Least Reputable Newspaper Sources On WM

[How Brown]

Thread for members to present their choice or choices ( as many or as few as you decide ) of the least accurate, least reliable, and those papers you generally avoid or are suspicious of as a Ripperologist in formulating opinions.

As with the other thread...should anyone has a question about this thread...give me a shout.

Not having read that many editions of the Star as I should have by now....I get the impression that those who have been involved with Ripperology for a few years refer less to this tabloid in the affirmative and more in the negative.

Apparently, it isn't necessarily of the politics of the Star ( left-leaning ) that matters....but the accuracy of their stories.

Anyone care to start this thread off ?

[Cris Malone]

I'd have to say The Star.

[Wicker Man]

The Star didn't take kindly to aspersions against it's character..

"The London Star, which is certainly not a very trustworthy authority, gives currency to the following :-"
and adds at the end of it :-

"This report has not been confirmed from any other source."

We are glad to have this unwilling Tory testimony to the accuracy of The Star's early information and to the ungraciousness of those who do not hesitate to utilise it. As a matter of fact, we delayed the publication of the news on Friday for nearly half an hour until inquiries had placed its accuracy beyond doubt.
The Star, Nov. 12, 1888.


Between the honest mistakes and the careless mistakes, across the board, I find it's always best to gather details from as many Press sources as are available rather than follow one publication.

Rather than go bashing The Star, I find they were known to provide colourful background for the reader, one example might be the detailed description of 13 Millers Court in the above issue. Something that I find adds a little interest above the typical storyline.

Quote:
".... the appearance of the room. It contained two very old tables, a broken chair, an ancient wooden bedstead, and a dilapidated fender. In a corner there was a pail, and these few articles exhausted the catalogue of the furniture. The walls were papered, but the pattern could hardly be traced for the dirt which covered it, and the floor boards were bare and filthy. There were two windows, both on the same side of the passage, and in one of the windows were the two broken panes of glass, which admitted of the drawing back of the curtain and the revealing of the traces of the terrible crime. "

[Adam Went]

The Star definitely did have its dodgy moments, but as a researcher I would take a broader aim and say that all newspaper reports in any paper several days or more after the fact should be read with a huge helping of salt.

For instance, purely as an example, if there was a report about witness statements to the Catherine Eddowes murder in an October 1, 1888 edition of a newspaper, I would be much more inclined to see truth in it than if it was a newspaper report about witness statements on the Catherine Eddowes murder from October 5 or 6.

The reason for that is of course that the information being published the next day is the information immediately at hand from witnesses, and it hasn't had the time to be exaggerated, falsified or "journalised" as much, by either the witnesses or the paper itself, who are eager to be the first cab off the rank with the freshest information on the case to the details-hungry public - see the statements of Matthew Packer as an ideal example of this.

The newspaper reports are both a blessing and a curse - in some instances we have little or nothing else to rely on - in others, they have absolutely led researchers down the garden path and will do again.

Cheers,
Adam.

[SPE]

I have stated in the past that probably the most reliable newspaper reports were those reporting on the inquests, the reason for this being that the reporters were recording, often verbatim, the spoken, and sworn, testimony of witnesses.

Very often the most unreliable reports were those hurried off the presses just after a murder. The reports on the Kelly murder in the newspapers of 10 November 1888 are an example of this. They contain some very inaccurate and sensational statements, even the more reputable ones. This was a result of being in a hurry to 'scoop' other newspapers with all sorts of sensation and wild stories.

[How Brown]

Dear Stewart:

This gives me an idea, although not a new one because comparisons between Inquest reports found in newspapers have been made by researchers individually.

When I get time one of these days....I'll put up copies of inquest reports from several different newspapers for comparison purposes and we can see where, if at all, they differ in the syntax.

While not disagreeing with you about your comment :

"I have stated in the past that probably the most reliable newspaper reports were those reporting on the inquests, the reason for this being that the reporters were recording, often verbatim, the spoken, and sworn, testimony of witnesses.."

I'm wondering if this holds true in all cases, since some newspapers may have utilized the same source ( i.e., Central News Agency ) and had no representative present, rather relying on the deposition taken down by an outside agent.

In addition, since The Star's October 11th edition featured testimony from the Eddowes' Inquest...would we include them in with the list of most or more reliable newspapers since they too had a report from an inquest ?

Thank you.

[Cris Malone]

Wickerman has a valid point about the Star's coverage. They did offer detail at times that others did not and, on occasion, a rare gem. I mentioned, on a recent Stride thread, an observation that Phil Sugden made in his book about a man seen sitting on a doorstep, in Church Lane, wiping his hands at about 1:30, on the night of the double murder. 'He is described as a man who wore a short jacket and a sailor's hat'.This man could have resembled Lawende's man seen with Eddowes as a sailor-like appearance was described.... This, at a time when Lawende's description was not yet public and maybe before he had even been interviewed by police. Certainly, the timing is troublesome, but what if he had been seen closer to 1 o'clock instead? Church Lane could have been on a route towards Mitre Square. However, like many of the Star's more controversial statements, it was not corroborated.

There was no love lost between the Star and senior police officials, although they appeared to have a talent for perusing lesser police officers. The tabloid loved building up a witness and then tearing him down to embarrass the police. They not only did this with Hutchinson (which Hutchinsonites revel in repeating), but with Israel Schwartz as well. We know that their claim that Schwartz was discredited was untrue as we have Swanson's later report stating the contrary... and yet, the Star's claim about Hutchinson is touted with veracity by some Hutchinson proponents. This is what we have to be careful of and Adam pointed that out very well.

Any historian's analysis of media reports in an historical event must consider the entire context of that event, hopefully find corroboration and understand the bias that publication is coming from. The Star's goal, as with all publications, was to increase sales. They used a method that has been successful time and time again... playing on the whims and prejudice of an ignorant, but hungry audience. They touted left wing ideals while capitalizing on the misfortunes of those they claimed to defend.

Some theorists throw objective caution to the wind when using press reports to bolster a theory. The current debate about Schwartz on yet another thread is a classic example and Stewart was correct in pointing that out. Knowing the Star's overall record in reporting this series does not mean that they should be discounted in every instance... but, that an understanding of their methods and agenda should be considered before any conclusion is made... and if that forces us to no conclusion, then, so be it.

[Wicker Man]

Just a quick question, if anyone can help.

In the JtR A-Z, under Dr Frederick Gordon Brown (not sure what page that might be in different editions), we read that the Official Records were written by Coroner Langham.

If anyone else has an original copy of these papers I tend to think this was not correct. The first records of the proceedings are on pages 1 to 23, at this point the first sitting was adjourned.
The second sitting is recorded on pages 24 to 42.

Pages 1 to 23 are in a different handwriting to that on pages 24 to 42.

I only have Langhams signature to go on, and a signature is not a suitable guide for handwriting analysis, but I would hazard a guess that the Coroner wrote neither records.
I would suspect the Court recorder was a separate individual on each occasion.
This struck me as interesting because at the end of each statement of witness testimony the actual signature of the witness (or mark, X in the case of Eliza Gold) is added before the next record is written.
I had to wonder if that meant the witness was required to step down from the box and give his or her signature to the recorders account before the next witness took the stand.

This was of interest to me because I somehow expected the court to use a stenographer (shorthand), but apparently not. As the witnesses signature is actually on the documents it must mean these are the original papers written up in Court and not a formalized copy created the next day.
I wonder if the members of the press gallery used shorthand.
I don't know how many of you have actually been to Court, but I would find it extremely demanding trying to keep up with verbal exchanges using ordinary handwriting.

The point being, there are differences between what the press reported and what the Court recorded. We have a mixture of first-person narrative with third-person narrative, and paraphrasing.

In the case of the Eddowes Inquest I have been making notes between all three copies, CLRO, The Times, The Daily Telegraph, I find a more complete picture emerges when all three sources are merged.

Regards...

[Adam Went]

Hey all,

SPE:

I'm not so sure about that. I often liken press reports from several days or weeks after the murders to a game we used to play in infant school, "Chinese Whispers". Essentially, the first version of the story is the truth as it is best known at that point and while it is fresh in the minds of those involved - by the time the same message does the rounds through numerous people, it almost invariably changes - sometimes not much, but enough to throw the truth of the story out of line.

Besides, some of the information released at inquests and so forth had to be "watered down" or omitted altogether due to its brutal nature.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Wicker Man]

...Besides, some of the information released at inquests and so forth had to be "watered down" or omitted altogether due to its brutal nature.


Some papers reported more of the details than others, I know of no evidence that suggests this "had" to be the case.

Regards, Jon S.

[How Brown]

Wick:

"In the case of the Eddowes Inquest I have been making notes between all three copies, CLRO, The Times, The Daily Telegraph, I find a more complete picture emerges when all three sources are merged."

This is one of the issues within my response to SPE that I neglected to mention.
Let us say that the Times, Lloyd's, and Telegraph covered an event...lets say the Barnett testimony at Kelly's inquest.

If we take a look at the emboldened line in the following :

Wheeling Register
(Wheeling, West Virginia)
November 18, 1888
ABOUT WHITECHAPEL
Gossip Concerning the Fiend’s Latest Atrocity
LONDON, NOVEMBER 18 - In England there is not much interest in anything just now but the Whitechapel murders and the details surrounding it, Warren’s resignation, etc. As I wrote you last week, either Warren or the Home Secretary Matthews had to go in obedience to public clamor, and Matthews was sufficiently clever to maneuver Warren’s neck under the ax of popular favor. People are not satisfied yet, however. The Tories declare that Matthews should go instead of Warren; the Liberals declare that both should have been turned out, and it is very likely that the Whitechapel killer will have the honor of overturning a Cabinet Minister as well as the Chief Commissioner of Police.
About the mysterious murders nothing more is known and fresh ones are expected. Some clever individual having invented a detailed description of the man seen walking about with Mary Kelly just before she was murdered, has been hired at five times his usual salary to walk about with the police and try to see the man again. It has been pointed out that the murders have all been committed at changes of the moon, which is taken as strengthening the lunatic theory. Four men in one day, having got drunk, conceived the notion of personating the great murderer. Each howled out in the street that he had just cut up another woman. Each was pelted for his pains by a mob and each is now doing two weeks.
One young German has got an exalted notion of English Puritanism and respectability. He landed in this country on Tuesday or Wednesday. He stared, perhaps, a little impolitely at a woman on the Whitechapel road. A quarter of an hour later some policeman rescued him, much injured, from a furious mob and took him to the lockup. He was let go on his statement that he was going to America. The woman had cried out that he was “Jack, the Ripper, the Whitechapel murderer,” but the German, who did not understand a word of English, thought all the demonstration was brought about by her English feelings of propriety being shocked by his indiscreet staring.Last week I saw the man, Joe Barnett, who had lived with the woman Kelly up to a short time before she was butchered. He then begged for money to bury his poor dear, and wanted it understood that he ‘ad a ‘art as well as men with black coats on. He was furiously drunk at the inquest and is living with a certain not pious Whitechapel character who testified at the inquest and became enamored of the drunken brute because, as she said, of the romantic interest attaching to him, which illustrates life in London’s slums. Kelly’s remains will be buried on Monday.
********************************************

...I think its safe to say that none of the three newspapers mentioned carried anything along those lines about Barnett's alleged inebriated, and furiously so, condition.

The article was provided by someone ( source unknown at this time...or at least, I don't know where it came from ) who was at the Inquest or recieved this information from someone who attended it.

My point is....is whether this additional information from this one event is true or not... and if so, Adam Went's point about "watering down" articles or perhaps a better term would be "filtering" what information emanated from within that particular event might have some basis in fact.

This, again if its true and in my opinion, isn't a case of the London papers reporting varying degrees of information about an incident within an event ( Barnett being hammered at the Kelly Inquest)...it would be the complete omission of the incident within the larger event in London papers. Wheeling,obviously, is an American city.

[Wicker Man]

Hi 'Aitch.
I know you have you read the entire statement by Barnett given at the Inquest, so... try getting blasted and see if you can talk so clearly for so long :-)

After his testimony Coroner McDonald congratulated Barnett with, "You have given your evidence very well indeed".

These may have been antiquated times but do you really think any witness would be given the opportunity to be sworn in and testify if he was, furiously drunk?

[How Brown]

Wick:

Perhaps that was a poor example, to be honest,amigo. I doubt that Barnett was furiously drunk. American papers could be pretty creative, of this I have no doubt.

However, when MacDonald praised Barnett for the quality of his presentation, one of three reasons for this enter my mind.

One that Barnett was grieving her death. Another being that he needed some liquid courage to present his testimony. The third being that it was a combination of the two.

In short, while he probably wasn't three sheets to the wind, he might have had a few belts before appearing at the Inquest.

Again...the story I dredged up may not be an appropriate example for comparison purposes...but I do think that AW's point about the differences found in some papers being a result of the newspaper's individual policies has some merit.

'Aitch

P.S. Wick:

The theory that Barnett had echolalia inspired at least two Ripperologists to author books using that as part of their theory.
I say nay,Wick. I think its more likely that he had had a drink or two...which will also induce stuttering....but thats for a different thread on a different day.

[SPE]

Hey all,
SPE:
I'm not so sure about that. I often liken press reports from several days or weeks after the murders to a game we used to play in infant school, "Chinese Whispers". Essentially, the first version of the story is the truth as it is best known at that point and while it is fresh in the minds of those involved - by the time the same message does the rounds through numerous people, it almost invariably changes - sometimes not much, but enough to throw the truth of the story out of line.
Besides, some of the information released at inquests and so forth had to be "watered down" or omitted altogether due to its brutal nature.
Cheers,
Adam.

What you say can undoubtedly be true, especially where a reliable witness has been located and interviewed.

However, what I refer to are the incorrect, outrageous and semi-fictional accounts that you can see, the reports in some of the newspapers of 10 November 1888 being an example. 'Witnesses' quoted in some of these reports do not appear at the inquests, the most likely reason for that being that they were mistaken, inventing, grossly exaggerating or were totally unreliable.

I don't think that much 'watering down' of the evidence given at the inquests took place in the press, if you look at the reports. And where we have written statements for the inquests (in the cases of Eddowes and Kelly) we find that the press reports often contained extra material.

It is, in my opinion, a significant fact that the official files on the murders contain press cuttings of the inquest reports (compiled by the police) in lieu of written statements.

[SPE]

The witnesses and their statements for inquest hearings were gathered by the police and supplied to the coroner, via the coroner's officer (usually a police officer). We have handwritten statements for the inquests on Eddowes and Kelly only, the rest appear not to have survived. I have copies of these statements. In the case of Kelly we have a few statements that have been recorded twice.

These statements, obtained prior to the inquest, formed the main evidence given by the witness. However, as we know, once the main evidence had been given the witnesses were often questioned by the coroner, the jury and court officials (such as police or lawyers). Their replies formed additional evidence, or expansion, to that given in their main statements. Thus the press reports often contain extra material that does not appear in the handwritten versions, although there are a few in the case of Eddowes.

[Adam Went]

SPE and Wicker:

It certainly didn't "have" to be the case that the details were watered down, but one must remember that this all took place in the Victorian era, where it was somewhat unthinkable that polite society should be reading of such ghastly mutilations - which is why you find a lot of articles with big, nasty headlines and then not a whole lot of substance to go with it. Reporting and journalism is a little different in 2011 with all the different mediums and in a century when pretty much anything goes.

I've waded through a lot - and I mean a LOT - of newspaper reports which contain nothing but innuendo and gossip. I think most of us have.

We also know as well that certain members of both the policing and medical fraternity involved with the Ripper case were reluctant to release full details on the murders at inquests where citizens and men of the press were present.

Please don't get me wrong, I think newsapers are a wonderful treasure chest of information which still have hidden little gems that are yet to be unearthed, and in some cases they are virtually all that we have to rely on - my point is simply that I personally would be more inclined to put faith in statements and reports made and quoted in the immediate aftermath of the murders, certainly within the first 2-3 days, than a report from a matter of weeks later when the gossip cycle has gone full circle and the papers are still trying to make headlines with the latest "news" (unless of course there is a secondary source which can back the stories up) - that is a dangerous combination indeed!

Cheers,
Adam.

[Cris Malone]

These may have been antiquated times but do you really think any witness would be given the opportunity to be sworn in and testify if he was, furiously drunk?

Michael Kidney?

[Chris G.]

These may have been antiquated times but do you really think any witness would be given the opportunity to be sworn in and testify if he was, furiously drunk?

Michael Kidney?

* Hic * http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3553/3480259031_abf7f5973d_o.gif