What do you think?
Rate this book
Infamous Scribblers: The Founding Fathers and the Rowdy Beginnings of American Journalism
Infamous Scribblers is a perceptive and witty exploration of the most volatile period in the history of the American press. News correspondent and renonwned media historian Eric Burns tells of Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and Sam Adams—the leading journalists among the Founding Fathers; of George Washington and John Adams, the leading disdainers of journalists; and Thomas Jefferson, the leading manipulator of journalists. These men and the writers who abused and praised them in print (there was, at the time, no job description of "journalist") included the incendiary James Franklin, Ben's brother and one of the first muckrakers; the high minded Thomas Paine; the hatchet man James Callender, and a rebellious crowd of propagandists, pamphleteers, and publishers. It was Washington who gave this book its title. He once wrote of his dismay at being "buffited in the public prints by a set of infamous scribblers." The journalism of the era was often partisan, fabricated, overheated, scandalous, sensationalistic and sometimes stirring, brilliant, and indispensable. Despite its flaws—even because of some of them—the participants hashed out publicly the issues that would lead America to declare its independence and, after the war, to determine what sort of nation it would be.
480 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2006
39 people are currently reading
673 people want to read
About the author
Eric Burns
28Ìýbooks67ÌýfollowersEric Burns is an American media critic and journalist. He began his career as a correspondent for NBC News where he appeared regularly on NBC Nightly News and on the Today show.
Burns has written five critically-acclaimed books and continues to work in television. He has worked as a commentator for Entertainment Tonight, host of Arts & Entertainment Revue on A&E, and is the former host of Fox News Channel's Fox News Watch, as well as a media analyst for the network.
Burns received an Emmy Award for media criticism and was named by the Washington Journalism Review as one of the best writers in the history of broadcast journalism.
Burns has written five critically-acclaimed books and continues to work in television. He has worked as a commentator for Entertainment Tonight, host of Arts & Entertainment Revue on A&E, and is the former host of Fox News Channel's Fox News Watch, as well as a media analyst for the network.
Burns received an Emmy Award for media criticism and was named by the Washington Journalism Review as one of the best writers in the history of broadcast journalism.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 56 reviews
July 30, 2016
Infamous Scribblers is a lively, detailed, and shocking account of early journalism in America. Oddly enough, “rowdy,� the word in the subtitle, doesn’t begin to capture the story that Burns tells. Newspapers were far more important in Colonial times than I had known before reading this book. Many of the Founding Fathers were printers and ran newspapers. Few of them come out looking good in this book. One can almost understand the Sedition laws when it is clear how many complete falsehoods were printed in newspapers of the day. Editorial views were not separate from the news; they shaped everything that was written as news.
I found this to be a quick read because the chapters are short and the stories are interesting. The book is written in a way that seems to assume a deep understanding of Colonial history. Then again, it would not be possible to focus entirely on newspaper and pamphlets and tell all of those larger stories in a single book. It is amusing to see how severe criticisms were often couched in verse, and it is shocking to see how much was done anonymously. The modern media looks thoughtful and measured by any comparison to Colonial times.
I found this to be a quick read because the chapters are short and the stories are interesting. The book is written in a way that seems to assume a deep understanding of Colonial history. Then again, it would not be possible to focus entirely on newspaper and pamphlets and tell all of those larger stories in a single book. It is amusing to see how severe criticisms were often couched in verse, and it is shocking to see how much was done anonymously. The modern media looks thoughtful and measured by any comparison to Colonial times.
December 29, 2018
Those who loved the play Hamilton must read this book, the story of the founding fathers and the "rowdy beginnings of American journalism." Burns' well-researched nonfiction covers the period just before the revolution to the early 1800s. The infighting over the decision to engage in the Revolutionary War and afterward the very public disagreements of the new political parties in addition to the many personal disagreements between individuals like Adams, Jefferson, Burr, and Hamilton are detailed through examples of their writings.
January 19, 2008
I ordered this book a while ago after being intrigued by Eric Burns' (the author's) appearance on The Daily Show. At the time I was upset by the Bush administration's apparent manipulation of the press and of facts and Burns made the comment that their behavior was nothing when compared to the behavior of the founding fathers. He was certainly right.
The book covers the early history of journalism and newspapers from the first newspaper in the colonies up through the contentious partisanship of the early (post-Washington) presidential elections.
As the shows, those that we respect for their stance on liberty and freedom were horribly slanderous and loved libel. In fact, they would even pen the articles and fund the newspapers themselves. It is interesting to see what was considered a newspaper "article" then and compare it to now. In fact, a good deal of what was news was actually editorials or downright fictional accounts of events that may or may not have taken place.
I've always been intrigued by the role of the media (printed and otherwise) and their interaction with the political realm during extremely partisan times. The lead up to the fight for independence, the Revolutionary war, and the subsequent early creation of our government were definitely partisan and this book covered them with great detail. The research was evident and the quotes from the newspapers of the time were enlightening and added a great deal to the book.
I actually wish that this was part of a series. I would like to see other times in American history covered in terms of studying the media. I'm sure a good deal of books exist for the Vietnam war, but I would like to read something concerning other times, such as the Civil War, prohibition, and expansion westward to name a few.
The book covers the early history of journalism and newspapers from the first newspaper in the colonies up through the contentious partisanship of the early (post-Washington) presidential elections.
As the shows, those that we respect for their stance on liberty and freedom were horribly slanderous and loved libel. In fact, they would even pen the articles and fund the newspapers themselves. It is interesting to see what was considered a newspaper "article" then and compare it to now. In fact, a good deal of what was news was actually editorials or downright fictional accounts of events that may or may not have taken place.
I've always been intrigued by the role of the media (printed and otherwise) and their interaction with the political realm during extremely partisan times. The lead up to the fight for independence, the Revolutionary war, and the subsequent early creation of our government were definitely partisan and this book covered them with great detail. The research was evident and the quotes from the newspapers of the time were enlightening and added a great deal to the book.
I actually wish that this was part of a series. I would like to see other times in American history covered in terms of studying the media. I'm sure a good deal of books exist for the Vietnam war, but I would like to read something concerning other times, such as the Civil War, prohibition, and expansion westward to name a few.
January 14, 2008
There's a certain amount of irony in a Fox News journalist writing about the bitter, nasty, unfair and (mentally?) unbalanced beginnings of American journalism. But Burns writes with style and sympathy, not to mention an occasionally laugh-out-loud wit. It's always fascinating to see the figures you remember as lionized idols in your elementary-school history class outed as squabbling, occasionally underhanded backstabbers, rabble-rousers, and snakes in the grass. Read "Infamous Scribblers" to learn about Ben Franklin's boundlessly angry older brother, the strongest cuss word George Washington is ever known to have used, and what made Samuel Adams the Bill O'Reilly of his day.
April 16, 2023
Interesting and fun. For those of your interested in the Hamilton/ Jefferson feud there are some great chapters on how that played out in their presses.
December 9, 2008
An accessible book about an interesting subject, but it got repetitive towards the end. There were times when the book got too far into speculation about the thoughts of its subjects, and I could have done without some of the cute turns of phrase.
I thought it was funny that during the chapter about America's first political sex scandal, Burns seemed almost as eager to go over details as the overzealous newspapers he was describing.
I thought it was funny that during the chapter about America's first political sex scandal, Burns seemed almost as eager to go over details as the overzealous newspapers he was describing.
February 11, 2021
Let me begin my reflection on Infamous Scribblers by quoting a paragraph from it:
"We have not adopted [the founders'] style of journalism. We do not, in most of our print and broadcast news sources, impugn character as they did. We do not, except in extraordinary cases, use the kind of language they did. We do not, except on well-publicized and well-punished occasions, make up the news to suit our ideology. It is a rare example of our turning our backs on the Founding Fathers, finding them unworthy, rejecting their legacy. We are to be commended."
Infamous Scribblers is an entertaining historical romp in what I came to realize was a rowdy time. We often bemoan the lack of objectivity in journalists; reading this book taught me there was no such expected standard in the early days of American journalism. In fact, for many early publishers, to not passionately take a stand was spineless capitulation. Certainly readers, especially those attacked in the press, complained against bias, but the expectation we have today—or at least long for—was understood in very different terms at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th century. We have our polemical personalities, but the publishers of the founders' generation might cause even them embarrassment.
Eric Burns's book doesn't have the narrative focus as something like 1776 or Paul Revere's Ride; rather, it glides through decades of American history in order to focus on America's nascent news media's creation and influence. I had not considered that something like journalism, certainly as a profession but even as something consumers wanted, to be a relatively new invention. When your primary worries are about your crops growing or your livestock dying, there isn't much attention left to give toward what's happening in another continent, country, or even the next town. Gossip and word-of-mouth worked just fine for thousands of years; however, as standards of living improved and human endeavors expanded, we became much more interested in what was happening around us, especially in how we were governed. Hence, American journalism, even in its primitive form, was as intertwined with American governance as it is today.
The founding generation is endlessly fascinating, and, as is to be expected at this point, prominent figures of the American founding are on entertaining display in Infamous Scribblers. Benjamin Franklin writing as Silence Dogood is genuinely funny. Alexander Hamilton's pulling of the media levers is captivating, especially when considering his public scandals. George Washington's antipathy toward American journalism foreshadowed the endless tug of war between American presidents and the media that reports on their every word and action. Our struggles are not unique when trying to figure out how much influence a free press should have, what they're allowed to publish, and with how much invective. It's admirable and astonishing, therefore, that the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights insisted on the rights of a free press. Some of those who championed that right were the most abused by the exercise of it.
Infamous Scribblers is really fun and an appealing history. It both taught me of the progress we have made in terms of objective journalism but also how some debates continue on. Our most recent presidential elections have highlighted how important the debate remains. Perhaps the power dynamics between the free press and government never really change; they simply loosen, tighten, and swing back and forth. Eric Burns's book acts as a great primer for modern journalism, as well as an admiring and critical survey of those first infamous scribblers.
"We have not adopted [the founders'] style of journalism. We do not, in most of our print and broadcast news sources, impugn character as they did. We do not, except in extraordinary cases, use the kind of language they did. We do not, except on well-publicized and well-punished occasions, make up the news to suit our ideology. It is a rare example of our turning our backs on the Founding Fathers, finding them unworthy, rejecting their legacy. We are to be commended."
Infamous Scribblers is an entertaining historical romp in what I came to realize was a rowdy time. We often bemoan the lack of objectivity in journalists; reading this book taught me there was no such expected standard in the early days of American journalism. In fact, for many early publishers, to not passionately take a stand was spineless capitulation. Certainly readers, especially those attacked in the press, complained against bias, but the expectation we have today—or at least long for—was understood in very different terms at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th century. We have our polemical personalities, but the publishers of the founders' generation might cause even them embarrassment.
Eric Burns's book doesn't have the narrative focus as something like 1776 or Paul Revere's Ride; rather, it glides through decades of American history in order to focus on America's nascent news media's creation and influence. I had not considered that something like journalism, certainly as a profession but even as something consumers wanted, to be a relatively new invention. When your primary worries are about your crops growing or your livestock dying, there isn't much attention left to give toward what's happening in another continent, country, or even the next town. Gossip and word-of-mouth worked just fine for thousands of years; however, as standards of living improved and human endeavors expanded, we became much more interested in what was happening around us, especially in how we were governed. Hence, American journalism, even in its primitive form, was as intertwined with American governance as it is today.
The founding generation is endlessly fascinating, and, as is to be expected at this point, prominent figures of the American founding are on entertaining display in Infamous Scribblers. Benjamin Franklin writing as Silence Dogood is genuinely funny. Alexander Hamilton's pulling of the media levers is captivating, especially when considering his public scandals. George Washington's antipathy toward American journalism foreshadowed the endless tug of war between American presidents and the media that reports on their every word and action. Our struggles are not unique when trying to figure out how much influence a free press should have, what they're allowed to publish, and with how much invective. It's admirable and astonishing, therefore, that the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights insisted on the rights of a free press. Some of those who championed that right were the most abused by the exercise of it.
Infamous Scribblers is really fun and an appealing history. It both taught me of the progress we have made in terms of objective journalism but also how some debates continue on. Our most recent presidential elections have highlighted how important the debate remains. Perhaps the power dynamics between the free press and government never really change; they simply loosen, tighten, and swing back and forth. Eric Burns's book acts as a great primer for modern journalism, as well as an admiring and critical survey of those first infamous scribblers.
June 12, 2017
I've long held that with the Internet giving everyone the equivalent of a cheap printing press, we have not seen a decay in news coverage and journalism. Rather, the internet hit the reset button, and everything old is new again. This book solidifies this view. Despair of the talking heads, pundits, half-truths and outright likes now? We have nothing on our Founding Fathers. Not saying we don't need to improve but the amount of vitriol that blazed from the first Colonial-era newspapers made my jaw drop at times. There was no such thing as fair, balanced reporting- indeed, the first newspaper editors wore their opinions and leanings like a badge of honor. Several, including Samuel Adams and James Callender, were not above making up their own truths for what they saw as the greater good. After the Revolutionary War, most (if not all) papers were either firm Federalist supporters or staunch Republican. This is a longer book but the pages flew by. It is both educational and entertaining. You will never see the Founding Fathers the same way. Burns portrays them here, their many warts and all. History buffs should definitely find a copy.
May 29, 2017
Burns's monograph on the history of journalism (really of the uses of the printing press) in the early American Republic is eminently readable and engrossing, for all its quirks of diction that often emulate the newspapers he's covering.
He uses a post-hole style, moving smoothly from the early days of the press in England to the travails of a would-be free press in the New England colonies to the rambunctious battles of the War of Independence and the growing pains of the first constitutional administrations. As befits the time, and the subject, it is as much a litany of scandal and personality clashes as of its stated subject.
On the whole, excellent, if a bit ironic in these days of Trump, 'fake news', alternate facts and general printed skullduggery.
He uses a post-hole style, moving smoothly from the early days of the press in England to the travails of a would-be free press in the New England colonies to the rambunctious battles of the War of Independence and the growing pains of the first constitutional administrations. As befits the time, and the subject, it is as much a litany of scandal and personality clashes as of its stated subject.
On the whole, excellent, if a bit ironic in these days of Trump, 'fake news', alternate facts and general printed skullduggery.
January 14, 2021
This was a fantastic, in-depth look into the world of 18th Century American Journalism. So many of us today look upon the founding era as some sort of Golden Age of ideological purity and high mindedness, but this analysis thoroughly disproves that notion. The amount of extreme partisanship, fabricated stories, vicious attacks, political interference, and complete lack of ethical standards that all coalesced into the journalistic norms that defined this era all make today's "media bias" look incredibly tame and level-headed. The colorful context and liveliness of this time period makes it almost impossible to tell these stories in a boring way, but the author here injects just the right combination of analysis, wit and humor to make it engaging both in substance and in style.
September 30, 2017
An extremely interesting of the history of the early days of journalism in the United Stated. Burns narrates the histories contained in this book in a compelling way that makes it hard to put down. One also gains insights that, although much has improved in the profession of journalism in the past 200 years, much remains the same - including the inability of many journalists to leave preconceptions behind.
December 27, 2017
Eye-opening for us who came of age in the Walter Cronkite era of journalism.
So apparently the subscribe-to-my-newsletter style of journalism was the fashion then as it is today. There was no point in publishing any form of journalism unless it was to extol your side and trash the other. Truth and facts, of course, were entirely optional. Fox and Friends has nothing on these guys. I have to admire, though, the poly-syllabic magnificence of their insults. THAT'S how it's done.
So apparently the subscribe-to-my-newsletter style of journalism was the fashion then as it is today. There was no point in publishing any form of journalism unless it was to extol your side and trash the other. Truth and facts, of course, were entirely optional. Fox and Friends has nothing on these guys. I have to admire, though, the poly-syllabic magnificence of their insults. THAT'S how it's done.
April 5, 2021
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Written in 2006, I wonder if the author would still feel that modern journalism is such a superior improvement over its revolutionary birth?
Oh, and Sam Adams was a real jerk for a long time, running a newspaper that printed lies that encouraged and condoned rioting and murder. But that's minor compared to politicians like Thomas Jefferson using the newspapers and the editors/writers of the day as a weapon against their opponents.
Oh, and Sam Adams was a real jerk for a long time, running a newspaper that printed lies that encouraged and condoned rioting and murder. But that's minor compared to politicians like Thomas Jefferson using the newspapers and the editors/writers of the day as a weapon against their opponents.
September 4, 2020
Full of American Revolution anecdotes related to early newspapers. It appears that the issue of fact vs. opinion and molesting the good fortune of elected and appointed officials predates the establishment of the country. Sometimes humorous and sometimes head-scratching.
July 13, 2024
The history of news delivery in the colonies at the time of the Revolution. Quite a tale - it makes you marvel at the fact that the country ever got off the ground. Political “guidance� of reportage was there from the start. Human nature doesn’t change.
May 31, 2018
More anecdotal than I prefer, but a useful overview nevertheless.
June 24, 2013
This is an eye opener for anyone who looks back on history and assumes things were done more honorably, more civilly, and with more integrity than they are now. And for anyone who thinks the founding fathers were a cadre of enlightened supermen who had anything like a consensus of how the new United States should look and be governed. In particular, Infamous Scribblers serves to shed light on the press of the time, which we see operated with the same or less scruples than today's seedier tabloids, and were often bankrolled or otherwise controlled by political leaders from both sides.
"Editorial standards" was a phrase not yet invented.
The truth is the founding fathers, almost to a man, partook in the "blogging" of the day, offering mostly anonymous editorials, generally disguised as straight news or letters to the editor. Hamilton and Jefferson in particular are shown to have been deeply involved in leveraging media to further federalist and republican causes, respectively. They were both also subject to possibly the first two American sex scandals to hit the media.
This is a great read for anyone interested in journalism and/or American history. The parallels with the modern political climate and its symbiotic relationship with the media industry are in some cases astonishing. The more things change..
"Editorial standards" was a phrase not yet invented.
The truth is the founding fathers, almost to a man, partook in the "blogging" of the day, offering mostly anonymous editorials, generally disguised as straight news or letters to the editor. Hamilton and Jefferson in particular are shown to have been deeply involved in leveraging media to further federalist and republican causes, respectively. They were both also subject to possibly the first two American sex scandals to hit the media.
This is a great read for anyone interested in journalism and/or American history. The parallels with the modern political climate and its symbiotic relationship with the media industry are in some cases astonishing. The more things change..
January 1, 2016
Note: I only read the first half, because that time period fell under my interest.
Eric Burns gets the idea of a popular non-fiction book. It instructs; it entertains. With the prose shaped by the very material under consideration, it delivers just enough of that experience of being there in the moment.
Burns' basic point is that from its origins, American journalism was less about truth than about making a buck and pushing the publishers' viewpoints. Caught between the need to stay competitive and the desire to make a difference, early journalists bore little resemblance to our ideal of objective journalism. Even important events such as the Revolutionary War were greatly influenced by the political distortions and outright fabrications of colonial newspapers.
The great value of this book is that it urges us to remember that all information comes from somewhere for some reason. One does not have to be a complete cynic to realize that information is powerful and that individuals will try to take advantage of that power. People who are reactive rather than proactive in the face of information providers will be left at the mercy of those sources. The book invites us to consider the gaps between what we want our information providers to do, what we think they do, and what they actually do.
Eric Burns gets the idea of a popular non-fiction book. It instructs; it entertains. With the prose shaped by the very material under consideration, it delivers just enough of that experience of being there in the moment.
Burns' basic point is that from its origins, American journalism was less about truth than about making a buck and pushing the publishers' viewpoints. Caught between the need to stay competitive and the desire to make a difference, early journalists bore little resemblance to our ideal of objective journalism. Even important events such as the Revolutionary War were greatly influenced by the political distortions and outright fabrications of colonial newspapers.
The great value of this book is that it urges us to remember that all information comes from somewhere for some reason. One does not have to be a complete cynic to realize that information is powerful and that individuals will try to take advantage of that power. People who are reactive rather than proactive in the face of information providers will be left at the mercy of those sources. The book invites us to consider the gaps between what we want our information providers to do, what we think they do, and what they actually do.
April 25, 2016
"Infamous Scribblers" is history focused on journalism around the time of the American Revolution. "Infamous scribblers" is what George Washington called the newspapers of the time. This not a book written by an historian but Eric Burns does a good job pulling all the relevant facts together to make a good narrative. There were no reporters. There were no editors. There were only printers and very little truth. It is clear why the 1st amendment included the press. The press was considered political speech and while the Founder Fathers seemed to regret including the press in the 1st amendment, it is nevertheless important to governing the country.
Anything wrong? When the author mentions Jefferson, Sally Hemings (his slave) and DNA he seems to think the DNA tests are the final answer, thus making Jefferson almost certainly guilty. I do not find the DNA evidence convincing. There are other more likely explanations, but since DNA cannot confirm with certainty, the accusation will forever dog Jefferson. There is no way to determine the truth.
This is my second time reading the book. It is still good.
Anything wrong? When the author mentions Jefferson, Sally Hemings (his slave) and DNA he seems to think the DNA tests are the final answer, thus making Jefferson almost certainly guilty. I do not find the DNA evidence convincing. There are other more likely explanations, but since DNA cannot confirm with certainty, the accusation will forever dog Jefferson. There is no way to determine the truth.
This is my second time reading the book. It is still good.
October 22, 2008
Apparently journalists and politicians in America were always corrupt. Burns wrote a detailed chronology of the newspapers from just before during and shortly after the revolutionary war without making it so dry that its unreadable. I did have two major problems with the book.
My first issue is Burns' agenda. Shocking I know, the author of a book about journalists with with ulterior motives has an ulterior motive. Burns was a media analyst for Fox news and the entire book reads as a defense of their reporting methods. The argument being that if the earliest leaders in the United States had no use for truth in journalism, why should we. Dismissing objective journalism as a joke rankles me a bit.
My second complaint is the writing. The beginning was decent enough, but towards the end he repeated himself and made obvious style and grammar mistakes that an editor should have caught.
My first issue is Burns' agenda. Shocking I know, the author of a book about journalists with with ulterior motives has an ulterior motive. Burns was a media analyst for Fox news and the entire book reads as a defense of their reporting methods. The argument being that if the earliest leaders in the United States had no use for truth in journalism, why should we. Dismissing objective journalism as a joke rankles me a bit.
My second complaint is the writing. The beginning was decent enough, but towards the end he repeated himself and made obvious style and grammar mistakes that an editor should have caught.
May 27, 2010
A very interesting read about the early days of American journalism. If you think the current media is bad (The right wingers of Fox vs. The overt liberal stance of MSNBC vs the establishment of CNN vs. the current newspapers vs. the local media), it holds nothing to the first days of American journalism. It is evident that journalists from the colonial times (the book focuses from the first colonies to the post 1800 election times (maybe the most brutal of electoral campaigns the US has ever and will ever see)) would find our media very...tame. The author does work for Fox, but he does a good job of leaving out his biases for the most part. Worth a read if you are curious about the early history of American journalism
November 18, 2013
A great read about the foundations of American journalism, focusing in on America in the early colonies, through the Revolutionary War, and into the times of the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. Some very interesting stories and tidbits about a number of historical figures, both famous, infamous, and unknown. Burns does a good job bringing the subject, and these figures especially, to life. Interesting looks at a number of famous events and trials, and it forces you to reflect on the state of modern journalism in America. It will surprise you, make you laugh, and (hopefully) make you think. Great for anyone of any age, but especially appreciated as a reminder of some things you might have forgotten from US History class, couched as it is in the focus on journalism and journalists.
August 10, 2007
This book, as the title notes, covers the early history of American journalism. It's a very readable history, full of anecdotes and character profiles, written for an afternoon at the beach rather than academic research. There are many interesting but perhaps less than likable folks who's idea of reporting the news was to make up what they couldn't uncover, and perhaps even create something completely out of their imagination. Journalism was something to support your political, social or religious beliefs, not to convey facts. We may think the news of today is biased, but it's come a long ways since the days of the Founding Fathers!
June 16, 2010
This book is filled with fun stories and tidbits about our forefathers we do not learn in school. I will admit the first half or so of the book is better than the rest. The book seems to be well researched, there are 55 pages of notes,bibliography, acknowledgments, and index. If you enjoy early American history you will enjoy learning about his part of history as well. It appears political scandals are the same now and then, perhaps how they were reported or who reported them are different, but we don't have that much an edge in the tally of scandalous behavior. We owe a lot to the men who forged this country, reporting it as it happens is just one more thing to thank them for.
July 27, 2011
love love LOVE this book! great combination of journalism before/during/after the revolution and the politics of early America. It is easy to say that the newspapers and editorial pamphlets of that time held huge influence and sway toward declaring independence and then afterwards how the United States would be set up and governed.
Eric Burns does a great job really getting to the root of these writers and political men; what they were trying to say, how they used the media to influence public opinion and how it worked or failed. This is a great book and it uncovers a lot of truths about even our modern day news media.
Eric Burns does a great job really getting to the root of these writers and political men; what they were trying to say, how they used the media to influence public opinion and how it worked or failed. This is a great book and it uncovers a lot of truths about even our modern day news media.
July 1, 2014
The first newspapers in the New World were a potent political force, pushing the colonies toward the fight for independence and later dividing the citizens of the nascent United States into squabbling factions of the sort we are still well acquainted with today.
Burns follows the history of the colonies up to the 19th century, stopping regularly to point out the influence of journalists and their targets in every major event. Each significant conflict or scandal, it seems, was fueled or at least exacerbated by the extremely active and partisan press of the times.
3 stars: Worth a read to get a new perspective on the American Revolution and the early United States.
Burns follows the history of the colonies up to the 19th century, stopping regularly to point out the influence of journalists and their targets in every major event. Each significant conflict or scandal, it seems, was fueled or at least exacerbated by the extremely active and partisan press of the times.
3 stars: Worth a read to get a new perspective on the American Revolution and the early United States.
July 9, 2015
A surprisingly readable discussion, chapter by chapter devoted to particular journalists or events, of the American journalistic enterprise from 1710s to the early 19th Century. Burns makes clear that the style of the times was abusive, vivid, and unruly and effectively demonstrates why. There's plenty here to be sober about when reflecting on current times, especially trends towards manufactured news, diminishing journalistic ethics and nearly nonexistent objectivity. The comparisons are striking (although Burns, perversely, actually denies they exist!)
October 17, 2007
Not much of a history reader, but this book makes the early days of journalism in America interesting and entertaining. Creative turns of phrase like "...all of them jacked-up on 90-proof Sam Adams prose.." flavor the text and kept me reading. It's a detailed and quote-riddled expose on America's first newspapers and journalists and shows how the media has always been (and perhaps will always be) editorializing in favor of their own beliefs.
January 5, 2008
I found it comforting to learn that today's partisan media and belligerent public commentary are deeply rooted in the actions of America's founding fathers.
A fun, detailed account of the lies, propaganda and skullduggery that swirled around the American Revolution and the Washington, Adams and Jefferson administrations. And as an added bonus, each chapter begins with the reproduction of a newspaper frontpage from the period.
A fun, detailed account of the lies, propaganda and skullduggery that swirled around the American Revolution and the Washington, Adams and Jefferson administrations. And as an added bonus, each chapter begins with the reproduction of a newspaper frontpage from the period.
August 16, 2010
I was surprised to learn that author Eric Burns worked both for FOX and MSNBC, but he has such delightful storytelling in this book that it made me forget how much I struggle through history books. I'm just bummed that the "rowdy beginnings of American journalism" started out with honest attempts to cover politics and community happenings, but degenerated into questioning and demeaning politicians' character, that anyone with a press and a grudge could simply churn out a periodical.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 56 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.