However, after British Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey received a letter from Theodore Roosevelt warning him that censoring the press would "harm Britain's cause in the United States," the British government decided they were willing to give some wiggle room. The government also saw that the press could be used to boost the positivity of the war, so they created a system for correspondents.
In the system, the British government and newspapers chose a few journalists to live on the front lines and experience the war firsthand, but their whereabouts and writings were strictly policed by officers who lived with them. While they were in the trenches, the journalists had to wear a uniform and were given the title of captain. They were essentially indistinguishable from the actual officers.
The Battle of Somme was one of the greatest press cover-ups in British history. The battle lasted four and a half months, killing one-third of the 3 million soldiers in the British army. On the first day, 20,000 were killed while another 40,000 were wounded. At first, the reporters were ordered to remain in their quarters while officers updated them with censored versions of the truth. But they were eventually allowed to be out on the front lines. Even then, instead of hearing of the enormous amounts of casualties, the public heard things such as that each day was a "day of promise" and that the "casualties [were] not heavy." All of this was due to the abundant amount of censorship of the press.
Even though the government was the main driving force behind censorship of the press in Britain, the reporters themselves admitted to contributing to the falsehood of their news. They were often against agitating the public's opinion of the war because it would hinder their patriotism. But after the war, they realized that their reports were very misleading.
All in all, if articles in newspapers told the full truth about World War One, it is possible that the public would have expressed an even greater opposition to the war. The opposition could have effectively shortened the war because the people may have been angry enough to demand their government stop sacrificing so many lives. But because the government censored the press, the public was left in the dark about all the consequences, allowing the war to drag out even longer.
All in all, if articles in newspapers told the full truth about World War One, it is possible that the public would have expressed an even greater opposition to the war. The opposition could have effectively shortened the war because the people may have been angry enough to demand their government stop sacrificing so many lives. But because the government censored the press, the public was left in the dark about all the consequences, allowing the war to drag out even longer.
Sources:
https://www.historyextra.com/period/first-world-war/ww1-journalism-reporting-war-trenches-censorship-philip-gibbs-william-beach-thomas/
https://spartacus-educational.com/FWWjournalism.htm
I really enjoyed reading your well organized and informative post! It was very interesting to see how British journalism was censored in a similar manner as American journalism. At the start of the was in 1914, American journalists weren’t allowed to go to the front lines. In fact, it was only until 1917 when America joined the war that 80 American journalists were allowed access to the front. All articles, reports, and photos were subject to review by military censors, as they made sure that no article or photo was disrespectful or harmful to the war effort. Furthermore, reporters were not allowed to state their name, location, or unit so that the Germans would not know of their location.
ReplyDeleteAnother interesting piece of information I learned was the Shell Crisis of 1915, where a Times reporter reported on the shortage of artillery shells on the front lines, which led to a political crisis. Prime minister Herbert Asquith was forced to form a coalition government, David Lloyd George became the munitions minister, and eventually led to Lloyd George replacing Asquith. I was surprised to learn how a single piece of information reported could reveal certain deficiencies within a country and spark so much political conflict.
https://www.usmcmuseum.com/uploads/6/0/3/6/60364049/nmmc_journalism_during_wwi.pdf
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jul/27/first-world-war-state-press-reporting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_Crisis_of_1915
Your post was so thorough and nuanced! I really like how you highlight the importance of a scenario in which the press's freedom of speech wasn't restricted by the British government and gave your own view on how it would have positively impacted the war. The value of real journalism comes with the difference it makes in our everyday lives (hence the saying, ignorance is bliss) and the democracy deficit without it. Today, student journalists are generally free to publish whatever they wish, with organizations such as the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education protecting their right to freedom of speech. Yet oftentimes, on high school and college school campuses, administrators and sometimes even students try to limit what newspapers can publish and refuse newspapers' requests to access confidential, potentially harmful information that would be important for readers to know. A significant instance of this I remember involved the Harvard Crimson (school newspaper) and an anti-U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) student activist group. The Crimson reported on one of their rallies and failed to interview ICE, and still published the article. The anti-ICE group accused the Crimson of not getting the whole story and endangering undocumented immigrants at the college, and made the implication that the Crimson sided with ICE. This scenario shows not only the potential dangers to the right to freedom of speech in the future and what school newspapers are allowed to publish, but also the dangers of allowing full freedom of speech. I do think that there's a gray area in terms of what journalists should publish (considering morals and beneficence of stakeholders), but it's really interesting to observe the evolution of journalism (based on your post and Alisha's comment) throughout history!
ReplyDeleteSources:
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-10-29/opinion-harvard-student-newspaper-under-fire-for-practicing-journalism
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-harvard-crimson-is-right-to-stand-by-journalistic-principles/2019/10/25/1bc3bfa4-f734-11e9-ad8b-85e2aa00b5ce_story.html
I really like how detailed and interesting your blog post was! I was able to learn a lot about how freedom of the press in Britain changed throughout WW1. Even though journalists eventually got to experience the war firsthand, the things they could publish were extremely censored by the government. One part of your post that stood out to me was the Battle of Somme because the casualties were played down so much to the public. Overall, this builds on the trend that during war, government power tends to increase while individual rights tend to decrease. Examples of this from America were the Espionage and Sedition Acts which also limited the freedoms of speech and media during WW1.
ReplyDelete