LECTURE 30/09/10 WILLIAM HEARST

Mid 19th century 'Gold Rush' transformed the west of America. This discovery saw an influx of people from all over the world chasing after the new life it advertised. It encouraged migration from Ireland, mainland Europe and Asia. The new America was particularly appealing because it was a blank canvas, there was a great sense of freedom and liberty. The drive west to the new frontier was an emblem of expanse and exploration. The view of America as a 'blank canvas' was a great aid to Hearst and of course especially to his father, George.

California was furthest west and therefore was the central part of this new frontier. It was seen as the most American. The Gold Rush was the beginning of George Hearst's success. He was a typical American Dream case, coming from nothing to being the ultimate businessman through simple hard work.

Hearst went into 'penny papers' which were ultimately working class newspapers, seemingly because they were aimed at the largest audience, suited to the area at the time. These apapers were purely propaganda.

When William Hearst was in his depth of 'penny papers', he used the front page as a selling tool. He saw it as his shop window and used it to show off his best of what was contained in the rest of the paper. His major attractions were illustrations and pictures. According to the expert himself, "they attract the eye and stimulate the imagination of the lower classes materially". Having an international audience, this visual medium of communication was necessary.

Hearst's 'Examiner' was pro labour, anti capital and anti railroad. It was noted for supporting unions and occasional racism.

It was at this point that Hearst moved to New York and the battle of the 'Yellow Kid' commenced between himself and Pulitzer. Eventually Hearst ended up with the original artists but both had these cartoons in their papers and the papers became known as the 'yellow papers'. The 'Yellow Kid' was perfect for the audience because he was 'normal' to the working class audience.

Yellow papers are now known in the UK as red tops; such newspapers as the Mirror, Star and Sun.

Hearst was an investigative journalist (muckracker) and he knew the best selling story at the time was war.

Yellow journalism was all about picture domination, big headlines, catchy headlines, self promotion and conversational style writing.

In seminar today, the most interesting topic that arose was that of the opinion that Mary Wollstonecraft is a hypocrite.

In her own words, Wollstonecraft viewed women as “deluded”, “superficial”, “mindless” and “pretentious”. In brief, she streamed her book “A Vindication of the Rights of Women” on the inequality between the two sexes in terms of education. “Without knowledge there can be no morality.”

The two papers in seminar mention Mary Wollstonecrafts’ sarcastic tone and clever writing technique which may have given her more respect and indeed support should her own background have not been so obvious.

Wollstonecraft was said to have had a difficult background. Her father became extremely insecure financially and even squandered the money Wollstonecraft would have inherited in her maturity. He turned to alcohol and was an abusive husband. As a teenager Wollstonecraft would lie outside her mothers room at night and stop her father form entering to abuse her. Mary Wollstonecraft, in her later years became a governess to an Anglo-Irish family in Ireland, a job that was less than desirable. After learning from the children and indeed from her situation she became inspired to write about issues she had come across and which also had limited her dreams and ambitions in life. At a stage of her life, when in London, Wollstonecraft had an affair with an artist Henry Fuseli. Somewhat eccentrically, Wollstonecraft suggested that Fuseli, herself and his wife all lived together, but understandably his wife was disgusted and Fuseli broke off the relationship. In 1794, Wollstonecraft became pregnant to a man, Gilbert Imlay, although she was not interested and in fact was quite against the idea of marriage. In 1795, after Imaly had abandoned her and returned to France, Wollstonecraft attempted suicide twice, both overdosing and throwing herself into the river Thames. Wollstonecraft then entered into a social circle through William Godwin and the two, eventually, fell passionately in love and Wollstonecraft fell pregnant for a second time. The two married for the legitimacy of the child. However, the two lived separately in order to pursue with some concentration their highly successful careers. After the birth of their second child, Mary’s third, she died of septicemia.

This background was more than frowned upon in the eighteenth century and introduces the idea of hypocrisy. The opinion formed in seminar paper by Jenny that if you are going to produce such a big statement as Wollstonecraft did concerning the rights and education of women, then you should be prepared to deal with the criticism and consequences, especially if you have the somewhat questionable background that Wollstonecraft held. Wollstonecraft stated that “without knowledge there is no morality”. Se said that women lived up to expectations of being good housewives, seemingly seen and not heard and didn’t like this situation, however, with the risk of being viewed as judgemental, Wollstonecraft seems quite incapable of even holding the position of a good housewife. It is possible to enquire if it was for this reason that she pursued with her ideas and views. Perhaps Mary Wollstonecraft did not have the personality or the wishes to live the ‘normal’ life and rather than just accepting that as any other woman did, she spoke up. If looked at through another situation, she was like a child wanting dessert and not dinner, and so having a tantrem to embarrass their parents so they get what they want quickly and without too much hassle. Could Wollstonecraft have had the same intentions?

I agree with the opinion that she was very hypocritical in her views but I cannot deny the fact that she has had a dramatic effect on the situation of women today, one which without we would perhaps still be stuck in the past.

Leading on appropriately from the view of Jean Jacques Rosseau we see the opinions of Jonathan Swift and Adam Smith on government politics and the economy. Although both writings are very different in style and genre, the message of both writers is clear; that the economy is changing and includes many dependents, without whom, the market would exist. Smith focuses on the technical side of the market, considering only what could be called sectors of the market whereas Swift, in his satirical manner prefers to concentrate on individuals, or perhaps only to look at the sectors in a more familiar view.

In seminar, there was a clear divide on those who preferred each style of writing. My own preference was that of Swift because he was indeed very quick on capturing and maintaining the attention of the audience. However, some fellow students were not so enthusiastic on this abrupt and frank tone suggesting that the people in Swift’s time who would have been educated to read this piece may not have taken him seriously enough, which is a fair argument.

Swift was very satirical in his writing, indeed he was the first successful satirist of the times. It is understandable to follow the opinion that his writing may not have been viewed as an educated opinion because it was a very seemingly relaxed way of writing, one which today would capture the attention of a working class man rather than a education politician, however in the times of Swift, the working class population were not even educated to read, so it would make no sense for Swift to have directed his writing at such individuals.

Personally, I hold a differing opinion that possibly his writing style was very effective and created enough attention to prove very influential, and our studying it today would suggest this further.

This argument constructed a majority of the lecture and the effectiveness was clear to all, as Smith was mentioned as a more theoretical and, for want of a better word, boring. It was suggested that while Swift was shocking and satirical, his effect was more likely to cause influence quickly, whereas Smith was simply another writer, voicing his opinion in the somewhat monotone style that every influential eye was used to and perhaps bored of.