America Celebrates the Centennial of Women’s Suffrage

The climate surrounding women’s issues in the beginning of the 20^th century, as shown in the March 4, 1913 issue of the Washington Post (p. 10), March 4, 1913 issue of the Chicago Tribune (p. 2), and March 4, 1913 issue of the New York Times (p.4.)

By: Juliette Moak

One of the most notable events from 1913 was the women’s suffrage parade in Washington D.C. The parade took place March 3, one day before the inauguration of President Woodrow Wilson. It featured 8,000 marchers, in addition to nine bands, four mounted brigades, 20 floats, and an allegorical performance.

The youngest suffragette in the parade, via Library of Congress

Public sentiment at the time was not in favor of giving women the right to vote, and the reactions of spectators reflected that sentiment. Reports of the event describe men in the crowd tripping, shoving, cursing and heckling the suffragettes. Police demonstrated a general disregard for the safety of the protestors by the police, who are said to have “enjoyed the ribald jokes and laughter,” according to "Marching for the Vote" by Sheridan Harvey. One policeman reportedly told a woman that “There would be nothing like this happen if you would stay at home.” Subsequent coverage of the event proved to be quite favorable to the suffrage movement, however, as the articles focused mainly on the injustices perpetrated against the marchers.

In The Press

On page 10 of this March 4, 1913 Washington Post article, “WOMEN’S BEAUTY, GRACE, AND ART BEWILDER THE CAPITAL: Miles of Fluttering Femininity Present Entrancing Suffrage Appeal,” the reporter does not quite seem to get the point of the movement, attributing the authority of their appeal to the extent of their grace and beauty, whereas the suffragettes were demanding equality on the basis of their rights as US citizens, fluttering femininity aside.

The reporter’s coverage initially seems fair but soon devolves into condescension, beginning with the use of “Bewilder” - a vast understatement of the violence of the crowd’s actual reaction. The article refers to the march as a “pageant” on multiple occasions. The rioting was of such severity that it took an hour to march 10 blocks, and could only be completed when “troops of Cavalry from Fort Meyer were rushed into Washington to take charge of Pennsylvania Avenue,” according to the article. Reports of women crying as insults were yelled at them, as well as one account of a Miss Millholland who struck one heckler in the face with a riding crop were contained in the article, which also referred to the suffragettes who traveled from New York State as “bedraggled women.”

Photo spread accompanying the Washington Post article, via Library of Congress

Other headlines give a more straightforward summation of the events, such as these from the New York Times and the Chicago Daily Tribune, which read, “5, 000 women march, beset by crowds,” and “Mobs at Capitol defy police, block suffrage parade.” The former underestimates the number of marchers by 3,000, however. Another important point to note is that, despite the uproar caused by the riot, none of these articles appeared on the front page of their publications.

Public Opinion

The accuracy with which the march and subsequent rioting was reported was a vast departure from how activists for women’s suffrage were customarily portrayed by the press. Contemporary ads, articles, and cartoons depicted female activists as lazy annoyances to men, and were described as bitter, unloved man-haters (due to a life of singleness and childlessness, some would opine).

  

Both Photos Via Library of Congress

The ideal woman was presented as one who was willing to bask in the glow of her husband’s success, while asking nothing for herself, least of all the added burden of having to entertain political ideas.

Both Photos Via Library of Congress

 Then And Now

The belief that women allow aspects of their rights to be determined by men who supposedly know what’s best for them should be extinct by now, but in light of recent political events concerning women’s health, it’s evident that the American patriarchy is very much alive and well. Accusations leveled against women who identify as feminists today are nearly identical to those the suffragettes faced, although now opponents of women’s rights cite a women’s right to vote as evidence that feminism is no longer necessary. Those who encounter this argument may point out the fact that despite the 19^th amendment enfranchising women in 1920, there is still a city in West Virginia (ironically named “Sistersville,”) where, according to the city charter, women are not allowed to vote.

Remembering Dallas, November 22, 1963

Fifty years since the fatal car ride: accounts by Marina Oswald

By Chelsea Seifert

Texas State University student

As November approaches, so does the memory of what most consider a national tragedy. This year marks the 50^th anniversary of the John. F. Kennedy assassination, a tragedy that left a lasting imprint in American history. Many know the basic facts of the incident regarding JFK, Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby, but there seems to be one perspective that isn’t quite as well known, that of Marina Oswald, Lee Harvey Oswald’s wife.

On Nov. 29, 1963, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed an executive order that created a Commission “to ascertain, evaluate and report upon the facts relating to the assassination of the late President John F. Kennedy and the subsequent violent death of the man charged with the assassination,” according to “Hearings Before the President’s Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy” Volume 1, Page 3. This Commission was known as the Warren Commission.

 

After 2 ½ hours of questioning in Washington D.C.,

Marina Oswald leaves the headquarters of the Warren
Commission, Feb. 3, 1964. Photo by Byron Rollins/AP Images

Marina Oswald, wife of Lee Harvey Oswald, JFK’s assassin, was placed under oath by the Commission. Their intention was to ask questions “concerning Lee Harvey Oswald and any and all matters relating to the assassination,” according to the “Hearings” document. 

During the days in which Mrs. Oswald testified, she recounted her time living in America while married to Lee Harvey Oswald up until a few days after the assassination. Marina Oswald gave details of everyday life with her husband and the people and activities he associated with during the year prior to his fatal shot.

Encounters of Lee Harvey Oswald  

Marina Oswald told the Commission on Monday, Feb. 3, 1964, that her husband had been honorably discharged from the U.S. Army; however, the honorable title was retracted after it was discovered that he had spent time in Soviet Russia, where Marina and Lee met. After the couple moved to America, Marina described how everything changed.

“Immediately after coming to the United States, Lee changed,” she said in “Hearings Before the President’s Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy” on Page 10. “He (Lee) became more of a recluse.”

After reading Marina’s entire testimony, I concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald led a very secretive life with predetermined intentions that he kept locked away within the depths of his mind. Before Oswald shot and killed President Kennedy, he was connected with the attempted assassination of Major General Edwin Anderson Walker, a U.S. Army officer. The assassination attempt occurred on April 10, 1963. It was later discovered that Oswald had left a note for Marina, with directions for what to do if he succeeded with the assassination and was arrested. When Marina asked him why he did what he did, he responded, “because Walker was a bad man, a fascist,” according to Marina in “Hearings Before the President’s Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy” Page 16. “If someone had killed Hitler in time it would have saved many lives,” she said he told her.

Other fascinating details Marina discussed Lee’s involvement in Fair Play for Cuba as a supporter in the Cuban Soviet efforts. Lee became pro-Cuba, got involved in Cuban activity and even wanted to go to Cuba through Mexico, Marina testified on Page 22. Lee even made a trip to Mexico to see if the Soviet Embassy would permit him into Cuba. While there, he went under an “assumed name” and wanted no one to know of his location.

Lee Harvey Oswald also had a rifle that he constantly worked on, according to Marina on Page 54.

“I did not see it (rifle),” she said on Page 54, “but I did hear the noise from it from time to time.”

Marina Oswald chats with Chief Justice Earl

Warren in an elevator ride on Feb. 6, 1964.

Photo provided by AP Images

It wasn’t until after Lee returned from his unsuccessful trip to Mexico that he got a job at the Texas School Book Depository at the corner of Elm and Houston streets in Dallas.

The Day of the Shooting

At the time of the shooting, Marina and Lee were not living together. The Thursday before he shot Kennedy, Lee made an unannounced appearance at the house Marina was staying at.

“He said that he was lonely because he hadn’t come the preceding weekend and he wanted to make his peace with me,” said Marina when asked why she thought Lee had come over.

According to Marina on Page 65, Lee went to bed at approximately 9 p.m. on Nov. 21, 1963, but she knew he wasn’t sleeping and that he was upset that she wanted nothing to do with him. 

“He asked me whether June (Marina and Lee’s daughter) needed anything and told me to buy everything that I needed for myself and for the children,” said Marina Oswald in “Hearings Before the President’s Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy” Page 69. I found this particularly suspicious because it sounds like a warning for her and her children.

The next morning, Nov. 22, 1963, Lee left without a sound. He didn’t wake up anyone and made no noise on his way out the door. After Marina heard news of the JFK assassination, she was in shock.

“I didn’t believe it,” said Marina on Page 71. “I had never heard anything bad about Kennedy from Lee and he never had anything against him. I went to my room and cried.” Despite Marina knowing about Lee’s previous attempts and life choices, she seemed legitimately shocked by the assassination news.

Life for Marina Oswald seemed like one I couldn’t imagine, after reading her testimony. Living with such a suspicious man, hiding his secrets, knowing his Soviet affiliations and dealing with his constant departures makes for one interesting life.

  

Chelsea Seifert is a journalism and sociology junior at Texas State University. 

 

            ANALYZING JFK ASSASSINATION

By: Reynaldo Leanos Jr.

Photo Source: Dallas News

Front Pages of The London Times and The New York Times Being Analyzed to Show Difference of Coverage from Foreign and Domestic Newspapers

            I decided to go back in the day and learn about the JFK assassination on November 22, 1963 because it has always been a topic that has interested me. Some consider it a crime, while others believe it is part of a conspiracy, but whatever one believes it is a moment in history that shocked not only the United States, but the world as well. My analysis compares The New York Times, a domestic newspaper with The London Times, a foreign paper, the day after the assassination occurred to see the similarities and differences in coverage and style.

            The first thing I noticed when acquiring both newspapers is that The London Times, as a whole, seemed to be more dense and less organized, when compared to The New York Times. There were many different type of stories going on and lots of random ads scattered around. The New York TImes was still pretty dense with information, but the layout seemed more controlled and was easier for the eye to navigate through the paper.

            The front pages of each of these papers was also interesting to analyze. The New York Times had a huge capitalized and centered headline to report the assassination of JFK, while The London Times only had a smaller headline on the far right of the front page. There were also more than five pages dedicated to the assassination in the New York Times. I suppose the difference in coverage is understandable because the assassination occurred here in the U.S. as opposed to it happening abroad. Another observation I made is that The London Times capitalizes all headlines and subheads, while The New York Times does capitalize some headlines and subheads, but not all.

            It was interesting to also realize that there were a lot more visuals in The New York Times: from pictures of former president John F Kennedy, the still photograph of the car he was in, photos of president Lyndon B. Johnson and pictures of the sniper. Another interesting thing to discover was how The London Times put their own spin on their newspaper because they decided publish the Queen’s message of sympathy to the U.S., which was not found in The New York Times.

            After analyzing both newspapers from about 50 years ago, it suddenly interested me on how print journalism has evolved years later, so I decided to take a look at The New York Times coverage of the assassination 40 years later. One of the first things I realize is that the amount of information in the recent coverage is more precise and clearer because there is a more accurate understanding of what happened and much more detail. In terms of writing styles, both editions - now and then- of the New York Times are pretty straight to the point when discussing the topic.

            I think what I found most valuable with this project is the fact that I now know how to use microfilm, which I can foresee being very helpful in the near future for me, as well as learning more about the JFK assassination.

PART TWO: Visual

I have attached a hyperlink to a visual that stood out to me the most. I obtained it from the library of congress.  The cutline reads: “ Atty. Gen. Robert F. Kennedy holds Mrs. Jacqueline Kennedy's hand as they sorrowfully watch the body of the assassinated President being removed from the plane to an ambulance following arrival here [Andrews Air Force Base] 11/22 from Dallas.” 

            Reynaldo Leanos Jr. is a journalism major and can be reached at r_l107@txstate.edu

America commemorates 50^th anniversary of JFK assassination

Joshua McKinney, September 26, MC3321

           

This photo shows President John F. Kennedy and First Lady Jackie Kennedy as they arrive at Love Field in Dallas on November 22, 1963. (AP Photo/National Archives via Jimmy Carter Library and Museum)

 With the 50^th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy less than two months away, Americans from coast to coast are taking time to reflect on a pivotal moment in U.S. history. It sparked wide-scale skepticism of the United States government by its people and, in my opinion, became the foundation for the modern-day conspiracy-theory junk culture that consumes the nation today.  (See: this guy, this guy, and this guy.) The careers of these mass media pundits who sit on the fringe of reality and insanity would not get the attention that they receive today if not for the explosion of conspiracy theory consumption. Large amounts of literature have been dedicated to the study of the assassination. Countless conspiracies theories about the JFK assassination exist, involving the CIA, FBI, Cuba, USSR, the Mafia, oil men, financial institutions, Israel, Richard Nixon, LBJ, etc. There’s even a theory involving UFOs.

A subhead could go here to chunk up your content for Web production

The magnitude of the event has led Dallas, and Texas, to become synonymous with assassinations, guns and conspiracies. Every year, tourists flock to downtown Dallas to catch a glimpse at the Grassy Knoll and Dealey Plaza, which are considered household names in JFK assassination culture. The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza, in the former Texas School Book Depository (from which Lee Harvey Oswald allegedly shot the president), estimates that it receives over 1 million visitors annually, with an estimated 315,000 visiting the museum. Several events in Dallas are planned to mark the tragic event in 2013. 

 

November 22, 1963: The Background

President John F. Kennedy is seen riding in motorcade approximately one minute before he was shot in Dallas, Tx., on Nov. 22, 1963. In the car riding with Kennedy are Mrs. Jacqueline Kennedy, right, Nellie Connally, left, and her husband, Gov. John Connally of Texas. (AP Photo)

If you could travel back in time to November 23, 1963, you would see a nation at a diplomatic, political and social crossroads. The United States was embroiled in a struggle for global supremacy against the Soviet Union. U.S. influence increased in the conflict between North and South Vietnam, a conflict that would ultimately leave more than 2 million dead, including 58,220 American personal. personnel. Just a year before, the U.S. endured the Cuban Missile Crisis, a 13-day affair that is considered the peak of hostility between the United States and the Soviet Union. The Civil Rights hit a fever pitch. African-Americans demonstrated across the country, often suffering from police brutality. On August 28, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. led more than (or “some” or “about”) 200,000 people in the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. It was on that day, at the Lincoln Memorial, that King delivered his iconic “I Have a Dream” speech, demanding equal rights for all people.

President Kennedy was running for re-election in 1964. The Republican Party was challenging President Kennedy over diplomatic, economic and social issues, hoping to take over the White House. All these issues were placed on the back burner when Kennedy was shot on that fateful Friday in Dallas.

Media Coverage of Events

Many media professionals declare that it is the duty of journalism to record history. Every day, journalists around the world observe, record and interpret information and put it into context for readers to understand. Because I believe this to be true, I’m going to take a look at the front page of the November 22, 1962, edition of the Houston Chronicle to get a better glimpse into the atmosphere of the time of the JFK assassination.

Houston Chronicle, November 22, 1963

         This edition of the Houston Chronicle features the front-page headline, “Assassin’s Bullets Cut Down Kennedy, Connally in Dallas.” It has a photo of President Kennedy and his wife Jacqueline talking with Rep. Albert Thomas and his wife in Houston Thursday night at a dinner in honor of Thomas. Houston was the second stop on President Kennedy’s two- day, five-city trip to drum up voting support in Texas. He arrived at Dallas’ Love Field Friday morning, prepared to give a speech at a luncheon later that day at the Trade Mart, located in the Dallas Market Center. Before his speech, his motorcade would pass through downtown Dallas. Kennedy his wife Jacqueline and Governor John B. Connally sat in the back seat of the presidential limousine, and Mrs. Connally was up front with the driver. President Kennedy would never reach his destination. According to page 48 of the Report of the President’s Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy, shots were fired at the presidential limousine about 12:30 p.m. Kennedy and Connally were shot. At 1 p.m., doctors at Parkland Memorial Hospital would pronounce the president dead.

In addition to the assassination of President Kennedy, the newspaper’s front page gives a sense of American life in 1963. The struggle for governmental control is featured in the article “It’s ‘Go’ for Goldwater If Texans Voted Today” by Bo Byers, chief of the Houston Chronicle’s Austin bureau. The article focuses on the state’s support of Sen. Barry Goldwater for president, claiming Goldwater’s “conservatism would carry him to a victory” over Kennedy if the election were held that day. Byers writes that “general disenchantment with the Kennedy administration and an adverse reaction to his civil rights program” are two reasons the majority of Texas voters would not vote for the incumbent in the 1964 election. Kennedy’s assassination is mentioned nowhere in the article. The front page also has articles on Communist action in other countries, highlighting an American take on the tug o’ war between western democracy and Communism. The headline, “Soviets Reject Berlin Protest, Rattle Saber”, written by the Chronicle News Service, tells of the USSR rejecting an American protest of the blockade of Berlin and rebutting with threats of military action, which was commonplace in the Cold War era.

Another article, “Venezuelan Reds Set More Bombs,” gives a quick description of Communist violence in Venezuela, stating that “Castro Communists” attacked buildings with bombs in Coro, Venezuela. The article also mentions that Communist violence in Caracas, the capital of Venezuela, caused 25 deaths and wounded more than 120 people. I can’t help but wonder if the headline news of this edition of the Houston Chronicle influenced the anti-Communist, pro-Republican sentiment of the time or if it just pandered to the paper’s audience.

Joshua McKinney, Journalism junior 

War of the Worlds

War of the Worlds

By Daniel Recio

Radio Broadcast of Fictional 'War of the Worlds' Mistaken for Reality

A live performance of the classic H.G. Wells novel “War of the Worlds” caused a panic across the city of New York. The broadcast aired at 8 p.m. October 30th, 1938 on the radio show “Orson Welles and the Mercury Theatre” on WABC through the Columbia Broadcasting System.

The reading of the classic science fiction novel left many New Yorkers in hysteria and shock, some needing medical treatment because of it. Some families went as far as to flee their homes or barricade themselves in their homes.

The broadcast was introduced by Welles as a dramatic reading of a fictional story, but for those tuning in late the sounds of the news bulletins appeared all too real and were convinced that the city was under attack.

Phones for police stations rang of the hook all across the east coast. Callers were inquiring what to do for the attack, whether or not they should evacuate, and if the gas from the raids would reach them. Many callers were just trying to confirm the reports but others were already convinced

CBS released a statement pointing out that throughout the broadcast it was reported as fiction but apologized for the vividness of the telling.

War of the Worlds, a Glimpse into 1938

The most intriguing thing about the coverage in the--New York Times/10/31/1938-- was how it was organized compared to how we organize our news stories today. Stories had strong leads and used some form of the inverted pyramid. As I read on, though, each story became an almost scene-for-scene account of the events. Once the reporter had explained the situation they would continue on to describe the stories of hysteria in fair detail. Eventually I began skimming because it was becoming too arduous to read.

The language and use-- or lack of use –of AP style was surprising. The rules for what was acceptable have changed a lot over the last 75 years. Things like time, citing, and numbers seem to be written in a more relaxed AP format. There is some inconsistency when referring to specific times. For example the use of “between 8:15 and 9:30 o'clock last night.” I’m assuming at some point they realized that “o’clock” is unnecessary, especially when referring to specific times. They often introduce whole quotes from outside sources using a simple colon and beginning a new paragraph. Very little attribution is used. Although it’s not confusing to read the style just lengthens what you’re reading. This becomes a great example of how we consume information. Now we expect to understand news so much quicker. At one point people took the time to sit and read the whole story. One day we may just end up reading the headlines to our stories because information will be moving so quickly we won’t have time to read whole articles. I hope that day is far away.

Limited Sources For Supposed Alien Attack

There were not a whole lot of primary sources available for this type of source; other than newspaper coverage., and that was only in some cities. The best primary source is the broadcast itself--WABC/10/30/1938/8:00p.m.--which is available at radiolab.com.

Listening to the broadcast is revealing as to how quickly people bought into the hysteria. My best guess to pursue secondary sources would be documentaries or additional coverage on the events. The event wasn’t expected to be historic, so I don’t believe people were prepared to document it.

My only comments are to shorten and focus the story, as I stated earlier. The story became arduous to read because of its length. The reporter should have focused on the broadcast itself and the reaction it drew from the public. 

The reporter should have then gathered sources from police precincts, residents of the cities or states where this was supposed to be happening, and comments from public officials about how they plan to approach or resolve this problem. If they had more concise writing and utilized their sources more than the story would have been much easier to read. I did gather the information I needed but it felt more difficult than it should have been.