point out the recent terrorist attacks that have happened around the world. When events like these are highly publicized and the news coverage is high, reactions are bound to be much stronger. For example, after the attacks in Paris, I'm sure everyone knew multiple people who were changing their profile pictures to the French flag and hashtagging #PrayforParis. However, the attacks in Egypt, Lebanon, and Iraq, just to name a few were not given as much, or any, attention on the news and therefore did not receive a reaction from the bulk of the American people. The media can definitely be a biased form of representation and should always be taken in with a grain of salt.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting that despite the Committee on Public Information's attempts to present war as a glorious opportunity for America to be a global hero through warfare, one major hallmark of the postwar modernist era was disillusionment with the war and the death/havoc it wreaked. I also found the last image interesting in a disturbing manner, in that it shows that one of most effective ways to target an enemy in propaganda is to literally dehumanize them.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that in a time when mass media was up and coming, journalists took advantage of the the public's naiveté, and greatly employed yellow journalism in their writing. However as time passed, the public was eventually enlightened about the reality of the wars, thereby recognizing the deception that plagued most journalism. Following this realization, the public learned to approach any information broadcasted through mass media with caution, consider the motives of the creator, and to not accept any one source of information as the absolute truth.
ReplyDeleteI think that in a time when mass media was up and coming, journalists took advantage of the the public's naiveté, and greatly employed yellow journalism in their writing. However as time passed, the public was eventually enlightened about the reality of the wars, thereby recognizing the deception that plagued most journalism. Following this realization, the public learned to approach any information broadcasted through mass media with caution, consider the motives of the creator, and to not accept any one source of information as the absolute truth.
ReplyDeleteI think that early 20th century mass media over glorified the act of war and played off the reader's innocence, in sense to convey their bias on the matter. Obviously, after the wars the truth of war being destruction rather than almost godly and necessary became evident. The media's falsification of war lead to the people's altered view of journalism. More consideration was put in place of their naivety and because of this, media was taken cautiously and with one's investigation to avoid taking the opinion of journalism as exactly their own. By doing this, the public has learned to take media with a grain of salt to uncover any underlying biases.
ReplyDeleteI think that early 20th century mass media over glorified the act of war and played off the reader's innocence, in sense to convey their bias on the matter. Obviously, after the wars the truth of war being destruction rather than almost godly and necessary became evident. The media's falsification of war lead to the people's altered view of journalism. More consideration was put in place of their naivety and because of this, media was taken cautiously and with one's investigation to avoid taking the opinion of journalism as exactly their own. By doing this, the public has learned to take media with a grain of salt to uncover any underlying biases.
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting that the Committee on Public Information and the propaganda it produced reflect the confrontation of fiction and reality, a recurring theme in The 42nd Parallel. Justified by Creel and others as a means of bolstering American patriotism and support, the propaganda created a distorted image of the atrocities of World War I. Likewise, the numerous fakes in Dos Passos' novel (Doc Bingham, Colonel Wedgewood) project false images of themselves as a means of accomplishing their goals.
ReplyDeleteThe newsreels in The 42nd Parallel enhance the ideas of fakery and sensationalism as the media often has bias and misrepresents events in order to feed off of the naiveté of the readers. Although the newsreels are supposed to portray truth, they often spin stories in a way that they are actually quite far from the truth. This is true for today, too. News channels, newspapers, and other outlets have a certain bias, especially with politics, and will often follow an agenda. Since this has become so prominent, it is better to find information through multiple sources rather than just one. Without knowing the historical context of this time period, I would definitely question the reliability of the newsreels.
ReplyDelete-Sarah Abdeshahian
Hi Emma, great blog post!
ReplyDeleteI really like your first question for the class to consider regarding the trustworthiness of the press. As a few previous people mentioned, during this time period sensationalism and especially yellow journalism was the latest trend to have different press' newspapers bought and read. In the early 1900's, film was relatively new and so filmmakers experimented with the purpose of it - was film to be for entertainment or simple mundane reciting of the weekly news... Or could it combine both? We see this in the newsreels in the 42nd Parallel, a great connection back to the novel.
I believe that everything corporations, committees, and even people themselves portray to others is an advertisement of sorts, so it all has to be considered in context and with a critical eye. I took a journalism class when I was extremely young and my teacher at the time informed us that "news is anything the people who produce it want it to be", which is exactly what we see with the Committee on Public Information and in all the coverage of reality stars instead of real-world tragedies today. I'm not saying I believe all news should be constantly graphic, but I do believe that people like to hear the smoothed-over version of events and that is why the Committee on Public Information's pro-war sentiments were met with such success when the actual conditions of war were in reality, atrocious.
I do believe that public sentiment towards war has definitely changed over the years, stemming from a multitude of factors. Some of these could include the general disillusionment with war after WWII, the technological advancements in weaponry that make it overall more dangerous, the gradual shift to more socially liberal attitudes throughout America, and the general interest in other areas. I think people are becoming more aware of the biases news sources harbor (looking at you, Fox News) and hold them more accountable to responsible and truthful reporting, so they hold less weight in molding public opinion than they did in previous decades.
- Allie Groscost
This blog immediately prompted me to look back on Dos Pasos's "The 42nd Parallel" and think about how the novel ended. The propaganda during the World Wars was incredibly important in the shaping of American attitudes and support towards the wars. America, being an isolationist country, was not familiar with the seriousness the wars occurring in Europe. Rather, American attitudes didn't not change towards the war until the sinking of a ship carrying American Citizens. This lack of experience will carry us on to the next book in the series, where America will gain a voice after fighting in the war. After all, how can one speak of experience that one has not experienced themselves?
ReplyDelete