Least Reputable Newspaper Sources On WM

[Howard 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.

[Howard 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]

Originally Posted by Adam Went

...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.