100-Year Anniversary Woman's Suffrage

Women’s suffrage: then and now

Photo from AP images.

An intro to the movement

The women’s suffrage movement began in the mid nineteenth century with a significant turning point occurring on Aug. 18, 1920, when the 19th Amendment for women’s suffrage was ratified. The 19th Amendment to the Constitution granted women the right to vote and was the conclusion of decades of struggle by women suffragists in the United States. Through research into the past, Ana Vaso, Zac Carlson, Jon Wilcox and Nicole Barrios have worked to compile samples of “back in the day” coverage of this movement in history to examine how newspapers in the 1900s reported on it. We researched original coverage from The New York Times and The Washington Post to gather a comprehensive view of the coverage of the news event as it happened.

Woman's Suffrage Timeline

1848
The first women's rights convention in Seneca Falls, New York. The convention lated 2 days and the results were 68 women and 32 men signed a Declaration of Sentiments and 12 other resolutions were adopted for equal treatment of women and men under the law and voting rights for women.

1850
The first National Women's Rights Convention in Worcester, Mass., with more than 1,000 
participants. National conventions were held yearly through 1860, except for 1857.

1869
The National Woman Suffrage Association is formed by Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. The goal of the organization is to get voting rights for women through Congressional amendment to the Constitution.

1890
The National Women Suffrage Association and the American Women Suffrage Association merge to to form the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA). NAWSA fight for voting rights for women.

1893
Colorado becomes the first state to grant women the right to vote. Followed by Utah and Idaho in 1896, with 13 other states following them year after year throughout 1918.

1903
The National Women's Trade Union League is formed and main purpose is to improve wages and working conditions for women.

1913
The Congressional Union is formed to implement a federal amendment to give women the vote. Later, the group was renamed the National Women's Party. 

1916
The first U.S. birth-control clinic opens in Brooklyn, N.Y. The clinic got shut down soon after the opening, but more clinics opened in NY a few years later.

1919
The federal woman suffrage amendment was passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate and sent to the states for ratification.

1920

The 19th Amendment to the Constitution, giving women the right to vote is signed into law.

Women’s suffrage: then and now

By Nicole Barrios 

The New York Times, March 21, 1920, page 10
The Washington Post, Feb. 28, 1922, page 10

For this “back in the day” assignment, I have chosen to research how the women’s suffrage movement was covered in the press at the time of the movement and how the 100th anniversary of this movement should be reflected upon today. In this assignment, in which I have looked into history and historical editions of newspapers, I have come to learn more about the industry in which I currently work and hope to work in the future. 

Newspapers during the 1920s are, in fact, different from newspapers produced today; however, some of my research did surprise me in that the editors of The New York Times (who were presumably all men in 1920) allowed and printed letters to the editor written by women about the suffrage movement. I was surprised by the lack of bias I thought I would encounter. Perhaps I thought I would see a stifling of women’s voices during the coverage of this news, yet I was happy to see a fair representation of the movement and the time period in my research on The New York Times and The Washington Post coverage.

Real women’s opinion during the time period:

I would suggest to the editors of The New York Times (our class’ hypothetical supervisors) that they include in their 100th editor written by women suffragists at the time that give voice to their plight, opinions and the movement. For example, in the article, “Bonus Interviews: Equality Under Suffrage,” Helen P. Kempton writes a letter to the editor addressing what suffrage really means and why it is important to society. She writes: 

Photo from National Archives

“As modern civilization has progressed, women have found their way in education, in industry, until now they stand shoulder to shoulder with men, sharing common interests, facing common problems. The exigencies of family life will prevent many women from seeking governmental office, as their lesser physical strength will preclude them from police duty and military service. Is this a reason for denying to them their share of responsibility in the making of the laws, the election of public officers and the serving in office when circumstances permit?”

I like that in this letter to the editor, the reader is able to hear the impassioned voice of a woman in 1920s New York who is living through the women’s suffrage movement, living the news. By including this type of coverage, the reader is not simply getting a calculated version of what the male news reporter for The Times wants them to know but can hear the opinion of a women suffragist herself. I think this is important when it comes to showing all sides of the story and the news, and ensuring the anniversary coverage is not simply what the reporters said but also what the women were saying as well.

Ongoing topic of coverage and different headline styles:

I would also include coverage from The Washington Post in the commemorative coverage of the women’s suffrage movement. The article, “Women Suffrage Upheld by Court: Supreme Justices Unanimous in Declaring 19th Amendment Constitutional,” from a Feb. 28, 
1922 edition of The Post, shows that even two years later, the country was still discussing and challenging the women’s suffrage movement. The article states that the Supreme Court upheld the amendment after it was challenged by the state of Maryland. In that challenge some men “sought to prevent the registration of two women as qualified voters in Baltimore.” 

Headline example from the Washington Post

Although the content of this article is interesting to include in the commemorative coverage because it shows the topic of women’s suffrage was still prevalent in the dialog of America at the time, this article is also a good example of how differently articles appear in papers today. The headline has four different sections to it and all are almost complete sentences, which is not the case today. Today, newspapers wish to make their headlines as short as possible with key words that can be quickly picked up in a Google search. However, in this article, the first headline is all capital letters and bolded, while the other preceding descriptive headlines are almost full sentences that would take the reader more than a glace to grasp. I find this contrast something interesting to note in the 100th anniversary coverage.

Modern Women’s Conference Speech:

For commemorative coverage, I would also include more current views on the women’s movement, and how it is viewed in the modern era. I would include a speech given by Hilary Clinton at the U.N. 4th  World Conference on Women in Beijing, China in 1995. This speech is an example of the continuing mission of women around the world to focus on reaching and maintaining the equality that women fought for throughout the 1900s.

Honoring the 100th anniversary of the women's suffrage movement

By Ana Vaso

"Senate Filibuster Holds Up Suffrage"

New York Times

May 27, 1919

"Delaware Vote Defeats Suffrage"

New York Times

June 3, 1920

"Anthony Centenary Recalls Prediction; Famous Advocate of Woman Suffrage Said It would Come in 1920"

New York Times

Feb. 15, 1920

"Suffrage Battle Will Start Today"

New York Times

Aug. 9, 1920

"Federal Woman Suffrage"

New York TImes

June 6, 1919

The coverage of the women's suffrage movement was really interesting because like most political issues, there was always two very different side to it. There was defiantly an increase in the suffrage movement inclusion in newspapers once the amendment was passed by congress in 1919.The stories leading up to the ratification of the 19th amendment in 1920 varied between informational stories about the issue, stories promoting women's rights and articles opposing women's right to vote. The New York Times had many women's suffrage archives, one of them that I though was interesting was the article "Delaware Vote Defeats Suffrage" that was published a couple of months before the 19th amendment was ratified. This story was opposing women's right to vote and talking about the fact that Delaware's vote against women's right was going to end the suffrage movement. 

The "Urging Sessions to Vote on Suffrage" is an article pushing for women's rights early on in June 1919. It explains the support from many state governors that women were getting and predicts Michigan would be the first state followed by other western states to "take speedy action on the amendment"

Photo from the National Archives

Even in 1919, filibusters were used in fighting for women's rights, in the article "Senate Filibuster Holds Up Suffrage", I learned that the vote on motion for delay was 27-64, this was published in May 1919 and predicted the amendment would pass. This article also talked about the "brutal tactics" used by the opposing party which I think was defiantly a trend for those who did not want women to have the right to vote. The tactics and reasoning of the anti-suffrage people did were very brutal,  there ware many anti-suffrage women and men organizations in every state. To show some of the "humor" and tactic used by the anti-suffragists you can look at the cartoons used in newspapers and magazines.

The "Federal Woman Suffrage" article was published after the 19th amendment had passed congress and the house. This a letter explaining what women have gone through in their fight for their right to vote. The obstacles they have overcome and the importance to take this amendment all the way and pass it into law. 

The article "Suffrage Battle Will Start Today" was published in the New York times just a couple weeks before the 19th amendment was added to the constitution. If the battle for suffrage had really started just a few weeks before being ratified that would be very impressive, but the article talks about how it is now or never and the mind-set the women fighting for  amendment must have really strengthened right before it passed and I am so glad it did because I think it is important for women to be confident and fight strong for what they believe in. 

The article "Anthony Centenary Recalls Prediction; Famous Advocate of Woman Suffrage Said It would Come in 1920" was published in the New York Times 6 months before the 19th amendment was ratified. This article talks about 1920 being the year women finally get their rights, which ended up being true.

Article from New York Times archives

The March March

By Jon Wilcox

"5,000 WOMEN MARCH, BESET BY CROWDS"

New York Times

March 4, 1913

On March 3, 1913, one day before Woodrow Wilson’s inauguration, 5,000 women gathered in Washington to demonstrate for their right to vote. In the past, political infighting had crippled the feminist movement, keeping the cause from gathering much needed publicity. But the 1913 march down Pennsylvania Avenue would change everything for the feminist movement. National press coverage byThe New York Times and other esteemed journals catapulted the cause into the public spotlight, solidifying the fragmented feminist organizations, and brought for the first time much needed national attention. Only seven years after the march, the Nineteenth Amendment would amend the constitution, granting women the right to vote.

One day after the marches the New York Times published this story

History always changes. While some historical events never find “historic” status and are exiled into the abyss of forgetfulness, others evolve along another route into our collective consciousness. The demonstrations of March 4, 1913 most definitely fall with the latter.

The New York Times’ March 4 issue reported on the demonstrations in “5,000 WOMEN MARCH, BESET BY CROWDS.” Although New York Times provided almost an entire page to cover the event, the story only appears on page four.

The formatting differences a hundred years have provided are enormous. Today, among many other minor and major changes, headlines are larger, articles are shorter, and pictures are everywhere. The New York Times of March 4, 1913 was dense, black and white, and difficult to read.   

Looking back at The New York Times’ report, it is easy to criticize the journalists and publishers involved, but harder and perhaps more enlightening to note what was done right. The task of determining what is and, especially, what will be newsworthy is a daunting task. The public record provided by The New York Times, the fact that the newspaper did record the story with ample words while it was fresh and before history colored the first hand information of the day is a triumph of human accomplishments. One hundred years later, the paper and ink of March 4, has found its ways through the channels of time to me and, finally, to you.

     Feminist Inez Milholland before march. From the Library of Congress

Image from National Archives

Convergence, or the increasing trend toward media interconnectivity, dominates modern journalism. The term, “newspaper of record,” carries new weight in a world of infinite information. While a simple Google search may provide billions of results, the majority are far from trustworthy. These days, The New York Times dedication to legitimacy means more than ever. Notice the difference in search results betweenThe New York Times’ database and Google’s.

Even in a day and age where interactivity and media convergence dominate, words still serve as the primary mode of communication. In a recent Washington Post blog, Lonnae O'Neal Parker examines the same 1913 march reported by the New York Times in “5,000 WOMEN MARCH, BESET BY CROWDS.” The facts remain the same, but the manner in which they are discussed is quite different these days. In the blogosphere, information is condensed from thousands of words to mere hundreds. In an arena of second-long attention spans, pictures carry enormous meaning and vastly increase the probability for a blog to go viral.  

Back in the day of women's suffrage

By Zac Carlson

"New Jersey Woman's Suffragists"

New York Times 

17 Nov 1902

Intro

For my back in the day assignment I chose to coverage women’s suffrage. Obviously I’m a male but I don’t think the feminist cause is dependent on gender or sex. I looked at newspapers from the late 1800’s up to the passage of the 19^th amendment, which gave women the right to vote, in 1920. The paper I centered my research on was the New York Times as I felt it was one of the most established newspapers in its time while still being very relevant and recognizable to today’s readers.

Coverage

Such a small article from the New York Times.

I was surprised by how balanced the coverage of woman’s suffrage was in these older papers. I expected such a patriarchal society to give the movement short shrift but I was happy to see pretty much unbiased reporting of the facts when it came to suffrage. There were even editorials on the subject. The one thing I will say is that most of the coverage was relegated to pages deep in the newspaper, even when women’s suffrage was close to achieving its goal it didn’t receive front page coverage. Also I noticed the stories tended to be fairly short but that seemed to be a trend for even the front page articles. I get the feeling that women’s suffrage wasn’t considered a tremendously important issue by the population at large while today we look back on it as a major step forward in United States society.

Formatting

The difference in formatting between current newspapers and the past was really interesting. I should have expected it but was taken aback by the lack of pictures which have become almost an essential part of today’s news coverage. The goal seemed to be to squeeze as many words on a page as possible, which personally made it hard for me to read the older coverage. This was caused by both smaller print and less advanced printing presses. The font used also tended to be more compact than what is used presently. Maybe people had better eyesight back in the day. That said, paper is a very temporary article and some of this may simply be due to decaying over time. Some of the anachronisms were pretty interesting, such as the use of “miss” to identify women which is out of style today. The headlines tended to be smaller than those we see today, often they were hard to tell them apart from the text itself. Leads also tended to be more roundabout in their approach. While nowadays journalists try to fit as much of the important W’s in the first sentence, the older coverage often wouldn’t give you even the names of the people involved until well into the story. I also noticed that it was not uncommon to identify a subject by their first name.

Pictures

The pictures of coverage were obviously in black and white but otherwise they were pretty similar to what we see today. There was no Photoshop back in the day so you could argue that they were a more trustworthy source than today. Illustrations were also used a lot more often than they are today, especially in advertisements. The descriptions of pictures were similar to today’s but it was pretty common to see them published without credit to the photographer.

From AP Images

In Conclusion

Overall I was pleasantly surprised by the past coverage of women’s suffrage; it tended to be unbiased despite the industry being ridiculously dominated by males. I would’ve liked to see the issue more prominently in the papers but expectations were exceeded.

Ana Vaso works at KTSW 89.9, the campus radio station.

Zac Carlson also works at KTSW 89.9 as the web content editor. 

Jon Wilcox is a mass communication student at Texas State. 

Nicole Barrios is a news reporter for The University Star campus newspaper. 

War of the Worlds Timeline

Spencer McAdams

10/10/2013

1938 “The War of the Worlds” Radio Broadcast Timeline

>October 30

8pm – Mercury Theatre Group’s Halloween show begins broadcast of H.G. Wells’ “The War of the Worlds” radio drama, with Orson Welles as the announcer.

8:30 pm – Radio listeners who missed the announcement at the beginning of the broadcast begin to panic as they believe the events being described are fact instead of fiction.

9pm – Broadcast ends and police stations in Concrete, Washington are flooded with calls, people lock themselves in basements, take to the roads, and arm themselves for the perceived threat.

>October 31

Newspapers release articles describing the events that took place, speculation on several causes of the panic, and the response.  Public officials reassure the panicked public and attempt to restore the peace.

Civil Rights

50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Movement

Coverage Research

Blog Summary

by: Garret Flores

Our group reported on the commemorative coverage of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement that changed the face of America forever. In our group, Katee Boyd and Garrett Flores, chose to cover events that took place in the movement that aren't necessarily the first events one thinks of when they think of the Civil Rights Movement. However, all the protests and steps Americans took throughout this transitional period helped make the Civil Rights Movement as powerful as it was. 

After researching a variety of stories reported on 50 years ago, we were able to compare and contrast coverage of events then and now. The metamorphosis of news coverage in just 50 years is incredible and intend to show you the change in not only society, but journalism as well. We chose two front page stories from the The Delta Democrat-Times and The Birmingham News to summarize.

Mothers on both sides of Till murder express concern about investigation 

The Delta Democrat-Times, Friday, September 2, 1955, pg. 1

by: Katee Boyd

A little background

Till’s mother insisted on an open 
casket to display the brutality
 he endured by this act. 
Photo by The Chicago Defender 

The article I chose relates to the kidnapping and murder of Emmett Till, 15, of Chicago. Till was kidnapped by two white men, half-brothers J.W. Milam and Roy Bryant, while visiting relatives in Mississippi in August of 1955. He was then beaten, shot and his body disposed of in the Tallahatchie River. Milam and Bryant confessed to the kidnapping but not to the murder. Newspapers nationwide were critical of publications in the South. This in turn seemed to push the southern media towards supporting the two white men. As this shift occurred, the southern attitude as a whole towards Milam and Bryant began to follow in the medias footsteps. When the two could not afford decent attorneys, some stepped up to represent them pro bono and donations were made for their defense totaling $10,000. In September, the two men were acquitted by an all-white jury. The nation was outraged and it sparked widespread controversy. The following January in 1956, Milam and Bryant confessed to the murder in a Look magazine interview, as they were protected by double jeopardy. This incident is one of the key factors in igniting the civil rights movement. In addition to the front page I analyzed there are multiple front pages covering events from that time period. 

Favoritism apparent in article 

I found this article interesting because it gives both mothers a voice in the situation but in different ways. It gave more prominence to the white mother, Mrs. Eula Lee Bryant. It quoted her describing how she spent her time while her sons where in jail for kidnapping Till. It described her looking over photographs of her two sons and her other children. Bryant claimed that racism was not a characteristic of men in her family. I also think it is strange that they note how many other children she has. She also points out the military status of her sons. It seems like the paper made more of an effort to humanize her in some ways to gain sympathy.

The Delta Democrat-Times
Friday, September 2, 1955, pg. 1

On the other hand Till’s mother, Mrs. Mamie Bradley, is quoted as warning her son prior to leaving for his visit south, to willingly be submissive to whites. This could possibly be interrupted as he should have known not to mess with any whites.

Not only does the paper give more print space to the white mother but the first part of the story is also dedicated to her instead of the mother of the victim, which I thought to be odd. The layout of the story is strange. Instead of flowing in a normal pattern, they veer and surround the smaller portion about Till’s mother with that of Bryant’s story. Although the paper is not blatant in their support for the white mother, I do think we can acknowledge that there was some disproportionate coverage. As far as the layout of the front page as a whole, pictures were much smaller than today and the front page consists of mostly text.

While I do feel we as journalist strive to be unbiased and I am sure as a whole we have gotten better about this since the time of the civil rights movement, I do think favoritism in the media is still apparent, especially in situations such as these. While doing my research I was surprised to see how many times this situation and the recent Trayvon Martin case were compared.

The Confession 

In January of 1956, Milam and Bryant confessed in the library of their lawyers offices. The Look reporter did not ask the questions, instead their lawyers did. It was the first time anybody had heard the real story, including the lawyers.  

Alabama celebrates Civil Rights transformation 50 years later
By: Garrett Flores

Source: The Birmingham News/June 11, 1963/Front page
Photo Credit: Newseum Archives

The Birmingham News shows incredible progression years after a monumental Civil Rights point in time known as the desegregation of the University of Alabama on June 11, 1963.

History – University of Alabama desegregated

50 years ago, on June 11, 1963, President Kennedy ordered Alabama’s Gov. George Wallace, to “cease and desist” his interference of the integration of University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa. Gov. Wallace, while campaigning for office, vowed he stand in the doorway if there were ever a chance of integration in Alabama schools. Wallace did just that when Kennedy demanded two black students be allowed to enroll. In dramatic fashion, the Alabama National Guard was called out to enforce the president’s orders. Nicholas Katzenbach, deputy U.S. attorney general, was sent to Tuscaloosa on the president’s behalf. Katzenbach asked Wallace to follow orders four times and Wallace refused every time. Katzenbach, a few U.S. marshals and the two black students, Vivian Malone and James Hood, returned to the car and Wallace began reading aloud a statement why he was forbidding segregation in Alabama. A few hours later, the directive was given for the National Guard to head to campus. Subsequently, Wallace yielded and Malone and Hood were enrolled.

Newspapers – Then and now

The first aspect of The Birmingham News that I noticed is how different leads were then compared to now. The leads start off with the June 11 date even though that is obvious because it’s the date the newspaper was issued. There are also date reference words in the lead such as, “this afternoon” and “today” that tell the reader when the story took place. One other difference is the format of the photograph on the front page. Fifty years ago on this big day in history there is only a small sized photo on the front page. The front page is filled with a lot more written content than newspapers nowadays. Even on regular days when a historic hasn’t occurred, there is usually a bigger picture on the front page than what was on The Birmingham News front page 50 years ago. This could be because of how far cameras have progressed leading to a greater emphasis today on pictures.

Progressive coverage across the board

As expected, the newspapers varied significantly 50 years ago to what they look like now. Perhaps the greatest variation is the layout of the paper itself. The Birmingham News front page from 1963 is crowded, tangled and convoluted. It seems as if were just trying to fit as much content on page as possible. Nowadays, newspapers try to direct the eye where to go as smoothly as possible. When you look at the 1963 newspaper it’s hard to know where to look first. The use of the word “Negro” in reference to African-Americans was a little perplexing to read. Although we’re taught it was the norm back then, it’s still crazy to see it and think how times were. Despite the “Negro” references, I felt the stories on the front page concerning the University of Alabama desegregation were objective. I expected there to be a noticeable slant in the content being that The Birmingham News is a newspaper from the South in a state that at the time had a governor whom thought his belief in segregation was constitutional. Compare the 1963 version to The Birmingham News 50 years later in a commemorative story on their website complete with many more photos than the smaller photo published on the front page in 1963. NBC Nightly News also produced actual footage of the incident in Alabama and reported on it the same day.

Coverage of the 75th Anniversary of "The War of the Worlds"

Orson Welles throughout his performance of War of
the Worlds. Photo Credit: CBS Photo Archive

Blog Summary
By: Andrew Smith

For this semester’s commemorative coverage assignment, our group chose to cover the historic 1938 War of the Worlds radio broadcast. Our group members included, Scott Allen, Alex Castillo, Spencer McAdams, Catherine O’Hara, Chris Salinas, and Andrew Smith. 

Our research brought us to a variety of news and media sources. For printed information we utilized The New York Times, The Dallas Morning News and the National Archives, relying heavily upon their microfilm copies. In the search for images we used the CBS Photo Archive, Getty Images, The Washington Post and AP Images. Additional information was obtained through

The broadcast was famous for it’s highly realistic presentation as a breaking news event and its record-sized audience of listeners. In contrast, the radio event was also controversial and alarming for the distress it caused to the public and consequently law enforcement officials.

War of the Worlds- University Star coverage

By: Scott Allen

The article I found from The University Star (or “The College Star” as it was once called) is certainly dated. The first half is in all caps and it punishes the listeners for actually believing the broadcasting. It goes on to ask a lot of open-ended questions that are meant to provoke thought. The article concludes with the idea that America may not be ready if a real attack like that happened.         

Orson Welles performing a segment from the 1938 live radio drama,
War of the Worlds. Photo Credit: CBS Photo Archive

I enjoyed the article because it was compelling. It might seem a little too wordy for today’s standards, but the alliteration and allusions were effective. The point was given in a contextual way and was made simple for the common reader. The big difference between this and today’s article was that this one had no picture or visual representation. In today’s papers, you see pictures all over.

1938 “The War of the Worlds” Radio Broadcast Timeline

By: Spencer McAdams

October 30

8pm – Mercury Theatre Group’s Halloween show begins broadcast of H.G. Wells’ “The War of the Worlds” radio drama, with Orson Welles as the announcer.

8:30 pm – Radio listeners who missed the announcement at the beginning of the broadcast begin to panic as they believe the events being described are fact instead of fiction.

9pm – Broadcast ends and police stations in Concrete, Washington are flooded with calls, people lock themselves in basements, take to the roads, and arm themselves for the perceived threat.

October 31
Newspapers release articles describing the events that took place, speculation on several causes of the panic, and the response.  Public officials reassure the panicked public and attempt to restore the peace.

Panic Amongst Dedicated Listeners

The College Star: War! Fantastic Radio Program By Welles Makes Impossibilities Realistic
Written by: Santry Greene
Front Page, Wednesday, November 2^nd, 1938

By: Scott Allen

Orson Welles fooled many with his broadcasting. He did so without hesitation and his act helped establish radio as Americans favorite pastime.

Why it matters even today

Even though this happened almost exactly 75 years ago, the message behind this event is still prevalent. This broadcast showed that the media has a strong control over society. An article posted from The College Star cited people suffering from “heart failure-some attempted suicide- others moved out of the state.” I feel like this can still happen today. If the president’s Facebook was hacked and it said “War with Syria” then people would believe it and even relay the message themselves. It may be a far-fetched idea, but the underlying belief still holds. People are gullible and trust the media to deliver the truth and only the truth. This system is a very powerful one, but it can be abused as Mr. Welles effectively showed us.

Front page of the November 2, 1938 issue of The College Star

But it won’t ever happen again

The reason behind this thinking is simple. There are too many false safes and checkpoints for today’s media to let this one slip by. With the amount of fact-checkers and whistle-blowers in the media, the hoax wouldn’t last in the 21^st century. The reason it worked so well 75 years ago was for many reasons. First, there were less people in the world so a smaller chance that someone would notice it as a hoax. Second, as The New York Times pointed out, Orson Welles had a “radio character, ‘The Shadow,’ used to give ‘the creeps’ to countless child listeners. This time at least a score of adults required medical treatment for shock and hysteria.” People were frightened by the broadcast because Welles had a convincing voice for the part and many trusted his voice. Not since the late Walter Cronkite has there been a more trusted voice in media. Third, the audience was bigger than any single media we see today. If you adjust for inflation, it makes sense. There are too many different outlets for media today to get a mass percentage of the population on one platform. Back then, radio was all people had, so during the night’s hours everyone would be listening. Today, people’s sources are diluted with the multiple connections that flourish from recent inventions.

Changes since then

The layout was completely different that what I’m used to seeing today. The words are shrunk down to fit more on the page and there’s one picture on the entire front page. Today’s layout is much prettier, but the older papers were more effective with their storytelling. They didn’t use pictures too much in 1938 because cameras weren’t main stream yet, but the message still got across. I was disturbed by the amount of capitalized words that were in The College Star article. In today’s writing, the dialogue is much more subtle and you’d probably never see an explanation point in the headline. It’s cheesy, but back then, that’s how you caught someone’s eye. There’s weren’t QR codes, pictures, links or hashtags.

Conspiracy theory

In conclusion, I have thought of a theory. Maybe, this whole thing was a hoax. Maybe this whole thing was meant, simply, to beef up Orson Welles resume. His name was known, but not well-known. After this stunt, he most likely had to hire more agents because of his increase in prominence. Everyone knew his name on Halloween of 1938, but why did it matter? It mattered because he was having a movie come out soon. Citizen Kane, released in 1941, is still thought of as one of the greatest movies of all time. It may not have been as successful if Welles hadn’t of publicized his name with the broadcasting. The closeness of the two events spurs me as unusual. Just food for thought. Enjoy!

The 75^th Anniversary of “The War of the Worlds”

New York Times, Nov 2, 1938, Page 22

By: Alex Castillo

In my research for “The War of the Worlds” broadcast, I found a section of the New York Times from November 2, 1938 that was titled “Letters to the Times.”  In this section included seven Times reader’s who wrote in letters that talked about how they felt when they heard the live radio drama. Although this wasn’t an article written by a journalist, I think it is important to include this with our research because it helped voice the audience of the broadcast’s opinion.

Listener’s Reactions

George Bellamy of New York City wrote that quite frankly he was bored and he was unimpressed with the production. “Unless the American average of intelligence is lower that some people suspect,, I for one refuse to believe that any buy children, old ladies and mental deficient’s were seriously perturbed by what struck my family and self merely as a boring and rather inane production,” Bellamy wrote.

William Dock, New Jersey resident, carries a shotgun after hearing the
live radio drama, War of the Worlds on October 31, 1938.
Photo Credit: Bettman/Corbis

Ruth Fleurnoy Bloomsburgh of Albany wrote in to the New York Times and was not so critical of the radio drama than the audience’s reaction towards it. “If we keep on asking for protection from the things in and of the world we live in, and refuse to do our own part in it, we will all be useless gibbering idiots through failure to stop our headline type of reading and waiting for some one to take care of us by forming our opinions.”

A person by the name of H. G. W. Sundelof from New York City wrote in to the Times to applaud Welles’ dramatization and to express his views on the government. “We are far safer from invasion by an unseen enemy squirting death rays than from results of a continued loose governmental fiscal policy,” Sundelof wrote.

Searching for Information

I feel like searching for this topic was difficult because typing in “War of the Worlds” into certain databases gives you more information on the possibility for war. The language from the late 1930’s in my opinion sounds very serious and I think it has to do with the uncertainty of that time period. Less than 10 years prior to the live radio drama, the stock market crashed leading into what is known today as the Great Depression. Unemployment rates were high and people had to worry about living through dust storms because of drought and dust. Also, the tensions between European countries were rising and I think American’s didn’t want to contribute to the possibility of going to war because of memories of World War 1.

This was a fair article because the audience was allowed to say how they felt about the radio drama and even though there was no contribution from the editor, the readers could form their own opinions on the topic. The layout was simple, including a typed version of the letters written and listed in a random order with a subhead. It was a little difficult to read and figure out where one topic ends and another begins.

Back in the day: revisiting “The War of the Worlds” as breaking news

An evaluation of an article published by the New York Times, Monday, October 31, 1938 (Front Page/Page 4)—the day following “War of the Worlds” radio broadcast

By Catherine O'Hara

The Times, then: layout design

The first thing I noticed upon glancing at the copy of the New York Times was that there was no prominent hierarchy within the design of the layout. The stories seem to be more randomly placed where they could fit best rather than for a purpose of grabbing attention; however, perhaps it was with reason that the article about “The War of the Worlds” is found at the top-center of the front page of the day. Maybe during that era, the press was more concerned about just getting the news out and not so much about guiding the attention of readers or competing against other media for the greatest headline. Another reason I am left at this conclusion is because of the minimal use of imagery in the newspaper apart from advertisements. In this day, you will seldom find a newspaper without an eye-grabbing image or headline on the front page—especially for a story with such a large impact.

Scan from the October 31, 1938 issue of the
New York Times.

Story format: similarities and differences

The format of the headline, subhead and copy do appear in the same manner of hierarchy as today's standards, from larger and more bold to smaller and less bold on the page. The difference, though, is that the story did not include a byline; no story or image is printed without giving credit these days. My first reaction was to assume that maybe the credit would be listed at the end of the story, but it wasn't. My second reaction was to guess that perhaps the story was compiled by various writers accounting for the news across various areas of New York as there are sections within the story with subheads such as “Harlem Shaken By the 'News,'” “Record Westchester Calls,” and “Columbia Explains Broadcast.” Moreover, the story was published the following day of the radio broadcast. Whether this assumption is correct or false, the other stories in the paper also lack a proper byline. The most relative recognition you will find, for example, will read “From a Staff Correspondent.”

Revealing drama—using drama. . .

My overall impression of the content of the story was that it was a bit scattered and disorganized, without a clear focus or direction. It started with a lead that managed to sum up the whole article in approximately 50 words. Then, it swayed back and forth a bit between listeners' reactions and information about the broadcast. Reading the story itself seemed to stir up some of the anxiety and emotional upheaval that it was reporting on. The copy is loaded with colorful words and phrases like “disrupted households,” “clogged communications systems,” “shock and hysteria,” and “fright and panic,” and the various sentence structures used interchangeably add to the dramatic appeal. The story is largely entertainment, in my opinion, besides the news it provides about the story being fictional. If I were to rewrite the story, I would begin with announcing that the broadcast was fictional, give some background or explanation of the broadcast, and then conclude with the reactions of the audience and other repercussions. And then, of course, I would throw in some visuals.

Listeners panic after radio drama

Reaction to The New York Times ‘Radio Listeners in Panic, Taking War Drama as Fact’ on the Oct. 31, 1938 edition Page 1

By Christopher Salinas

Aspects of “Back in the Day” Original Coverage

One of the first things I noticed from the headline of this story in The New York Times is how long it is compared to what you would see nowadays. Granted, some headlines do need to be longer and they still occur, but I feel like a story like this would be eager to grab you in first with a big headline, and then explain more afterwards. But no, the headline and subhead both continue lots of information to get you ready for even more information you’re about to read, which leads to my next aspect.

The lead is full of information, and unlike today’s leads where we are taught to keep it somewhere between 25-35, this lead had around 59 words. Anyone today would have been overwhelmed by this much information, but this was a different time and perhaps a unique story that called for such a thing.

Orson Welles, center, explains to reporters on October 31, 1938
his radio dramatization of H.G. Wells' "War of the Worlds."
Photo Credit: AP Photo

The story is so long and full of subheads and information. You get a “Message From the Police,” prayers and even another story about a geologist who fell for the radio broadcast. Any newspaper today would be extremely lucky to run even half of this story because it’s just trying to cover so much.

Because the writing is so detailed, it almost seems as if you’re reading a book. Again, there’s just so much information. I was surprised by how the reporter described the beginning to the reader, as if it were actually happening at that very moment. Even something as minor as mentioning that a weather report was preceded the broadcast seems a little absurd. I think if a journalist tried rewriting this in modern style, he or she would end up revising and cutting out a lot of this content because it would seem unimportant to most readers nowadays.

My Own Thoughts on the Article

I think the main reason the article and this newspaper are styled as they were back in the day is because there wasn’t as much media and possible sources as we have today to get our news from. Today, we take our information for granted, and a lot of times it leads to misinformation and bias. But these were the main sources people had, so filling it with information and detail didn’t seem so bizarre back then. 

The story itself is interesting. I’ve read and heard many things about the “The War of the Worlds” radio broadcast. The general consensus seems to be that it wasn’t nearly as big of a deal as we and newspapers made it out to be. Only around 20 percent of the listeners actually believed the broadcast was real, according to National Geographic's news, which is also a great summary of what happened for anyone who just wants to know the gist of it.

Orson Welles is shown putting out his hands
after his CBS radio broadcast of War of the Worlds.
Photo Credit: AP Photo

Whether the story was a big deal or not, The New York Times appeared to cover the “War” well by reporting every possible piece of information people would want to know about, especially messages from the police. It even states of the broadcast told listeners at the beginning that it was going to be a drama and that there was even a time slot allotted for the program. Yet people who tuned in late fell for the broadcast. I definitely got a good idea of what happened from this article, and it didn’t seem to be feeding into any hyper sensationalism. It clearly gave the news, with some added detail, and no kind of bias. You even have the different reactions from people.
The broadcast itself is very convincing, and if I hadn't heard then introduction and was living back in the time where I had no access to the Internet and other resources, I might have believed it as well. It was a very tense time already, especially with America on the brink of World War II. Check out the audio from the broadcast at Internet Archive.

War of the Worlds 75th Anniversary Coverage
By: Andrew Smith

In my research of the historic War of the Worlds radio broadcast, I came across a Dallas Morning News article talking about the public reaction and the facts of the event. Firstly the broadcast was done through Columbia Broadcast System (CBS) on the evening of Sunday Oct. 30, 1938. The drama was derived from an H.G. Well’s novel. Because of the story’s tale of destruction and it’s presentation as an unfolding news story, hosts routinely announced that the events were fictional.

The story focused on the destruction of New York City and the nearby state of New Jersey. It claimed that planes were dropping bombs on the two locations and that craft from Mars had landed. It was also mentioned that a large meteorite was streaking through the sky and on a collision course with earth. The conflict was said to be deadly, with bodies lying in the streets. Adding to the believability came reports from an astronomer claiming to have seen strange explosions in the sky just before hand. And a Dr. from the Natural History Museum of New York called in to report seismic activity from the extraterrestrial impacts. The host asked his sources if the happenings had anything to do with the possibility of life on the planet Mars.

Hundreds of listeners throughout the country, who were not fully attuned to the facts of the broadcast, began to call local law enforcement, seeking help and information.  Reports described large groups of Harlem residents taking to the streets in a panic, unsure of the safest course of action. Police initially believed the reports to be nothing more than jokes, but the swarm of calls and the crowds in the streets became difficult to control.

Orson Welles, center, speaks with press the day after the live broadcast
of War of the Worlds. Photo Credit: AP Photo

Demand for updated news on the supposed disaster became so great that the Associated Press even took to posting a bulletin explaining that it was all a story of fiction and was intended for thrill. Though the dramatized events took place far from the Dallas area, the article in the paper illustrates its far reaching effects and notes that local residents were genuinely concerned.Interestingly the headline of the story reads “Radio Drama Backfires on Big Network.” The article made little to no mention of what the negative ramifications were for CBS. Instead it seemed to focus more on the reaction of select few hundred people who weren’t fully informed or were too distraught to catch the disclaimers. Naturally, highlighting the more extreme reactions made the article a more amusing read and added to the newsworthy quality of the story.