User:Chelsey.brantley/sandbox: Difference between revisions

Line 54:

or television network call[ed] for the end to the war."{{sfn|Streitmatter|2001|p=197}} In fact, the mainstream media plainly opposed the anti-war effort “in the heady days early in the war when American correspondents doubled as government handmaidens, they openly condemned anti-war protesters as traitors."{{sfn|Streitmatter|1997|p=201}} This was the atmosphere in which

Mailer attempted to tell a moving tale of the anti-war movement.

Mailer renounces conventional journalism; he doesn’t trust the media to analyze the anti-war movement fairly. Media studies of the time show that

“throughout [the] various stages of escalating involvement, mainstream

American journalists supported the effort, serving as exuberant cheerleaders

for the military."{{sfn|Streitmatter|2001|p=184}} Mailer frequently points out

the unfair coverage that the press gave to the actions of the demonstrators

and how "[e]mphasis was put on every rock thrown, and a count was made of the windows broken. (There were, however, only a few.) But there was no

specificmention of The Wedge [a brutal crowd control technique,which resulted

in beating of the marchers]. Indeed, stories [of police brutality]

quickly disappeared."{{sfn|Mailer|1988|p=313-14}} This becomes evident as Mailer distinguishes

the reporting of mainstream press from that of the alternative

press. The alternative press (such as the ''Catholic Worker'', ''I.F. Stone’s Weekly,

''National Guardian'', and ''Ramparts'') was critical of the war going back in some

cases to the 1950s when troops were first deployed to Vietnam.{{sfn|Streitmatter|2001|p=184}}

===Citations===

@@ Line 54: / Line 54: @@
 or television network call[ed] for the end to the war."{{sfn|Streitmatter|2001|p=197}} In fact, the mainstream media plainly opposed the anti-war effort “in the heady days early in the war when American correspondents doubled as government handmaidens, they openly condemned anti-war protesters as traitors."{{sfn|Streitmatter|1997|p=201}} This was the atmosphere in which
 Mailer attempted to tell a moving tale of the anti-war movement.
+Mailer renounces conventional journalism; he doesn’t trust the media to analyze the anti-war movement fairly. Media studies of the time show that
+“throughout [the] various stages of escalating involvement, mainstream
+American journalists supported the effort, serving as exuberant cheerleaders
+for the military."{{sfn|Streitmatter|2001|p=184}} Mailer frequently points out
+the unfair coverage that the press gave to the actions of the demonstrators
+and how "[e]mphasis was put on every rock thrown, and a count was made of the windows broken. (There were, however, only a few.) But there was no
+specificmention of The Wedge [a brutal crowd control technique,which resulted
+in beating of the marchers]. Indeed, stories [of police brutality]
+quickly disappeared."{{sfn|Mailer|1988|p=313-14}} This becomes evident as Mailer distinguishes
+the reporting of mainstream press from that of the alternative
+press. The alternative press (such as the ''Catholic Worker'', ''I.F. Stone’s Weekly,
+''National Guardian'', and ''Ramparts'') was critical of the war going back in some
+cases to the 1950s when troops were first deployed to Vietnam.{{sfn|Streitmatter|2001|p=184}}
 ===Citations===