Bennett’s New York Herald and the Rise of the Popular Press
Syracuse University Press (30 September 2018)
James Gorden Bennett‘s New York Herald was NY’s first cheap, popular, mass-circulation paper, and in this text, James L. Crouthamel examines the ways in which it covered the news. It’s not a comprehensive biography detailing the life and times of Bennett. Rather, the focus is on his time as owner and editor of the Herald.
A little-known fact is that Herald Square in Manhattan is named after Bennett’s paper. But then, Bennett is something of a forgotten media genius. Whether you measure that by today’s standards, or those of his time. Definitely influential, but for whatever reason, there aren’t as many books on him as there are on other influential gossipmongers, like Joseph Pulitzer, William Randolph Hearst, or even columnists and commentators like Walter Winchell.
The first issue of the paper was published on 6 May 1835. Bennett was quick to take advantage of the new technologies of the day. When the telegraph became a thing, he was quick to adopt it. The majority of readers were from New York, of course, so naturally the paper had to do with the various happenings of the state. Like any tabloid, the New York Herald was rife with gossip, and diatribes punching up at the politico class. In fact, most of what you’d find in any issue of the Herald were open editorials and letters with an obvious political bias. He was a certifiable genius, pioneering an entire model of reporting, for better or for worse. His influence on journalism as an industry can’t be denied.
Crouthamel’s analysis might not be the most thorough, and it doesn’t do much to help the reader understand today’s tabloid news. He asserts that the success of the paper can be attributed to its middle-class readership, and not its leanings towards working class populism that was prevalent at the time, but doesn’t really provide much in the way of evidence. It is much more about the bigger picture than the details, of a success story of nineteenth-century journalism. If that’s all you’re after, it’s acceptable. What really makes the text worthwhile, to me at least, is that Crouthamel avoids whitewashing Bennett’s shady ethics and journalistic practices. He presents the man’s life and work as it were. You can draw your own conclusions.
Recommended more for the general reader, less so for weirdos like me who like to dig deeper into the history of journalism.
Lawrence Deveney 