Talk:William Randolph Hearst/Archives/2019

an immeasurable, long-lasting negative impact on global socioeconomics
According to the article, Hearst's campaign against cannabis created "an immeasurable, long-lasting negative impact on global socioeconomics". In spite of seven references I feel that this statement is somewhat inflated; at least it needs to be elucidated. Did it create the Great Depression? Did it lead to the Holocaust? Did it inspire the Second Sino-Japanese War? Weatherford (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Hearst influence in war downplayed in this article
The "Spanish-American Civil War" section seems to opine that the newspapers of Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst were essentially not as influencing as commonly thought in pressuring the McKinley administration to take action. I would caution against taking that particular point of view and ignoring others. The influence of Hearst & Pulitzer is very much still a contentious topic, but I would welcome increased literature presenting another point of view, arguing instead that these publishers played a vital role in ginning up support for the war. I propose Susan J. Douglas's “Presidents and the Media,” in Brian Balogh and Bruce Schulman, eds., Recasting Presidential History, Cornell University Press, 2015:

"Historians naturally disagree over the extent to which such papers and magazines could shape public opinion, particularly over how much of a role they played in the decision of the United States to declare war on Spain in 1898. But McKinley and his advisers had to pay increasing attention to campaigns like Hearst's, whose Journal began devoting more space to Cuba's rebellion against Spanish rule. The paper famously depicted three Cuban women being strip-searched by male Spanish authorities and declared that the explosion of the battleship Maine in the Havana harbor in February 1898 was "the work of an enemy." Many papers, indeed, fanned war fever until a "war psychosis" broke out. In the wake of the Maine explosion, reporters increasingly flocked to the Executive Mansion to get McKinley's response to the crisis.

"In this media environment, it was the newspapers, not the president, who were setting the agenda."

Susan J. Douglas, “Presidents and the Media,” in Brian Balogh and Bruce Schulman, eds., Recasting Presidential History, Cornell University Press, 2015, p. 148 If there is no opposition, I will shortly make those edits myself to the section. Eliaszjm (talk) 02:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No -- McKinley and GOP were in charge of White House & Congress. These leaders seldom read the Hearst Journal --it was of course Solidly Democratic (Hearst was a leftwing Dem candidate for governor). Likewise Pulitzer's World was strongly Democratic. Outside NY both sold few copies.  Congressmen paid much more attention to their home district or state papers. Historians have looked at the newspapers across the country and many did favor the war but not because of Hearst -Pulitzer "yellow" sensationalism.  see 1) Shankman, Arnold M. "Southern Methodist Newspapers and the Coming of the Spanish-American War" Journal of Southern History 39.1 (1973): 93-96 says "Southern Methodist newspapers did not favor a war to liberate Cuba, supporting instead President William McKinley's efforts to avoid conflict with Spain." 2) Fry Nevada Historical Society Quarterly Dec 1977, says in Nevada the Silver/Dem newspapers were 'yellow' & demanded war; the "Republican papers called for war with Spain but cited principally self-defense and humanitarian reasons. 3) in Chicago, Zobrist, Journalism Quarterly (June 1961) says "Chicago papers, the 'Record' and the 'Daily News,' ...refrained from sensational reporting. Both papers, however, had correspondents in Cuba, and their dispatches were models of factual reporting."  (3) Berg, Journalism Quarterly (Sept 1968) says NY TIMES "gave the appearance of objectivity, opposing any action that might disrupt business." (4) Welter, Journalism Quarterly. Sept 1970: "Minnesota newspapers showed balanced, objective journalism" in 1898. (5) Kapur Presidential Studies Quarterly March 2011  says that McKinley's actions were based more on his values of arbitrationism, pacifism, humanitarianism, and manly self-restraint,  than on external pressures. (6) Hamilton et al Journalism Studies. Feb 2006: "authors do not find the "yellow press" started the war  as has been previously theorized and disproved - but they do find that sensationalist and conservative newspapers together created an enabling environment for going to war". (7) Pierro Gleijeses Journal of Latin American Studies, 2003  looked at 41 major newspapers. he writes "eight of the papers in my sample advocated war or measures that would lead to war before the Maine blew up; twelve joined the pro-war ranks in the wake of the explosion; thirteen strongly opposed the war until hostilities began. The borders between the groups are fluid. For example, the Wall Street Journal and Dun’s Review opposed the war, but  their opposition was muted. The New York Herald, the New York Commercial Advertiser and the Chicago Times-Herald came out in favour of war in March, but with such extreme reluctance that it is misleading to include them in the pro-war ranks". Rjensen (talk) 09:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)