{"id":2386,"date":"2005-02-09T18:27:51","date_gmt":"2005-02-09T23:27:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/?p=2386"},"modified":"2015-05-16T22:13:32","modified_gmt":"2015-05-17T02:13:32","slug":"the-election-of-1800-and-newspapers-and-media-bias","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/?p=2386","title":{"rendered":"The Election of 1800 and Media Bias"},"content":{"rendered":"

This morning, I was reading Jefferson’s Second Revolution: The Election Crisis of 1800 and the Triumph of Republicanism<\/a>\"\"<\/i> – a book I started a while ago, lost interest in (not because of the topic … but because of the writing ) – and have now picked up again.<\/p>\n

It’s about the election of 1800 – the “second Revolution”, the “Jeffersonian” revolution, the “triumph of Republicanism” – the death of the Federalist party. It also is, in my opinion, one of the most incredible stories of the beginning of this nation – because it was, in the end, a peaceful transfer of power. It blows my mind … when you look at, first of all historical precedent (peaceful transfer of power between two groups THAT HATE EACH OTHER??? When the hell does THAT ever happen?) and second of all how much the Federalists and Republicans demonized each other, each thought that the country would literally be destroyed by the other.<\/p>\n

It was the birth of party politics in this country. And, like many births, it was painful, messy, long.<\/p>\n

And yet when the Republicans won – the Federalists weren’t lined up against the wall. The transfer happened peacefully. I mean, granted, the Federalists were destroyed, completely – they had been relics of the landed aristocracy anyway, and their time had come and gone … it was time for them to go … but still. The party was destroyed, but the people who had made up the party were not murdered and thrown in mass graves. They stayed involved in the system, they adjusted … During the election of 1800 friendships fell apart, relationships shattered and never recovered … but the NATION survived.<\/p>\n

There’s a new book out now – I’ve seen it – that also has the election of 1800 as its focus – and I think I need to pick up that book, since i’m not wild about this woman’s writing. It almost sounds like a first draft. But whatever. I’m making my way through it, concentrating on the STORY.<\/p>\n

It’s awesome stuff. Stuff I know already, but still … You think the election we just went through was nasty? The nastiest ever? If you think that, then I suggest you look into the election of 1800. It’ll give a nice perspective, a little historical distance from our own present day. The rhetoric NOW is sooooo much more restrained than what was common-day vitriol back then. You can’t even believe it. You think NOW we have a loud fringe on both sides? Go back and read about the election of 1800. History. Always good to realize that there is nothing really new under the sun, and that no generation invents the wheel. (Well. Except for the actual generation who actually DID invent the wheel, of course.)<\/p>\n

I also thought it was really funny (in light of what’s going on nowadays) to learn, again, how people expected <\/i>newspapers to be biased back then. That was the whole DEAL with newspapers. An unbiased newspaper? A newspaper not connected to a political party? What? Why on earth would one read a newspaper like THAT? One paper presented one side, other papers presented the OTHER side.<\/p>\n

The same thing is true today, obviously. You watch Fox for one “side”, you listen to NPR for the other “side” – it’s up to you. But you KNOW they’re biased. I don’t expect The New York Times to be unbiased. But I certainly don’t ONLY read The New York Times. I surf around, checking multiple sources, for stories that interest me … hoping I can piece together what I think that way. I guess what I’m saying is is that I try not to have fits of apoplexy if I run into bias. I try to get at the NEWS and if that takes a bit more work? If that means I read 3 newspapers? 4 or 5? Then okay. I’m fine with that.<\/p>\n

When John Adams signed the Sedition Act (Oh, John … John … why …) – Republican newspapers were shut down, editors jailed, etc. Jefferson, hanging out at Monticello, was instrumental in getting some of these papers started up again, so that he could have a place to put HIS views into the public realm. (Only, of course, he never signed his name. He let Madison be his front-man, while he pretended to only care about sweet peas, the constellations, and his grandkids. “Interested in politics? Me? Oh, never. I wouldn’t have anything to do with the nasty business … Let me count the flowers in my garden … I need to harvest the hay tomorrow …” Meanwhile, he was completely pulling the strings. Turns out, this guy was a ruthless party politician – he just didn’t want to appear like he was in the fray.)<\/p>\n

Regardless. I just thought it was so funny to remember again the long long history of bias in the media in this country … and probably, if blogging had existed at the time of the election of 1800, a bunch of people on the sidelines would have had a FIELD DAY. Sure! I suppose the frenzied pamphleteers throughout the colonies (it seems, at times, like every private citizen in America was pumping out pamphlets on political issues) could be the equivalent of bloggers today.<\/p>\n

But to hear actual newspaper editors, in the late 1700s, say stuff like, “A newspaper that is not biased towards one side is no good at all.” <\/p>\n

Can you imagine? An open acceptance of bias – from editors, writers, audience alike: if you read THIS paper, you’d get THIS side. If you wanted the other side, you’d read THIS paper (and pray to God that the editor hadn’t been thrown in jail). It was a dirty fight, a battle of the newspapers, a war of words. And bias was ASSUMED.<\/p>\n

\n