Infamous Scribblers: The Founding Fathers and the Rowdy Beginnings of American Journalism

by Eric Burns

Book Overview

Infamous Scribblers is a perceptive and witty exploration of the most volatile period in the history of the American press. News correspondent and renowned media historian Eric Burns tells of Ben... This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Hardcover
• Language: English
• ISBN: 158648334X
• Release Date: March 2006
• Publisher: PublicAffairs
• Length: 384 Pages
• Weight: 1.40 lbs.
• Dimensions: 9.3" x 1.5" x 6.3"

Customer Reviews

The Flawed Beginnings of a Free Press

You have had it up to here with newspapers and news broadcasts that are partisan and shrill. You are sick of the media focusing on scandal or even making up scandals. You can't stand the prospect of hearing from another pundit who calls for the death of her political opponents. You wish that newspapers would go back to the good old days of objectivity and impartial promotion of the public interest, perhaps when Freedom of the Press was a new concept and was being flaunted with energy and joy. Don't be too sure. In _Infamous Scribblers: The Founding Fathers and the Rowdy Beginnings of American Journalism_ (PublicAffairs), Eric Burns (who works for Fox News!) has given a funny and thoughtful look at our nation's initial press. The title of the book comes from a phrase George Washington, who had more than his share of problems with the papers, used to describe his newsprint detractors. We may have come a long way in the technologies we use for our media, but the problems here of lies, leaks, and libel will sound familiar to modern readers. One excuse the newspapers had then that they do not have now is that they were new. Neither Europe nor the colonies had a tradition of an impartial press, so the press had to invent itself. The first newspaper was closed because the publisher was obnoxious and refused to get a license. The second was a toadying journal that printed what the authorities wanted. Ben Franklin's elder brother was the first crusading journalist, but took up a malicious crusade against smallpox inoculations. Founding father Sam Adams edited the _Boston Gazette_ and had no interest in printing the truth, unless the truth happened to promote American liberty. If a false story about British troops raping helpless American women incited violent protests against the redcoats, Sam Adams didn't mind. As Burns writes, "History has vindicated Adams's political ends; it cannot justify his journalistic means." The exaggeration and outright lying was continued by others during the time of the writing of the Constitution and during the initial decades of the new nation. The Federalists (in favor of strong central government) and the opposing Republicans had their pet journals, and even arranged for the editors to be on the federal payroll when they could. Burns's lively history is a reminder of how venerable is the tradition of parties loving a press that agrees with them and excoriating the press that disagrees. It also goes a long way to making the gigantic marble statues that we think of as our Founding Fathers into human figures motivated at least in part by lust, vanity, and eagerness for power. The vehemence and outright deceitfulness that they could use when deploying the press is remarkable. It is also worth being reminded that for all the good that came from our founding, those involved in it were often unsure about what they were doing, and if sure, were often sure of what proved to be error or misjudgment. Burns co

The More it Goes Around; the More it Remains the Same

The opening sentence says it all. "It was the best of times; it was the worst of journalism." It was an era that spawned the finest minds our country has ever seen drawn into public service. It was an era that spawned some our country's most raucous journalists. Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and Sam Adams were accomplished journalists. George Washington and John Adams detested journalists. Thomas Jefferson was a skilled manipulator of journalists. Franklin's brother, James, was one of the first muckrakers. Thomas Paine was thought-provoking, high-minded and persuasive. James Callender was a hatchet man. The journalists of the era were often partisan, scandalous and sensational. They were often stirring, passionate and brilliant. Together they aired the issues that caused the now United States to declare its independence and chart a course that lead to its position in the world today. Eric Burns, host of Fox News Channel's "Fox News Watch" relates the story. This tale is essential to understanding the press' role in our society today.

There's Little New With Journalism or Politicians

We all know that our media is biased. But on the whole the left thinks that it is biased in favor of the right. The right is absolutely certain that it is biased in favor of the left. And some like the ones you see at the checkout stand in the supermarket are biased against the truth, any truth. What this book brings to the fore is that this is not new. The media, such as it was, of the time had just about as much fun with politicians dallying in the wrong bedroom as did the media with Bill Clinton. The owners of the media made little effort to hide their bias for or against anyone. Washington, for instance is usually treated almost saintly by the people of today. One article said, 'the American nation has been deceived by Washington.' If you substituted the word 'Clinton' or 'Bush' for the word 'Washington' this could well be a recent or one of today's articles. This is a book that reminds us that there is little new under the sun, at least so far as journalism and politicians go. It's a delightful and amusing read.

The eye-popping true story of how raucous and undisciplined American journalism once was

Infamous Scribblers: The Founding Fathers and the Rowdy Beginnings of American Journalism is the eye-popping true story of how raucous and undisciplined American journalism once was. Feuds, partisanship, and outright lies often colored journalism of the era. Some founding fathers, such as Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and Sam Adams, were leading journalists, others, such as George Washington and John Adams, passionately disdained journalists; and Thomas Jefferson was a skillful manipulator of journalists. Infamous Scribblers is divided into three sections: "The Role of Authority", "The Approach of War", and "The Tumult of Peace", all tracing the contentious relationship between the founding fathers and journalism throughout the birth of America. Highly recommended for American history shelves, and an absolute "must-have" for public and college libraries.

Media Bias Isn't New

Few things can ignite a more heated debate these days than when the subject of "the media" is introduced into polite conversation. People on the left and right fault contemporary journalism for (a) giving the Bush administration a free ride, or (b) extreme bias against all things Bush and Republican. Charges of media bias and the controversy over good vs. bad journalism are older than the nation, literally. Veteran journalist Eric Burns has written about the notorious founding fathers of journalism in a highly readable, outrageous and frequently hilarious book called "Infamous Scribblers: The Founding Fathers and the Rowdy Beginnings of American Journalism." Here, a disclaimer may be warranted. Burns hosts "Fox News Watch" on Fox News Channel (Saturdays at 6:30 p.m. ET), a program on which I appear as a panelist. Nevertheless, I am writing about his book without his encouragement, without remuneration and without even the promise of more airtime. "Infamous Scribblers" is a line taken from the pen of George Washington, who responded to the disdain some in the press and politics had for him with disdain of his own. Schoolchildren are taught many things about some of our Founding Fathers, but little about what their journalistic tormentors said about them. Burns' book wonderfully completes the record. The National Gazette was so afraid President George Washington would become a monarch that it took the slightest occasion, including Washington's 61st birthday party, to warn of impending doom to the newly born republic. Its editor, Philip Freneau (a college classmate of James Madison at Princeton), wrote, "Who will deny that the celebrating of birth days is not a striking feature of royalty? We hear of no such thing during the republic of Rome ..." Another paper of the time likened the birthday observance to a "Political Christmas" and suggested the event was an attempt to rank "Washington with Jesus Christ." In Colonial journalism, prominent men like Alexander Hamilton would use numerous pseudonyms to comment on, criticize and attack political opponents. Editors, such as they were in those days, saw nothing wrong with the practice and, in fact, encouraged it. The most outrageous and inaccurate items were printed in newspapers with no fact-checking and little sense of responsibility for the damage to career and reputation they might cause. Burns writes of the Gazette of the United States (born on April 15, 1789, a month after the Constitution took effect) that its editor, John Fenno, was an ardent supporter of the federalism represented by Washington and Hamilton. Fenno's newspaper served as a counterweight to the republican slant of the National Gazette. Burns sums up Fenno's journalistic philosophy: "He would cajole his readers, deceive them when necessary, rile them when advisable; he would praise public officials and other newspaper editors who agreed with his positions and drub those who did not, assailing their intelligence, their