An essay for my Media in America class.
The America of the 1800s was best known for its tales of adventure along the Western frontier – of rowdy cowboys and barbaric Indians, of gold rushes and the advent of steam engines. It was the age of railway tracks and hot iron, of horses, bandits, and the industrial revolution. But along the Eastern coast, another tale was fast developing within the bustling epicentre of New York City – the rise of the penny press.
Many historians have romanticised the penny papers, lauding them as the precursors of modern journalism. However, Nerone (1987) cautions that many historical studies contain much inaccuracy about the penny press. From an examination of the three most prominent penny papers in New York – namely the Sun, the Herald, and the Tribune, we can see that while the penny press had no doubt made significant contributions to journalism that echoes till today, it was still a far cry from modern journalism. Even worse, according to Williams (1993), the penny press contained elements that would have been abhorrent by today’s journalistic standards.
Credit should be given where it is due, however. The most significant gift of the penny press to modern journalism is in its namesake – it provided “all the news of the day” (which is the motto of the Sun), and all for a penny. A penny! Even though Williams (1993) pointed out that the idea of “news for a penny” was hardly original, it was the New York Sun that proved for the very first time that a penny paper could be successful, widely-read, and profitable. Nerone (1987) mentions that the Sun achieved total sales of more than 19,000, with more than 16,000 going to regular subscribers. The success of the New York Sun also prompted others to join in the fray and start their own penny papers, causing even some large papers to reduce their price from six pennies to three pennies (Williams, 1993).
The success of the penny press was significant in many ways. Benjamin Day had fashioned the New York Sun into a successful business model based heavily on advertising (Emery, 2002). The cheap price of the paper naturally led to a significant rise in readership, resulting in the paper becoming an enticing platform for advertisers. Advertising became a major source of income for newspapers, and this is the legacy the Sun has left for newspapers today.
The ability to be commercially viable meant that penny papers were free from political funding (Williams, 1993). While this did not immediately mean that the penny press turned non-partisan and took on the bastion of objectivity, it signified that the potential for objectivity existed. Free from any sort of internal political influence, a paper is free to decide on its policies, and even if it decides to be politically-biased, it would be out of its own volition. While the Sun, Herald, and Tribute were hardly objective, a possibility was created – that newspapers would one day become the forth estate of the nation. The penny papers, through the success of their business model, paved the way for later papers like the New York Times and The Washington Post to flourish.
The extent of the penny press’ influence on modern journalism can be seen in the current situation facing mainstream press today. Advertising revenue has become the leading determinant of a newspapers’ financial health. With print advertisement revenues stagnating in recent times, Farhi (2007) mentions that newspapers are increasingly turning to the web to generate additional revenue in the form of online advertising. However, he doubts whether such a move would succeed as online advertising revenue is still relatively insignificant. The penny press’ mission to provide news to the working class has resonated well into the internet age, with modern newspapers taking it a step further. Major newspapers like The New York Times and The Washington Post now offer a significant amount of their content online and free-of-charge, allowing anyone with an internet connection to view them. The Sun’s motto rings true even today. Indeed, newspapers still provide “all the news of the day” – everyday and everywhere.
Besides the above-mentioned successes, the penny press has also made other significant contributions to journalism, one of which is the promotion of local news. Once again, while crime stories and local fare are not exactly new features, William (1993) contends that it is the penny press that made local news prominent and popular. George Wisner, a crime reporter for the New York Sun, played an important role in the surge of interest in local news. His articles were written with wit and flair, and this attracted readers. While the conventional papers focused more on politics, the Sun and Herald specialised in sensationalised crime stories and local news, effectively putting the focus on the readers themselves.
While the successful penny papers in New York City were revolutionary for its time, it is still a far cry from the best journalism available today. Many features of the penny press never made it to modern journalism.
Despite being on the far end of the United States and away from the Wild West, the prominent papers in New York were engaged in runnin’ n gunnin’ newspaper politics with the sort of ruthlessness that is unthinkable in the modern era. Of the three prominent penny papers in New York, the Herald was the most notorious in mug-slinging other papers. Much of it was the doing of James Gordon Bennett, who often wrote articles that insulted other papers and their journalists.
He criticised just about every form of printed press in existence then – from the party papers to the conventional papers and even rival penny papers, while at the same time exalting his own. In an extra fiery criticism of the New York Sun, Bennett wrote:
We mean now to show up the Sun – the impudent Sun – the unprincipled Sun – the mercenary Sun – the low bred Sun – the Sun that hoaxes the public – that tells untruths for money… -- that cheats the whole city and country. The revulsion of public sentiment, is fast accumulating…. Know only for its ordinary police reports, without a particle of character or talent in its columns, its very obscurity and the credulity of a few large papers – such as the fools who conduct the Times – all tended to create the belief that [the Moon Hoax] was a veritable reprint from the ‘Supplement to the Journal of Science’… The Sun can never thrive hereafter upon the moon or any other planet. It will sink – it has already sunk to its original inanity and insipidity (Bennett, 1835).
Such harsh criticism would be intolerable in journalism today. Indeed, any newspaper attempting such writing now would no doubt be faced with lawsuits and derision from fellow industry practitioners and readers. Besides merely being a war to words, editors of the different papers have even come to blows with one another. According to Emery (2002), Colonel James Watson Webb once “administered a caning to the editor of the Herald,” while William (1993) recounted how Peter Townsend of the Evening Star “physically attacked Bennett in Wall Street one evening, hitting him in the cheek and cussing at him.” These were retaliations to Bennett’s harsh barbs of the various papers.
While the editors of the penny press have often considered the idea of implementing objectivity in their publications (Williams, 1993), it is hardly carried out. On the contrary, sensationalism and outright deception ruled the penny press. Brazeal (2005) recounts how Benjamin Day was unapologetic when he made use of fake advertisements which were designed to make the newspaper look prosperous. He even went as far as allowing a series of hoax articles that depicted how an astronomer saw life on the moon through a telescope.
According to Williams (1993), there was also no clear distinction between news and opinion. In fact, the editors of these penny papers hardly saw themselves as objective carriers of news. The Sun relied heavily on sensationalism and human interest stories to draw readership, sacrificing accuracy and objectivity. The Herald was more of a views-paper than a news-paper, with the editorial placed on the front page in place of the top news of the day. The Tribune was unapologetically a Whig party paper. They were all, in fact, distinctively different in mission and in form from modern newspapers.
Nevertheless, the penny press should be admired for making newspaper the daily companion of the masses, regardless of wealth and social class. While much of what was in the penny press were not extracted and used in modern journalism, Benjamin Day and his contemporaries had one common quality that made them successful: the ability to stay relevant to readers and quickly meet their demands. This reader-centric attitude is something that modern journalism needs to have if it wishes to continue being relevant to its readers.
The penny papers were successful in generating mass appeal by evolving with the readers as they became more literate and sophisticated (Emery, 2002). At the same time, it kept prices low so that most people could afford it. As the three big penny papers evolved over time, there was diversification of content to cater to vastly different tastes. Furthermore, to keep up with the rising demand, the successful penny papers were able to quickly harness the latest printing technologies to keep up with production. New methods of newsgathering, such as telegraph, were mastered to bring the latest news to readers as quickly as possible.
When Emery (2002) recounts how there was a public uproar over Bennett’s “bad taste, quackery, and sensationalism,” he reacted by sending “his best reporters out to cover the church beats,” understanding that there “was another neglected public worth cultivating.” This resulted in the Herald remaining successful throughout Bennett’s life. It was a likewise situation for Horace Greeley of the Tribune. He had a keen sense of what readers wanted, having “the curious faith that the masses could be attracted by reason as well as by emotionalism.” This philosophy guided his editorship of the paper, and made it successful.
Even as modern journalism today is stuck in the quagmire of stagnated sales, it would do well to take a page from the likes of Day, Greeley, and Bennett. As editors of modern newspapers scramble to capture new readership that has so eluded them, they must bear in mind that whatever they do should be geared towards staying relevant to readers and being able to quickly meet their demands. This attitude, this ideal is perhaps the biggest contribution the penny press has made to modern journalism. After all, journalism is all about serving the masses.
Many historians have romanticised the penny papers, lauding them as the precursors of modern journalism. However, Nerone (1987) cautions that many historical studies contain much inaccuracy about the penny press. From an examination of the three most prominent penny papers in New York – namely the Sun, the Herald, and the Tribune, we can see that while the penny press had no doubt made significant contributions to journalism that echoes till today, it was still a far cry from modern journalism. Even worse, according to Williams (1993), the penny press contained elements that would have been abhorrent by today’s journalistic standards.
Credit should be given where it is due, however. The most significant gift of the penny press to modern journalism is in its namesake – it provided “all the news of the day” (which is the motto of the Sun), and all for a penny. A penny! Even though Williams (1993) pointed out that the idea of “news for a penny” was hardly original, it was the New York Sun that proved for the very first time that a penny paper could be successful, widely-read, and profitable. Nerone (1987) mentions that the Sun achieved total sales of more than 19,000, with more than 16,000 going to regular subscribers. The success of the New York Sun also prompted others to join in the fray and start their own penny papers, causing even some large papers to reduce their price from six pennies to three pennies (Williams, 1993).
The success of the penny press was significant in many ways. Benjamin Day had fashioned the New York Sun into a successful business model based heavily on advertising (Emery, 2002). The cheap price of the paper naturally led to a significant rise in readership, resulting in the paper becoming an enticing platform for advertisers. Advertising became a major source of income for newspapers, and this is the legacy the Sun has left for newspapers today.
The ability to be commercially viable meant that penny papers were free from political funding (Williams, 1993). While this did not immediately mean that the penny press turned non-partisan and took on the bastion of objectivity, it signified that the potential for objectivity existed. Free from any sort of internal political influence, a paper is free to decide on its policies, and even if it decides to be politically-biased, it would be out of its own volition. While the Sun, Herald, and Tribute were hardly objective, a possibility was created – that newspapers would one day become the forth estate of the nation. The penny papers, through the success of their business model, paved the way for later papers like the New York Times and The Washington Post to flourish.
The extent of the penny press’ influence on modern journalism can be seen in the current situation facing mainstream press today. Advertising revenue has become the leading determinant of a newspapers’ financial health. With print advertisement revenues stagnating in recent times, Farhi (2007) mentions that newspapers are increasingly turning to the web to generate additional revenue in the form of online advertising. However, he doubts whether such a move would succeed as online advertising revenue is still relatively insignificant. The penny press’ mission to provide news to the working class has resonated well into the internet age, with modern newspapers taking it a step further. Major newspapers like The New York Times and The Washington Post now offer a significant amount of their content online and free-of-charge, allowing anyone with an internet connection to view them. The Sun’s motto rings true even today. Indeed, newspapers still provide “all the news of the day” – everyday and everywhere.
Besides the above-mentioned successes, the penny press has also made other significant contributions to journalism, one of which is the promotion of local news. Once again, while crime stories and local fare are not exactly new features, William (1993) contends that it is the penny press that made local news prominent and popular. George Wisner, a crime reporter for the New York Sun, played an important role in the surge of interest in local news. His articles were written with wit and flair, and this attracted readers. While the conventional papers focused more on politics, the Sun and Herald specialised in sensationalised crime stories and local news, effectively putting the focus on the readers themselves.
While the successful penny papers in New York City were revolutionary for its time, it is still a far cry from the best journalism available today. Many features of the penny press never made it to modern journalism.
Despite being on the far end of the United States and away from the Wild West, the prominent papers in New York were engaged in runnin’ n gunnin’ newspaper politics with the sort of ruthlessness that is unthinkable in the modern era. Of the three prominent penny papers in New York, the Herald was the most notorious in mug-slinging other papers. Much of it was the doing of James Gordon Bennett, who often wrote articles that insulted other papers and their journalists.
He criticised just about every form of printed press in existence then – from the party papers to the conventional papers and even rival penny papers, while at the same time exalting his own. In an extra fiery criticism of the New York Sun, Bennett wrote:
We mean now to show up the Sun – the impudent Sun – the unprincipled Sun – the mercenary Sun – the low bred Sun – the Sun that hoaxes the public – that tells untruths for money… -- that cheats the whole city and country. The revulsion of public sentiment, is fast accumulating…. Know only for its ordinary police reports, without a particle of character or talent in its columns, its very obscurity and the credulity of a few large papers – such as the fools who conduct the Times – all tended to create the belief that [the Moon Hoax] was a veritable reprint from the ‘Supplement to the Journal of Science’… The Sun can never thrive hereafter upon the moon or any other planet. It will sink – it has already sunk to its original inanity and insipidity (Bennett, 1835).
Such harsh criticism would be intolerable in journalism today. Indeed, any newspaper attempting such writing now would no doubt be faced with lawsuits and derision from fellow industry practitioners and readers. Besides merely being a war to words, editors of the different papers have even come to blows with one another. According to Emery (2002), Colonel James Watson Webb once “administered a caning to the editor of the Herald,” while William (1993) recounted how Peter Townsend of the Evening Star “physically attacked Bennett in Wall Street one evening, hitting him in the cheek and cussing at him.” These were retaliations to Bennett’s harsh barbs of the various papers.
While the editors of the penny press have often considered the idea of implementing objectivity in their publications (Williams, 1993), it is hardly carried out. On the contrary, sensationalism and outright deception ruled the penny press. Brazeal (2005) recounts how Benjamin Day was unapologetic when he made use of fake advertisements which were designed to make the newspaper look prosperous. He even went as far as allowing a series of hoax articles that depicted how an astronomer saw life on the moon through a telescope.
According to Williams (1993), there was also no clear distinction between news and opinion. In fact, the editors of these penny papers hardly saw themselves as objective carriers of news. The Sun relied heavily on sensationalism and human interest stories to draw readership, sacrificing accuracy and objectivity. The Herald was more of a views-paper than a news-paper, with the editorial placed on the front page in place of the top news of the day. The Tribune was unapologetically a Whig party paper. They were all, in fact, distinctively different in mission and in form from modern newspapers.
Nevertheless, the penny press should be admired for making newspaper the daily companion of the masses, regardless of wealth and social class. While much of what was in the penny press were not extracted and used in modern journalism, Benjamin Day and his contemporaries had one common quality that made them successful: the ability to stay relevant to readers and quickly meet their demands. This reader-centric attitude is something that modern journalism needs to have if it wishes to continue being relevant to its readers.
The penny papers were successful in generating mass appeal by evolving with the readers as they became more literate and sophisticated (Emery, 2002). At the same time, it kept prices low so that most people could afford it. As the three big penny papers evolved over time, there was diversification of content to cater to vastly different tastes. Furthermore, to keep up with the rising demand, the successful penny papers were able to quickly harness the latest printing technologies to keep up with production. New methods of newsgathering, such as telegraph, were mastered to bring the latest news to readers as quickly as possible.
When Emery (2002) recounts how there was a public uproar over Bennett’s “bad taste, quackery, and sensationalism,” he reacted by sending “his best reporters out to cover the church beats,” understanding that there “was another neglected public worth cultivating.” This resulted in the Herald remaining successful throughout Bennett’s life. It was a likewise situation for Horace Greeley of the Tribune. He had a keen sense of what readers wanted, having “the curious faith that the masses could be attracted by reason as well as by emotionalism.” This philosophy guided his editorship of the paper, and made it successful.
Even as modern journalism today is stuck in the quagmire of stagnated sales, it would do well to take a page from the likes of Day, Greeley, and Bennett. As editors of modern newspapers scramble to capture new readership that has so eluded them, they must bear in mind that whatever they do should be geared towards staying relevant to readers and being able to quickly meet their demands. This attitude, this ideal is perhaps the biggest contribution the penny press has made to modern journalism. After all, journalism is all about serving the masses.
References
Bennett, J. G. (1835). New York Herald.
Brazeal, D. K. (2005). Precursor to modern media hype: The 1830s penny press. The Journal of American Culture, 28(4).
Emery, E. (2002). A press for the masses. In K. E. Olson (Ed.), The Press and America. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Farhi, P. (2007). Online salvation? American Journalism Review, 29(6), 18-23.
Nerone, J. C. (1987). The mythology of the penny press Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 4, 376-404.
Williams, J. H. (1993). The founding of the penny press: Nothing new under "The Sun", "The Herald," or "The Tribune." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Journalism Historian Association.
