“Watchdog” Journalists and “Shyster” Lawyers: Analyzing Legal Reform Discourse in the Journalistic Trade Press, 1895–1899
Vol. 35, No. 4, 2018
By Patrick C. File, University of Nevada, Reno
Journalism experienced a dynamic period of disruption at the turn of the twentieth century, and trade publications like the Fourth Estate, Journalist, and Newspaperdom covered every twist and turn. But these newspapers about newspapers were more than just a source of the latest information on journalism technology, ethics, law, and business; they provided a forum for discussion and debate on those issues. This means that the discourse found in the trade journals can be read as an important site where the social construction of journalism occurred; where reporters, editors, and publishers articulated the profession’s central values and social role.
One key legal problem the field faced in the 1890s was libel, and the trade publications were replete with news and commentary about the prevalence of lawsuits, the financial threat they posed, and how the industry should respond to them. This discussion illuminates a contradiction: while emerging professional standards positioned the press as an independent and impartial informer of the public, the discourse in the trade papers is clearly partisan on the topic of libel law, often portraying it as outdated, unjust, and in need of reform. Much of the discourse contemplates ways that journalists could engage in lobbying efforts and other attempts to change the law in their favor and protect their economic interests.
Examining the trade press discourse about libel law in the 1890s can help us see how journalists navigated the apparent clash between emerging professional standards and institutional advocacy at that time, and therefore help us better understand how the purpose and legal status of journalism is constantly renegotiated in democratic society in response to a range of factors like technology, professional practices, and economic influences.
But what analytical lens might help us understand this process? This article offers two — the civil sphere and institutionalism — so we can compare them and consider how they might help build a more robust legal historical perspective in journalism scholarship.
Through these lenses, the article finds that discourse about libel law in the trade press helped journalists walk the line between partisanship and nonpartisanship by aligning their social role with the public good, arguing that legal protection for the press benefited the public as well. The article also argues that the civil sphere and institutionalism can together help us view the discourse about libel law as fitting binary cultural codes that help people make sense of the political world while accounting for factors like organizational structure, work routines, and the press’s dynamic relationship with politics and government. Ultimately, this should help deepen and expand our notion of how journalists themselves play a role in defining their purpose in democratic society.
Questions for Discussion After Reading the Article:
- What are some examples of the “binary codes” journalists used in their discussion of libel law reform? Which do you think might have been the most effective in accomplishing their aims, and why?
- Describe and explain the role the trade publications played in the libel reform efforts of the 1890s.
- Consider legal issues facing journalism today.
- Where would you expect to find discourse about those issues, and what “binary codes” might we expect to find in that discourse?
- What organizations play a role in addressing legal issues facing journalists today? Does their partisanship have a positive, negative, or neutral impact on whether people see journalists as objective, independent, impartial, or unbiased?
Exercise 1:
What are some of the key legal or ethical issues facing journalists today? Where might you find journalists engaging in discourse about those issues, and how might you expect journalists to talk about the issues?
While there are fewer trade publications out there today, they still exist, like the Columbia Journalism Review and Gateway Journalism Review. There are also organizations and foundations, like the American Press Institute and Knight Foundation, which engage with these issues. Journalists themselves also use social media — especially Twitter — to discuss their craft, its changes, and its challenges, which can add a multitude of voices and a mix of nuance to the discourse.
Identify a controversy or two that has been in the news (public records requests, journalists privilege, libel, plagiarism, fake news, native advertising) and take a look at how the issue is discussed in these forums.
- Do journalists or their trade publications appear to suspend their impartiality about these issues? Could that have an impact on how the public perceives them?
- Do you see any common terms that could contribute to a binary discursive construction of these issues, like those used in the trade press of the 1890s (old versus modern, oppressive versus democratic, unjust versus just)?
Exercise 2:
Journalism trade publications of the turn of the twentieth century contain a wealth of information about that dynamic industry. Take some time to examine a few editions for their coverage of an emerging technology of the day (cameras and photography, ever-faster presses, typewriters, linotypes, even bicycles!). Consider what coverage of that technology says about journalistic professional practice:
- What journalistic values does the technology serve?
- How might that technology have changed how journalism was practiced?
- How might that technology have changed the role journalism plays in society, its relationship to the public?
Several newspaper trade publications from the turn of the twentieth century are available, at least in part, in online databases, including:
The Fourth Estate (https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/009366752)
The Journalist (https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/100897250)
Newspaperdom (https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000054824)
Editor & Publisher (https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000865336)
These may also be available in your university library on microfilm.
Exercise 3:
This article used the issue of libel law reform to demonstrate the benefits and shortcomings of a couple of different theoretical frameworks — lenses through which we can explain phenomena and assess their historical significance.
Write a short research essay using one of these frameworks to examine a different issue in journalism, public relations, or advertising. How might institutionalism help us understand discourse around the regulation of broadcast media, for example? Or what might civil sphere theory tell us about how the advertising industry has responded to various attempts to regulate it?
Apply a third theory, like agenda setting or framing, to the discourse presented in this article, to compare its strengths and weaknesses to the other two.
Resources and Additional Reading
Alexander, Jeffrey C. The Civil Sphere (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006).
Campbell, W. Joseph. The Year that Defined American Journalism: 1897 and the Clash of Paradigms (New York: Routledge, 2006).
Journal of Communication Inquiry 39, no. 2 (2015). (Special issue devoted to considering the possibility of incorporating civil sphere theory in media history and communication scholarship, including contributions from Sid Bedingfield, Kathy Roberts Forde, John Nerone, David Paul Nord, and Richard K. Popp.)
Political Communication 23, no. 2 (2006). (Special issue devoted to mapping the landscape of institutionalist approaches to journalism scholarship, including contributions from Rodney Benson, Timothy Cook, Robert Entman, Richard Kaplan, Regina Lawrence, David Ryfe, and Bartholomew Sparrow.)