Collateral Murder

 By Chloe Brussard 

Collateral damage - injury inflicted on something other than the intended target. (Specifically civilian casualties of a military operation.)

That is what came up when I searched up the definition of collateral damage on the Merriam-Webster dictionary. What didn't come up was a definition for collateral murder. 

Murder - the crime of unlawfully killing a person, especially with malice aforethought .

In other words, the crime of killing someone that was deliberate, and premeditated. 

Damage - loss or harm resulting from injury to person, property, or reputation.

So basically accidental harm to someone or something. 

In this video, Collateral Murder, you can hear the soldiers asking for permission to engage. Permission to begin shooting. Permission to kill people. They knew, when they were firing those shots, that they were going to kill people. 

It wasn't accidental. It wasn't damage. Having the knowledge of killing people is murder. Sure there are different degrees of it, but they knew what they were doing. They went to Iraq knowing that they were going to kill people.

They looked at cameras and saw AK-47s. They looked at a group of people and saw a rebel group. They looked at a van of people pull up and try to help a man as more targets. 

And one of the worst parts, because there are just too many to choose from, is that when the dust settled from the first round of shooting and they saw a man dragging himself to the curb to try and reach safety, someone practically begged the man to pick up a gun. Because once a gun or weapon was in his hands, they have free range to fire. 

That man, dragging himself to the curb, was a photographer. 

Before they began shooting, they looked at the camera in his hands and decided that it was a weapon. That seems to be the case often times. Anything seen in someones hands is a weapon. And in a war zone, it seems that some of the soldiers get very excited when they see someone holding something. 

One of the soldiers even commented on how the windshield of the car had been shot right in the middle. He even chuckled about it. These men are in a war zone. Killing people. And laughing. 

This blog post is supposed to be a reaction to the video. My reaction was nothing but pure disgust. I had to look away at some points. I truthfully am speechless. There are no words that could describe how I felt while watch that. 

And that video was taken 10 years ago in a completely different country. If that video is hard for me to watch, I cannot fathom having to experience it. I count myself lucky each and everyday that I grew up where and when I did. 

Things like this are why media is such an important thing. It is able to capture the truth (if used and produced in the correct way) and show people things that they wouldn't otherwise know. The higher ups were telling newspapers that the people on the ground were hostile and they had no other choice to do what they did. 

But this video shows otherwise. 

Collateral damage is unavoidable. Collateral murder is a choice. But which one sounds better in speeches? Calling troops murderers doesn't have a good ring to it. Rather have it sound like the only option than to tell the truth, which is that there were more options. 

There is always more options. Violence shouldn't be default. But sadly, that's what it's become. 

Trial By Media: How Journalism Has Begun To Insert Itself Into The Legal System

 By Chloe Brussard

1994. OJ Simpson. 2022. Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. Almost 30 years apart but both carry so many similarities to each other when it comes to how their court cases are publicized. The cases have become more of a television reality show rather than court cases. 

One of the most memorable moments from the OJ Simpson case that we might not have seen if not for the cameras in the courtroom was the famous glove moment. 

"If the glove does not fit, you must acquit." The glove did not fit. 

A private trial would have meant that most of the most infamous moments of the case would have only been seen by a few people. But unfortunately they were not. 

This case caused a lot of controversy among the population. People thought that this was a case about race, and how the police wanted to pin the murders on him because of their racial bias, but others thought that he actually was the one who killed them. 

Regardless of what actually did happen, the OJ Simpson case was a both an official court case, and also a case where the public was deciding his fate. As we know, he was acquitted of the murder charges, but that didn't mean that he still wouldn't be judged and scrutinized by the public. 

Decades later, this case is still notorious for both its lack of professional forensic work and for being so widely televised that people would use this as entertainment. 

Fast forward almost 30 years, we are currently experiencing the defamation case between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. The actors were married for two years, and as we are finding out, a lot happened during those years. 

Having this court case televised has given people the chance to watch this case and make their own opinions. 

No matter how this case ends, Amber Heard is very unlikely to find herself continuing to be an actress, between the micro-expressions caught on camera and the audio that was played in court. The streaming of the case has given people the chance to see who she truly is. No one is going to want to watch her in movies. No one wants to support someone who has been abusive towards her spouse. 

These examples are just two of the many, many cases that have been televised. Maybe the outcomes would be different if they were confined to the court room. But they were not. 

With court cases like these, two trials are going on. A trial with the legal system, where officials decide on consequences is much different than the trial by the public. Arguably, a trial by the public is much more damaging because no matter which way the case goes, once the public makes up their mind, it is very difficult to change it back.

In 2020, Netflix released a documentary titled Trial By Media, where they dive deep into court cases where the defendant was tried by the court and also tried by the public. 

One of the episodes, titled 41 Shots, highlighted a case where one man was shot 41 times by four plain clothed police officers. And despite all the evidence collected, they were not all found not guilty. The man who was shot had no criminal record and was unarmed. 

A case like this where it seems clear who was in the wrong but goes the complete opposite way. 

But to pretty much sum up everything about these trials by media and trials from the media, it is to say how much public perception can alter the course of court cases, and even lives. Courts can rule as they see fit, but they can't convince people who have made up their mind about the cases. 

It's a dangerous thing, trials by media. But I think the fact that we are able to see anything at all just goes to show how these court cases are not only to inform the public, but also to entertain them. 

"Whoever controls the media controls the mind"

-Jim Morrison, American Singer and Songwriter

Journalism Through Wartime

 By Chloe Brussard

The relationship between war and the media has always been a complicated one. They are maybe two of the most different things in the world -- war is about conflict, power, violence and winning. Media, supposedly, is about facts, honesty, and informing the public. But what they do have in common, is that they both rally nations. 

Despite its devastation and terrible casualties, war is a huge reason why people would buy newspapers. People wanted to know what's going on because war isn't something that is foreign and far away. It can directly affect people all over the country.

This can rally the people of the nation and push them to join the army or serve their country in other ways, but it also is one of the main reasons for division in the United States. 

You can look at any war and see this, both in the past and also currently. Looking back at World War II, you can see some similarities in the way that the war was promoted compared to today.

The main purpose for propaganda, no matter during what time period, is to "persuade the dominant group." Depending on what the stance on war the journalist has depends on what they're trying to persuade their audience. 

An anti-war journalist is not going to produce the same content as a pro-war journalist. One would send out passive messages using facts or reason to try and convince their audience that war is not the way to solve conflict like this. The other would use emotion and try to antagonize their audience to get them to take action.

World War II was a perilous time. A war among the countries of the world was happening again, after World War I had been coined "The Great War". The attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 had just occurred, and Hollywood was eating it up.

What followed was a great deal of B list movies exploiting the situation in the Pacific and making complete villains out of the Japanese for their devastating and "unprovoked" attack on Pearl Harbor. This stirred up the United States citizens, and helped rally them into defending their country and fighting against the Japanese. 

That is one example of propaganda in World War II. The goal of propaganda is that their "motive should be concealed" and that is exactly what Hollywood did. They continued to do this in each conflict the United States have taken part in. 

The US government and media doesn't want their citizens thinking that what they are doing is wrong, so they show the people select things that makes the US look like a positive force in their peoples eyes. 

Since the war wasn't going on directly in the United States, what the media produced, through radio, or television, or movies, or newspapers was the information that they received from outside the country. "Feature films were perhaps the single most important channel for the dissemination of American propaganda throughout the Second World War". If you want something to be heard by many people, putting it on a huge marquis and screen is definitely one way of doing that. 

US propaganda was put anywhere it could. Factory and school windows, in schools, and all over streets. A poster was created that depicts a monster with two heads (Nazi and Japanese) clutching the Statue of Liberty in one hand and fighting off American advances with the other. Any way to make their enemy look bad and themselves look good, they did.

Although the United States was feeding their people propaganda without them overtly noticing, we cannot forget about the propaganda opposing countries were feeding their people. Germany is a major one, for example. 

German media consisted of the superiority of the German army, and contrasted it with the British and Allied armies who were shown as cowards, butchers, and severely misguided. The Russians were shown as dehumanized beasts and killers who did not fear death.

To try and counteract the negative media that the British were receiving during the war, they created a plan to reach the German people. The British Broadcasting Company created foreign language broadcasts which ended up being a key element to the Allied campaign.

The British Political Warfare Executive (P.W.E) was also able to deliver covert messages to the German people through "black propaganda" (a form of propaganda that tries to discredit propaganda made against them by their opponents), and printed postcards and leaflets dropped behind enemy lines. 

However anyone decides to see this war, there is no denying the fact that insane propaganda was used in media coverage, by both sides of the war. There is also no denying the fact that it wasn't just Germans and the Japanese.

The United States is not completely innocent in this whole ordeal. Us, the British, and the Allied forces all used propaganda as a weapon in this war and that needs to be recognized. The whole point of propaganda is to make the viewer feel strong. nationalism towards their country, and if the Allied forces were able to do that and people still believe that what was done is correct, then they did their job. 

But just because they were fed all this negative media doesn't mean that we can't acknowledge its existence. Journalism is one of the strongest, if not the strongest, form of non-violent fighting in the world to me. Media has the ability to reach millions of people and sway them into making decisions. It's just facts. 

But in a day and age now when journalism is so divided, I think it's more important now than ever to keep digging for the truth, and to let the people see the truth so they can make decisions with all the facts. It's not fair to keep feeding them half truths. Journalism can sway people, but it is up to them to decide what they truly want. 

"The best propaganda is the silent murder of the opposition of news"

- Joseph Goebbels

Extra! Extra! Read All About It!

 By Chloe Brussard

Newsboys, or Newsies, were given their iconic name for being newspaper distributers. Morning editions of the daily papers were delivered directly to their subscribers, but the afternoon editions relied completely on newsboys to sell them out.

The majority of the newsboys came from poor immigrant families, and sold papers after the school day concluded in the later afternoons and evenings. They bought papers at 50 cents per hundred papers, and then sold them at 1 cent for a profit of half a cent per paper sold.

There were several newsboys strikes several years before the dramatic and more well known strike of 1899. These previous strikes started and took place in 1886 and 1887, with the final one in 1889. The final strike that the newsboys held against the World and the Journal was in August of 1899.

Cause of the 1899 Strike

With the Spanish American War increasing their newspaper sales, most publishers raised the cost of a newsboy's bundle of 100 papers from 50 cents to 60 cents, which at the time was a lot of money. This was a price increase that at the time was offset by the increased sales.

After the war, many papers reduced the cost back to previous amount, with the exceptions of The Evening World and and New York Evening Journal, which was the cause of the beginning of the chaos. 

The Early Days of the Strike

On July 18, 1899, a group of newsboys in Long Island turned over a distribution wagon for the New York Journal and declared a strike against the papers of the publisher of the World and the publisher of the Journal, until the prices were out back to 50 cents per hundred papers. 

The following day, July 19, the newsboys of Manhattan and Brooklyn reenacted the same actions as the Long Islanders from the day before. 

The newsboys methods were very violent. Any man or boy found to be selling the two boycotted papers would be mobbed by a group of strikers, beaten, and had their papers destroyed. The newspaper owners paid grown men to sell their papers while offering them police protection, but the strikers found ways to distract the officers so they could still attack.

The newsboys also distributed flyers and hung signs around the city encouraging people to help them in their cause by not buying the World and the Journal from others. 

The Rally at 'Irving Hall'

The newsboys held a city-wide rally on July 24, 1899 with over 5,000 boys from Manhattan and 2,000 boys from Brooklyn, all sponsored by state senator Timothy D. Sullivan. Many local businessmen and politicians addressed the crowd at Irving Hall. When the adults had finished speaking, union president David Simmons read a list of resolutions saying that the strike was to stand until the papers reduced their prices, but also calling on the newsboys to adopt non-violent methods of resistance.

More speeches were made by "Warhorse Brennan", Jack Tietjen, "Bob the Indian", the newsboy union leader Kid Blink, "Crazy" Arborn, Annie Kelley, and Brooklyn union leader Racetrack Higgins. The night ended with a song sung by "Hungry Joe" Kernan. 

After the Rally

In the few days following the rally, the newsboys' changed to be 'non-violent'. Even though they were no longer beating people who sold the World and the Journal, the strike was still effective since by then the public was on their side and chose not to buy then even if they were for sale. 

On July 26, 1899, the newsboys planned a parade where 6,000 boys would march with a band and fireworks, but the parade never actually happened due to issues with getting a permit. 

"Kid Blink"

On the same day that the parade was planned, rumors spread among the newsboys that their strike leader Kid Blink had betrayed the strike and agreed to sell the boycotted papers in exchange for a bribe from the newspaper executives. He denied the charges, but some source did notice that he wore clothes that were a bit nicer than his usual, indicating that there was a possibility that he may have accepted the bribe money. In response, Kid Blink resigned from his leadership position, becoming a walking delegate. 

That night, Kid Blink was chased through the streets by a group of boys who were very angry about the rumors that he had left the strike. A police officer assumed that it was Kid Blink who was the leader and arrested him for disorderly conduct. He was given a fine and then let go, while a group of newsboys outside the court mocked him. 

The End of the Strike

After the rumors of Kid Blink, the newsboys faith in leadership fell dramatically. Other newsboys did try to step up to lead the strike, but none of them had the same level of power that Kid Blink once had. Finally, on August 1, 1899, the World and the Journal offered the newsboys a compromise, which was that the price of the one hundred papers would stay at 60 cents, but the newspapers would buy back any unsold papers. 

This meant the boys who had trouble selling all their papers would not be forced to sell late into the night. The Newsboys accepted this compromise, ending the strike and getting rid of the union on August 2, 1899.