Joseph Hooker and the Press
Having spent a more than a few weekends either at Gettysburg or Antietam, or reading about them as much as possible since I now live within an hour of Gettysburg, and an hour and a half from Antietam, I happened to run across something from Major General Joseph Hooker written to Major General Halleck that make me chuckle appreciatively:
HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF THE POTOMAC, June 19, 1863. (Received 12 m.)
Major-General HALLECK:
I have just been furnished with an extract from the New York Herald of yesterday concerning the late movements of this army. So long as the newspapers continue to give publicity to our movements, we must not expect to gain any advantage over our adversaries. Is there no way of stopping it? I can suppress the circulation of this paper within my lines, but I cannot prevent their reaching it to the enemy. We could well afford to give millions of money for like information of the enemy.
JOSEPH HOOKER, Major-General.
Major General Halleck's reply is telling as well:
WASHINGTON, D.C., June 19, 1863--1.55 p.m.
Major-General HOOKER, Army of the Potomac:
I appreciate as fully as yourself the injury resulting from newspaper publication of the movements, numbers, and position of our troops, but I see no way of preventing it as long as reporters are permitted in our camps. I expelled them all from our lines in Mississippi. Every general must decide for himself what persons he will permit in his camps.
H. W. HALLECK, General-in-Chief.
Yes, at one point it was up to the military and even the generals themselves to determine who was permitted in a military camp, on the march, and so forth. At the same time that this was true, we still had a media too self-serving to understand the need to report movements and actions not DURING them, but only after them.
For a long time I've considered the U.S. media to be a bit anti-U.S., but in the end I've come to feel that they really don't want the United States to falter or fail, they just want to be there in case we do. "If it bleeds, it leads" is more than a motto, it really is a way of life for the reporter, journalist, or whatever else one might wish to call them. If Union soldiers pass through a town the media honestly think it is in the best interest of someone to report it - preferably with numbers like head counts and time of day.
I recall something Dennis Prager said on his talk show not long ago (I don't know the exact quote): The media does not seem to ask itself, "What might happen if I report on this? What will the results be? Could it harm people who otherwise might not be? Is the story worth it?"
He's absolutely right with that observation. The news only seems to care for shock-value and to be the first with it. When people die in Afghanistan because people don't bother to do their job at a newspaper, the regret is not there and the apology seems forced or contrived. I used to also think this to be a more modern creation, but perhaps it appears that way because of the huge size and role played by the media today.
Of course Joseph Hooker resigned his command not too long after this communication and only a few days after that a completely unorganized George Meade fought in and around that little Pennsylvania town that has become immortalized… unfortunately it seems some traits of the media are as timeless too.
HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF THE POTOMAC, June 19, 1863. (Received 12 m.)
Major-General HALLECK:
I have just been furnished with an extract from the New York Herald of yesterday concerning the late movements of this army. So long as the newspapers continue to give publicity to our movements, we must not expect to gain any advantage over our adversaries. Is there no way of stopping it? I can suppress the circulation of this paper within my lines, but I cannot prevent their reaching it to the enemy. We could well afford to give millions of money for like information of the enemy.
JOSEPH HOOKER, Major-General.
Major General Halleck's reply is telling as well:
WASHINGTON, D.C., June 19, 1863--1.55 p.m.
Major-General HOOKER, Army of the Potomac:
I appreciate as fully as yourself the injury resulting from newspaper publication of the movements, numbers, and position of our troops, but I see no way of preventing it as long as reporters are permitted in our camps. I expelled them all from our lines in Mississippi. Every general must decide for himself what persons he will permit in his camps.
H. W. HALLECK, General-in-Chief.
Yes, at one point it was up to the military and even the generals themselves to determine who was permitted in a military camp, on the march, and so forth. At the same time that this was true, we still had a media too self-serving to understand the need to report movements and actions not DURING them, but only after them.
For a long time I've considered the U.S. media to be a bit anti-U.S., but in the end I've come to feel that they really don't want the United States to falter or fail, they just want to be there in case we do. "If it bleeds, it leads" is more than a motto, it really is a way of life for the reporter, journalist, or whatever else one might wish to call them. If Union soldiers pass through a town the media honestly think it is in the best interest of someone to report it - preferably with numbers like head counts and time of day.
I recall something Dennis Prager said on his talk show not long ago (I don't know the exact quote): The media does not seem to ask itself, "What might happen if I report on this? What will the results be? Could it harm people who otherwise might not be? Is the story worth it?"
He's absolutely right with that observation. The news only seems to care for shock-value and to be the first with it. When people die in Afghanistan because people don't bother to do their job at a newspaper, the regret is not there and the apology seems forced or contrived. I used to also think this to be a more modern creation, but perhaps it appears that way because of the huge size and role played by the media today.
Of course Joseph Hooker resigned his command not too long after this communication and only a few days after that a completely unorganized George Meade fought in and around that little Pennsylvania town that has become immortalized… unfortunately it seems some traits of the media are as timeless too.
posted by Edward W. Prather at 23:24
<< Home