They say we live in an increasingly polarized nation, but do we? Nowadays, if you don’t like the news you call it fake, or faux news. Both sides do it, but the truth is, we have always been a divided nation, dating back to our beginning. At one point, we even fought a war against ourselves. While America was leaving the 19th-century and entering the 20th-century, a progressive consensus grew and took the nation by storm. Some folks might not like it, but during this era, even the “Conservative” Republican candidates were progressive, actually sometimes considered more progressive. Roosevelt was the great trust buster, Taft was an even greater trust buster. This progressive movement was well maintained into and following the Second World War. Despite differing political parties, the nation had a common set of values that most people—not all—tried to abide by in their lives. Along with the rise of the scientific method, and the phenomenon known as yellow journalism came the idea that journalism, should be done objectively, scientifically.
Dating back to Colonial America, political factions have used the press as a tool to promote their views, this custom has given consumers the ability to see the entire spectrum by reading papers from both sides if they choose. As an American tradition, this makes the press inherently partisan; the press in the United States is free but has always selectively chosen facts and omitted others to support their opinions and I argue that is not a bad thing. By analyzing trials in American history, we see evidence to prove the American press has a tradition of political bias and that the narrative, that there is a need to practice objectivity in journalism (Rogers) is a false misleading one.
The Struggle for a Free Press (1600s-1700s)
The printing press was famously invented by Johannes Gutenberg in 1439, thus making printed materials available to the populace of Western nations before Christopher Columbus bumped into North America in 1492 (Briggs and Burke). In the early 1600s, when Great Britain become involved in claiming the “New World” newspapers and information were mostly commercial in nature. America did not see its first newspapers until the late 1600s and early 1700s. The first newspapers simply reported on ship arrivals and departures and included classifieds. Content related papers were typically controlled or censored by the government giving readers a copy of official addresses made to and from legislative bodies and Royal Governors. Any dissidents attempting to set up shop were quickly disallowed by the government (Paper Age).
This did not become a significant problem until 1721 with the publication of “The New England Courant” by Benjamin Franklin’s older brother James Franklin. The New England Courant is accepted as America’s first independent newspaper, meaning it was not controlled by the government in one form or another. James printed in the style of a famous British paper, the Spectator. By printing humor, literary essays, and commentary on political issues, the Franklins found people loved newspapers that challenged authority. I imagine it felt a lot like watching the troublemaker get away with sassing the teacher in kindergarten. You giggle beneath your breathe because it is funny to watch.
When a smallpox outbreak brought inoculation to the forefront of public debate, ironically ministers for inoculation and physicians against it, with the assistance of Benjamins popular, witty, pen name “Silence Doogood (The New-England-Courant)”—James gave the anti-inoculation crowd a pulpit of their own to express their views. The Boston elite becomes uneasy about the increasingly hostile newspaper. After a piece ran on June 11, 1722, subtly but essentially insulting the government council for being lazy cowards, James was brought before them on charges. The trial that followed ended in James Franklin being thrown in jail for two weeks and being barred from publishing the paper under his name (Independence Hall Association). This forced him to find someone else to run the paper. To do this he devised a plan to sign Benjamin free of his indentured servitude, put the paper in his name, and sign a new indentured deal for the remainder of the original indentured time. This kept James in control of both the paper and his little brother, so he thought. Benjamin—sick of physical abuse from James—reneged on the deal by refusing to sign the new indentured papers. Benjamin, then just 17 years old, famously set sail for Philadelphia as a wretched, young freeman. James Franklins’ trial is often overlooked in American history despite being closely followed by the Boston people. It is significant because it established a demand for newspapers that were not afraid to dissent against the government. The popularity of the New England Courant among the Boston population established an appetite for newspapers that reflected their opinions, even if those opinions were against the government. The demand for papers willing to challenge authority led us to the famous Zenger case just a decade later in 1733.
The Zenger case is famous because it is accepted by most historians as the establishment of freedom of the press in America. After John Peter Zenger, publisher of a paper called the “New York Weekly Journal” allowed a series of articles to run in his paper lambasting the Royal Governor of New York, William S. Cosby, he was charged with libel and thrown in jail. A well-known Philadelphia attorney named Andrew Hamilton–not to be confused with Alexander Hamilton–offered to defend Zenger. Andrew Hamilton was a close ally of Benjamin Franklin throughout the 1730s. Franklin was by now the proprietor of his own newspaper. So he had an interest in the outcome of the New York case. At the end of the trial, Andrew gave an emotional closing that is considered by some to be that greatest argument ever made for the necessity of a free press (Linder). Despite being instructed by the Judge to rule only on whether Zenger was guilty of printing the material—not whether the material was true—the jury comes back with the verdict “not guilty.” “Huzzahs” filled the air, from that point on, dissenting papers across the colonies operated with little to no intervention from the government.
This paved the way for Americans use of the press to dissent against Monarchial policies throughout the 1760s. Including the famous trial on the Boston Massacre when Paul Revere used a copied engraving to inaccurately paint the British shooters as the aggressors. Revere’s propaganda was published throughout the colonies and effective at turning the populace against the British government. After hearing their defense, given by John Adams, a jury made up of Bostonians found these men were justified. However, the political damage caused by the propaganda had already been done. While studying the American Revolution we can identify two rivaling national political factions in America for the first time: the Whigs (Patriots) and Tories (Loyalist). Both employing the press to campaign for popular support.
Men like John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine gained notoriety after writing anti-British pamphlets. These essays were widely-circulated to garner support for the war (Adams; Jefferson; Paine). Meanwhile, Tory papers were published throughout the colonies with just as much demand. Where dominant Tory populations could be found, in places like New York City and in the Southern colonies, you find an increase of Tory literature (Barnes), adding credence to the idea that, even before Americans were a nation, they demanded reading opinions they agreed with rather than ones they did not. Because of the press, the United States was born with partisan politics center-stage.On top of being a bloody, physical struggle for independence, this war was in many senses, a war of information. There is a long history of punishing dissidents by European tyrants. Because of this the “Patriots” established freedom press in the Articles of Confederation before they even established their sovereignty through winning the war (Continental Congress). It was of the highest priority to them. In 1789, following the War for Independence, and after finding the Articles of Confederation insufficient to hold the nation together; a new constitution was written and being debated in the public sphere, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay famously applied the press to convince the public of the integrity of the new document (The Federalist Papers). After it was ratified, establishing a free press, again, become the highest priority, as it was the first amendment added to the new constitution in the Bill of Rights (United States Constitution).
Partisan Politics and Sectional Conflicts (1800s)
At the turn of the 19th-century, the United States was amid a very controversial election following some very controversial trials. Two new parties had emerged: the Federalist and the Democratic-Republicans. As did different publications supporting each of these parties. Partisan fervor was at an all-time high, so bad fist-fights broke out in the middle of Congress. The Republican newspapers become so outrageous, the Federalist politicians–then in control of Congress–passed the Alien and Sedition acts. By signing this into law, John Adams created an enormous stain on his legacy after an otherwise great career as an American Patriot. These acts were in direct violation with freedom of the press, as they punished dissident journalist from the opposing political party, the Republicans. Among many other authors doing it at the time, James Thomson Callender, of the Richmond Examiner, was hired by Republicans to print slanderous articles about the President. Thomson called Adams a ”repulsive pedant,” a “gross hypocrite,” privately “one of the most egregious fools upon the continent,” and worst of all a “hideous hermaphroditical character which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman (McCullough).”
In addition to the Federalist fighting back in the press—calling Jefferson an atheist (Ferling)—they used their majority in Congress and control over the executive and judicial branches to round up, arrest, and jail eight Republican dissidents under the Sedition Acts, five of which were journalist including: James Thomson Callender of the Richmond Examiner, Mathew Lyon, a Republican politician and publisher of the Lyon’s Republican Magazine, Anthony Haswell of the Vermont Gazette, and Benjamin Franklin Bache, the grandson of the late Benjamin Franklin, of the Philadelphia Aurora (Miller; Stone). David Brown and Benjamin Fairbanks were arrested for setting up a “liberty pole” (a thin banner on a flag pole) in support of Jefferson and in opposition to Adams (Tise). Luther Baldwin was arrested at a parade the President attended, “I hope it hit Adams in the arse! (Smith)” he screamed drunkenly after the crowd heard gunshots. The trials that followed infuriated the nation. Not only was Jefferson able to win the election of 1800 with Aaron Burr stealing half the party votes, but turnout doubled, most of the new voters casting ballots for the Republican Party, forever rejecting the notion that we should suppress dissident opinions (Goldfield, Abbot and Anderson).
The Press in the 1800s evolved with the rest of the nation. The first half of the 19th-century is filled with different crises. These events fueled the national debate over slavery, deepening the divide between political factions. The climax was reached in the middle of the century with a few famous trials just years apart: Dred Scott and John Brown. The debate over these decisions spilled over into the press.
In 1857, Chief Justice Roger Taney gave an opinion in the Dred Scott case saying no negro whose ancestors were imported for the cause of slavery, could be a free citizen. Taney’s opinion said negroes who had earned their freedom were not U.S. citizens, would never be U.S. citizens and thus had no right to sue anyone, in any court, much less the Supreme Court (Dred Scott v. Sandford; Rehnquist, William H.). This decision also deemed, “the Missouri Compromise” unconstitutional. The compromise was considered the crowning achievement of politician Henry Clay, this act of legislation aimed to neutralize the conflicts between slave states and free states, and was considered by many at the time, to have saved the nation from Civil War. The Dred Scott decision was just the second time the Supreme Court had shot down legislation as unconstitutional (Tarr and O’Conner).
A study in the Voces Novae: Chapman University Historical Review researched the different reactions to Taney’s opinion and it vividly exhibits 19th-century partisan politics in the press (Oswald). Emotional reactions—not a hard-objective journal of events—can be found in both North and South papers. The Chicago Daily Tribune was not trying to hide its party affiliation. On March 19th, 1857 the Tribune published an article directly attacking Southern papers and insulting northern papers supporting the Scott decision by labeling them, “Buchanan Journals.” Specifically, though they were upset with the use of the language “Sebastopol is Taken.” Due to a popular contemporary patriotic English song—titled “Sebastopol is Taken”—this was synonymous with the southern paper saying, the conflict (slavery) is finally over, for good (Library of Congress).
“It is curious to read the comments of the leading slaveholding press on the decision in the Dred Scott case, and to observe how closely the Buchanan Journals [of the North, when they dare speak out,] echo the spirit of these comments. ‘Sebastopol is taken,’ shout the Richmond Enquirer. The Republicans ‘snap and start and howl: it is the last throe of fanaticism,’ exclaims the Times”
The article almost prophetically concludes by calling on readers to pack the legislative and executive branches with Republican candidates and prepare for a civil war,
“Let the Free States, then, have a unit in its Congressional Representation on the side of freedom, let the next President be a Republican, and 1860 will mark an era kindred with that of 1776, and the country and the Constitution be ruled and considered by men kindred in aim and principle with Washington, Jefferson and the Fathers! (Chicago Daily Tribune)”
Just two years following the Scott decision, a Christian abolitionist named John Brown attempted to start a massive slave revolt. He and twenty-one other men, five of them negros, ambushed a weapons depot in Harpers Ferry, Virginia attempting to lay siege to the town. They were quickly surrounded, some captured, and some killed by federal soldiers led by Robert E. Lee (Foner).
Paranoia permeated the South. On October 21st, 1859, immediately following an enthusiastic (albeit sectional and bias) article explaining the implementation of the two-thirds rule and its implications to the Southern faction of the Democratic party (Ritchie, Dunnavant, Tyler & Wise); the Richmond Enquirer published a report about authorities uncovering Brown’s hideout in the mountains. It starts by saying the campsite included, “large tents, blankets, spades, and fifteen hundred Sharpe’s Rifle’s.” It continues by estimating the cost of the guns and ammunition and urging for answers about the financiers of the Brown plot. They continue with speculation, asking what is next? “
The late effort was made after passing into a slave State; but how long before the Abolition fanatics of Cincinnati may seize Newport, in Kentucky away from Marines at Washington, and within hailing distance of the depot of Western Abolitionism?
The paper concludes urging for remedies, but not without first blaming the North for the raid and prophesying with a warning to its readers of potential continued violence against the South,
“The aid of the Federal Government was near Harper’s Ferry, and was in hands faithful to the Constitution, but another year may place that aid in the hands of our assailants and then “higher law” of an “irrepressible conflict” urge on and strengthen the hands that murder our families and pillage our property (Ritchie, Dunnavant, Tyler & Wise)“
Despite later labeling Brown a martyr and symbol of racial justice, Northern reaction to the raid was reactive to Southern papers and politically motivated. The aim being to protect the Republican party from the work of the demented John Brown. Andrew Harris Jr. studied Northern reaction to the raid and published an article in the journal “The Negro History Bulletin,”
“a reaction was quite pronounced in New York, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. The Republican Daily Tribune of New York City said: ‘The whole affair seems to be the work of a madman… Believing that the way to Universal Emancipation lies not through insurrection, but through peace, we deeply regret the outbreak’ … New York Daily Tribune remarked: ‘the Southern States today has [sic] an inflammatory article [sic] against Republicans as the responsible party to the outbreak at Harper’s Ferry, and hits at proceedings against Abolition sympathizers in the city (New York Daily Tribune; Northern Reaction to the John Brown Raid).’
These reactions to both the Dred Scott decision and the shocking revelations of John Brown’s raid in Harpers Ferry, illustrate a nation developing disagreements passed on to them by the founders. They also illustrate them conducting a national debate about those issues through the press, a practice also passed down to them by the founders.
The Rise and Fall of Objective Journalism (1900s-2000s)
Following the Civil War, at the turn of the 20th-century, the nation was living through an age of amazing technological advances. This era is labeled by historians in many ways: The “Gilded Age,” the “Progressive Era,” the “Socialist Movement,” and even the “Rise of the Scientific School. (Kraus)” With the emergence of enormous wealth came the issues of income inequality and labor rights. This pitted the largely poor populace against a growing number of the capitalist elite (Zinn). This movement, in combination with a looming World War, caused leading intellectuals, politicians, and journalist to coalesce around the same ideas. For the first time in the nation’s history, most people agreed on how the nation should operate. Dissidents? Sure. Still many people being treated unjustly and cut out of the system? Absolutely. However, across political parties, people generally agreed on the direction the nation should be going. So much in 1912, three Presidential candidates ran as populist candidates from three different parties. They all three ran their campaigns on progressive ideas, hoping to convince the nation they were the most progressive candidate. This made it nearly impossible to tell the difference between political philosophy based on a candidate’s political party (Schweikart and Allen; Zinn) and as late as 1963 you can find Democratic leaders espousing conservative ideas in their speeches. On top of this, nothing creates togetherness and patriotism like World Wars. The generations making up the first half of the 20th-century faced two of them.
The rise of “yellow journalism” created a backlash against sensational newspapers. Technologies like radio helped to usher in ideas we’d never heard before. Ideas that the press should simply report facts (Lippmann). This is not how the founders intended the press to operate and it was not consistent with the American tradition. Still, men like Walter Lippmann promoted this idea vehemently (Dean), and in an age of conformity, subjective opinions took a back seat to majority rule (Blumental). Radio’s filled the airwaves with patriotic propaganda and F.D.R.’s presidential addresses. Unfortunately most of the time these campaigns omitted racial atrocities happening all over the nation. So, it was objective in theory, but not in fact. Despite being a flawed and dangerous idea (Cunningham; Wijberg; Taibbi) and despite the press being a constitutionally-protected, adversarial-intended institution, built on top the foundation of freedom of speech; the idea was installed in journalism curriculum’s around the nation and it remains a part of the “five core principles of Journalism” taught as the fair and impartial doctrine in journalism classes (Ethical Journalism Network).
In 1949, the FCC implemented the “fairness doctrine” which was censorship by the government, enforcing the press to be equitable, and balanced according to their perspective (Matthews). Following World War II, in addition to radio, television exploded. Pro-government, anti-communist journalists with good manners were invited into the living rooms of citizens all over the nation. Because the political landscape had been dominated by the Democratic Party through the progressive movement, a pro-democratic sentiment was established in most modern news agencies. It was not until the 1960’s—when issues over racial injustice and the Vietnam war become prominent—did we begin to see the government getting a critical look from the press. Though initially the attacks were leveled against Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson for his war policies, when Republican Richard Nixon took office in 1970, it was contemplated by many journalists to be a consequence of the assassination of Democrat, and press favorite, Robert Kennedy (CBSNews.com Staff). Thus, began an era where the press, again, acted as they are intended to act, as a check against those in power. Because of his own insecurities, Nixon refused to be open to the press during the Watergate Scandal. He was destroyed by investigative journalists. Despite having no prior knowledge of the crime and standing accused of doing only what his predecessors and many others in the executive branch were doing at the time; Nixon becomes the first and only President to resign from office. For good reason, the press had fallen asleep at the wheel for so long, the Presidency had formed a tradition of illegal and unconstitutional practices (Schweikart and Allen ).
Throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s the nation witnessed a return to our traditional press bias. Liberal ideology had dominated the major news agencies in America until 1987 when the fairness doctrine was eliminated in practice by the FCC (Boliek). With the emergence of conservative radio talk shows, the internet, and cable television; the nation returned to our adversarial roots in the press. Voices in the press aimed their harsh words at one another and they continue to do so today.
Though it seems to people a rather new thing, it’s not. Selectively citing facts and omitting others–in a war of information–are not practices held exclusively by 21st-century companies like Fox News and the MSNBC. “Fair and balanced?” “Most Trusted Name in News” These contemporary press slogans are in the eye of the beholder. Bias is an American tradition. Though one can argue it adds to the polarization of our nation, I ask, what is the alternative? I believe having news agencies aligned with political thought, guarantees us an adversarial press. No matter which political party is in power, having factions represented by news agencies, has always ensured that there are people out there looking upon the government with a critical view and ensuring everyone has someone advocating for their viewpoint in the national discourse. This is the most effective way to expose corruption in our government, and it runs parallel to giving everyone a voice in our democracy. So fake news to you might actually be real news to someone else and the truth is, it has almost always been that way.
Adams, John. “Thoughts on Government.” Boston, May 1775. Pamphlet.
Barnes, Timothy M. “Loyalist Newspapers of the American Revolution.” American Antiquarian Society. Society, 1974. 217-240. <http://www.americanantiquarian.org/proceedings/44517562.pdf>.
Blumental, Sidney. “Walter Lippmann and American journalism today.” 31st October 2007. Open Democracy. Web.
Boliek, Brooks. “FCC finally kills off fairness doctrine.” 8th August 2011. Politica. Web. <https://www.politico.com/story/2011/08/fcc-finally-kills-off-fairness-doctrine-061851>.
Briggs, Asa and Peter Burke. A Social History of the Media: from Gutenberg to the Internet. Cambridge: Polity, 2002. Book.
CBSNews.com Staff. What If Robert Kennedy Lived? Network . New York: CBS News, 1998. Web. <https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-if-robert-kennedy-lived/>.
Chicago Daily Tribune.” “Sebastopol is Taken,” 19th March 1857. Print.
Chicago Daily Tribune. “”The Political Decision,”13th March 1857. Print.
Continental Congress. “Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.” Philadelphia: United States of America, 15th November 1777. Constitution.
Crafton, Luke. “Paul Revere: Plagiarizing Patriot?” 19th October 2016. PBS. Web. <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/roadshow/stories/articles/2013/1/28/paul-revere-plagiarizing-patriot/>.
Cunningham, Brent. “Re-Thinking Objectivity.” July/August 2003. Columbia Journalism Review. Web. <https://archives.cjr.org/feature/rethinking_objectivity.php>.
Dean, Walter. “The lost meaning of ‘objectivity.” 2018. American Press institute. Web. <https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/journalism-essentials/bias-objectivity/lost-meaning-objectivity/>.
Dred Scott v. Sandford. No. 60 U.S. 393. The Supreme Court. 1856.
Ethical Journalism Network. “The 5 Principles of Ethical Journalism.” April 2018. EthicalJournalismNetwork.Org. <https://ethicaljournalismnetwork.org/who-we-are/5-principles-of-journalism>.
Ferling, John. Thomas Jefferson, Aaron Burr and the Election of 1800. 1st November 2004. Web. <https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/thomas-jefferson-aaron-burr-and-the-election-of-1800-131082359/>.
Foner, Eric. “Give Me Liberty: An American History.” The Emergergence of Lincoln. 4th. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2014. 499-500. Print.
Franklin, James and Benjamin Franklin. The New-England-Courant 11th December 1721: 1-4. Newspaper. <https://www.masshist.org/online/silence_dogood/img-viewer.php?item_id=631&mode=small&img_step=1&tpc=&pid=#page1>.
Goldfield, David, et al. “The American Journey: a history of the United States.” A New Republic and the Rise of Parties. Brief 5th Edition. New Baskerville: Pearson, 2009. 230. Print.
Hamilton, Alexander, James Madison and John Jay . “The Federalist Papers.” New York: Bantam, 1982 . Print.
Harris Jr., Andrew. “Northern Reaction to the John Brown Raid.” The Negro History Bulletin (1961): 177-187. Print.
Independence Hall Association. The New-England Courant. 2018. Web. <http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/courant/story.htm>.
Jefferson, Thomas. “A Summary View of the Rights of British America: Set Forth in Some Resolutions Intended for the Inspection of the Present Delegates of the People of Virginia, Now in Convention / by a Native, and Member of the House of Burgesses.” Clementina Rind, 1774. Pamphlet.
Kraus, Michael. The Writing of American History. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1963. Print.
Library of Congress. Sebastopol is Taken: a Patriotic song. 1855. Sheet Music. <https://www.loc.gov/item/ihas.100009211/>.
Linder, Douglass O. Famous Trials. 2018. Web. <http://www.famous-trials.com/zenger/87-home>.
Lippmann, Walter. “Yellow Press Has Served Purpose.” Kansas Industrialist 11th February 1931: 6. Print. <https://archive.org/stream/KSULKSInd193031V57N1733/KSUL_KS%20Ind_1930-31_v57_n17-33#page/n5/mode/2up>.
Matthews, Dylan. “Everything you need to know about the Fairness Doctrine in one post.” The Washington Post 23rd August 2011. Web. <https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-fairness-doctrine-in-one-post/2011/08/23/gIQAN8CXZJ_blog.html?utm_term=.a87136089141>.
McCullough, David. John Adams. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2008. Print.
Miller, John C. Crisis in Freedom: The Alien and Sedition Acts. New York: Little Brown and Company, 1951. Print.
Miller, John C. The Federalist Era: 1789–1801. New York: Harper & Row, 1963. Print. Pg. 208
New York Daily Tribune. “John Brown Raid.” New York Daily Tribune 19th October 1859. Print.
Oswald, Alix. “The Reaction to the Dred Scott Decision.” Voces Novae: Chapman University Historical Review 4.1 (2012): 168-198. Web. <https://journals.chapman.edu/ojs/index.php/VocesNovae/article/view/328>.
Paine, Thomas. “Common Sense; Addressed to the Inhabitants of America, on the Following Interesting Subjects.” 9th January 1776. Pamphlet.
Paper Age. “Paper Age.” The First Newspapers in America. November/December 2004. 52-55. News Magazine Article. <http://www.paperage.com/issues/nov_dec2004/11_2004newspapers.pdf>.
Rehnquist, William H. “Remarks of the Chief Justice: Symposium on Judicial Independence.” Richmond: University of Richmond T. C. Williams School of Law, 21st March 2003. Speech Transcript. <https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/speeches/viewspeech/sp_03-21-03>.
Ritchie, Dunnavant, Tyler & Wise. “Richmond Enquirer.” The Harper’s Ferry Riot–Its moral and and consequences 21st October 1859: 1. Print. <https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84024735/1859-10-21/ed-1/seq-1/>.
“Richmond Examiner.” The Two-Thirds Vote–Will it Represent the Democratic Vote! 21st October 1859: 1. Print. <https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84024735/1859-10-21/ed-1/seq-1/>.
Rogers, Tony. “Why Journalism Ethics and Objectivity Matter.” 17th March 2017. ThoughtCo. Web. <https://www.thoughtco.com/yes-journalism-ethics-and-objective-news-coverage-2073747>.
Schweikart, Larry and Michael Allen . “A Patriots History of the United States: from Columbus’s great discovery to the war on terror.” The Age of Upheaval . New York: Penguin, 2003. 716. Print.
Schweikart, Larry and Michael Allen. A Patriots History of the United States: from Columbus’s great discovery to the war on terror. New York: Sentinel, 2004. Print.
Smith, James Morton. Freedom’s Fetters: The Alien and Sedition Laws and American Civil Liberties,. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1956 . Print.
Stone, Geoffrey R. . Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime from the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2004.
Taibbi, Matt. ““Objective Journalism” Is an Illusion.” 6th August 2015. The New York Times. Web. <https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/08/06/did-jon-stewart-have-a-serious-lesson-for-journalists/objective-journalism-is-an-illusion>.
Tarr, D. R. and A. O’Conner. Legislation declared unconstitutional: Congress A to Z. 4th. Washington: CQ Press, 2003.
Tise, Larry E. . The American Counterrevolution: a Retreat from Liberty, 1783–1800. Mechanicsburg: Stackpole Books, 1998. Print.
United States Constitution. “Article/Amendment I.” 1791. Constitution.
Wijberg, Rob. “Why Objective Journalism is a Misleading and Dangerous Illusion.” 7th October 2017. The Correspondent. Web. <https://thecorrespondent.com/6138/why-objective-journalism-is-a-misleading-and-dangerous-illusion/157316940-eb6c348e>.
Zinn, Howard. “A Peoples History of the United States: 1492 – Present.” Robber Barons and Rebels. New York: Harpers Collins, 2003. 286. Print.
Zinn, Howard. “A Peoples History of the United States: 1492 – Present.” The Socialist Challenge. New York: HarperCollins, 2003. 349. Book.