Infamous Scribblers is a perceptive and witty exploration of the most volatile period in the history of the American press. News correspondent and renonwned media historian Eric Burns tells of Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and Sam Adams—the leading journalists among the Founding Fathers; of George Washington and John Adams, the leading disdainers of journalists; and Thomas Jefferson, the leading manipulator of journalists. These men and the writers who abused and praised them in print (there was, at the time, no job description of "journalist") included the incendiary James Franklin, Ben's brother and one of the first muckrakers; the high minded Thomas Paine; the hatchet man James Callender, and a rebellious crowd of propagandists, pamphleteers, and publishers. It was Washington who gave this book its title. He once wrote of his dismay at being "buffited in the public prints by a set of infamous scribblers." The journalism of the era was often partisan, fabricated, overheated, scandalous, sensationalistic and sometimes stirring, brilliant, and indispensable. Despite its flaws—even because of some of them—the participants hashed out publicly the issues that would lead America to declare its independence and, after the war, to determine what sort of nation it would be.
Infamous Scribblers
and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle. Learn more
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Browse our Bookshelf Favorites store for big savings on popular fiction, nonfiction, children's books, and more. |
Book Description
Frequently Bought Together
Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
Considering the many noble accomplishments of early American culture, Burns observes, the levels of vulgarity and partisanship in colonial newspapers should strike modern readers as shocking. Given the ideological jousting taking place on talk radio and in the blogosphere today, he may be overstating the case, and at times the condemnation feels as if it's laid on a bit thick, but Burns's historical examples of journalistic excess—rabid language, character assassination, even outright fabrication—never bore. From the sniping feuds among Boston's first papers to sex scandals involving Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, the snappy patter gives clear indication of how much Burns, a Fox News anchor and accomplished historian (The Spirits of America), relishes telling his story. With so much attention on the Founding Fathers in recent years, many sections, like those on Ben Franklin's early publishing career and the intense rivalry between Jefferson and Hamilton, each of whom underwrote a paper to propagate his point of view, will be familiar. For every recognizable anecdote, however, Burns weaves in fresh elements like the vicious feud between publisher James Franklin (Ben's older brother) and Cotton Mather over smallpox inoculation, keeping the entertainment levels high. (Mar.)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
From Booklist
Grievances against journalists are as old as America--Burns' title is lifted from an epistolary lamentation by none other than George Washington. Most of the founders found themselves on the receiving end of printers who reveled in calumny and condemnation and made no pretense of impartiality. Burns' chronological narrative spans the century between what is regarded as the first newspaper in America, Publick Occurrences of 1690s Boston, and the partisan papers of Thomas Jefferson's presidency. Burns, a broadcast journalist, adopts a flowing, anecdote-laden style infused with bemusement toward the period's reportorial practices. These included outright fabrication, lightly so, as in Benjamin Franklin's occasional inventions in print, or more seriously, as in fulminations against the British by patriot Samuel Adams. Come the Revolution, Burns notes that most papers went under due to a paper shortage; after the War of Independence, they reappeared with vigor and invective. Excerpting extensively from the newspapers under discussion, Burns has produced a spry history of early American journalism. Gilbert Taylor
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
More About the Author
Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
107 of 116 people found the following review helpful
Format:Hardcover
Few things can ignite a more heated debate these days than when the subject of "the media" is introduced into polite conversation. People on the left and right fault contemporary journalism for (a) giving the Bush administration a free ride, or (b) extreme bias against all things Bush and Republican.
Charges of media bias and the controversy over good vs. bad journalism are older than the nation, literally. Veteran journalist Eric Burns has written about the notorious founding fathers of journalism in a highly readable, outrageous and frequently hilarious book called "Infamous Scribblers: The Founding Fathers and the Rowdy Beginnings of American Journalism."
Here, a disclaimer may be warranted. Burns hosts "Fox News Watch" on Fox News Channel (Saturdays at 6:30 p.m. ET), a program on which I appear as a panelist. Nevertheless, I am writing about his book without his encouragement, without remuneration and without even the promise of more airtime.
"Infamous Scribblers" is a line taken from the pen of George Washington, who responded to the disdain some in the press and politics had for him with disdain of his own. Schoolchildren are taught many things about some of our Founding Fathers, but little about what their journalistic tormentors said about them. Burns' book wonderfully completes the record.
The National Gazette was so afraid President George Washington would become a monarch that it took the slightest occasion, including Washington's 61st birthday party, to warn of impending doom to the newly born republic. Its editor, Philip Freneau (a college classmate of James Madison at Princeton), wrote, "Who will deny that the celebrating of birth days is not a striking feature of royalty? We hear of no such thing during the republic of Rome ..."
Another paper of the time likened the birthday observance to a "Political Christmas" and suggested the event was an attempt to rank "Washington with Jesus Christ."
In Colonial journalism, prominent men like Alexander Hamilton would use numerous pseudonyms to comment on, criticize and attack political opponents. Editors, such as they were in those days, saw nothing wrong with the practice and, in fact, encouraged it. The most outrageous and inaccurate items were printed in newspapers with no fact-checking and little sense of responsibility for the damage to career and reputation they might cause.
Burns writes of the Gazette of the United States (born on April 15, 1789, a month after the Constitution took effect) that its editor, John Fenno, was an ardent supporter of the federalism represented by Washington and Hamilton. Fenno's newspaper served as a counterweight to the republican slant of the National Gazette. Burns sums up Fenno's journalistic philosophy: "He would cajole his readers, deceive them when necessary, rile them when advisable; he would praise public officials and other newspaper editors who agreed with his positions and drub those who did not, assailing their intelligence, their character, their patriotism; and he would publish the records of legislative proceedings that advanced the federalist agenda while either ignoring or deriding or sometimes even falsifying documents to the contrary."
Such things were to be found on the "news" pages, not the opinion page. Entire newspapers were opinion pages. To have a page designated "opinion" would have been redundant.
The 1790s were, according to historian John Ferling, "one of America's most passionate decades." The nation's journalism, notes Burns, could not help but reflect the heat.
One paper, named the Aurora, engaged in what Burns describes as "journalistic savagery ... not caring about accuracy or even the illusion of it." In 1795, the Aurora published a series of letters George Washington supposedly wrote while encamped at Valley Forge during the winter of 1777 and 1778. The letters "portrayed Washington as a lukewarm patriot at best, a loyal subject of George III at worst, and at least a skeptic concerning independence."
It would have been a great story if true, but Washington wrote no such letters. That didn't bother Benjamin Franklin Bache (Ben Franklin's grandson and the owner of the Aurora), who was not about to retract something that served his anti-Washington political ends.
They're all in the book - people you studied in school - and so are their many detractors. After reading "Infamous Scribblers" you will be amazed at how far journalism has progressed (or not) and even more amazed at how our Founders overcame the inaccurate and biased attacks from the "newspapers" and pamphlets of their day to achieve greatness and a deserved place in our history books and our hearts.
Copyright 2006 Tribune Media Services
Charges of media bias and the controversy over good vs. bad journalism are older than the nation, literally. Veteran journalist Eric Burns has written about the notorious founding fathers of journalism in a highly readable, outrageous and frequently hilarious book called "Infamous Scribblers: The Founding Fathers and the Rowdy Beginnings of American Journalism."
Here, a disclaimer may be warranted. Burns hosts "Fox News Watch" on Fox News Channel (Saturdays at 6:30 p.m. ET), a program on which I appear as a panelist. Nevertheless, I am writing about his book without his encouragement, without remuneration and without even the promise of more airtime.
"Infamous Scribblers" is a line taken from the pen of George Washington, who responded to the disdain some in the press and politics had for him with disdain of his own. Schoolchildren are taught many things about some of our Founding Fathers, but little about what their journalistic tormentors said about them. Burns' book wonderfully completes the record.
The National Gazette was so afraid President George Washington would become a monarch that it took the slightest occasion, including Washington's 61st birthday party, to warn of impending doom to the newly born republic. Its editor, Philip Freneau (a college classmate of James Madison at Princeton), wrote, "Who will deny that the celebrating of birth days is not a striking feature of royalty? We hear of no such thing during the republic of Rome ..."
Another paper of the time likened the birthday observance to a "Political Christmas" and suggested the event was an attempt to rank "Washington with Jesus Christ."
In Colonial journalism, prominent men like Alexander Hamilton would use numerous pseudonyms to comment on, criticize and attack political opponents. Editors, such as they were in those days, saw nothing wrong with the practice and, in fact, encouraged it. The most outrageous and inaccurate items were printed in newspapers with no fact-checking and little sense of responsibility for the damage to career and reputation they might cause.
Burns writes of the Gazette of the United States (born on April 15, 1789, a month after the Constitution took effect) that its editor, John Fenno, was an ardent supporter of the federalism represented by Washington and Hamilton. Fenno's newspaper served as a counterweight to the republican slant of the National Gazette. Burns sums up Fenno's journalistic philosophy: "He would cajole his readers, deceive them when necessary, rile them when advisable; he would praise public officials and other newspaper editors who agreed with his positions and drub those who did not, assailing their intelligence, their character, their patriotism; and he would publish the records of legislative proceedings that advanced the federalist agenda while either ignoring or deriding or sometimes even falsifying documents to the contrary."
Such things were to be found on the "news" pages, not the opinion page. Entire newspapers were opinion pages. To have a page designated "opinion" would have been redundant.
The 1790s were, according to historian John Ferling, "one of America's most passionate decades." The nation's journalism, notes Burns, could not help but reflect the heat.
One paper, named the Aurora, engaged in what Burns describes as "journalistic savagery ... not caring about accuracy or even the illusion of it." In 1795, the Aurora published a series of letters George Washington supposedly wrote while encamped at Valley Forge during the winter of 1777 and 1778. The letters "portrayed Washington as a lukewarm patriot at best, a loyal subject of George III at worst, and at least a skeptic concerning independence."
It would have been a great story if true, but Washington wrote no such letters. That didn't bother Benjamin Franklin Bache (Ben Franklin's grandson and the owner of the Aurora), who was not about to retract something that served his anti-Washington political ends.
They're all in the book - people you studied in school - and so are their many detractors. After reading "Infamous Scribblers" you will be amazed at how far journalism has progressed (or not) and even more amazed at how our Founders overcame the inaccurate and biased attacks from the "newspapers" and pamphlets of their day to achieve greatness and a deserved place in our history books and our hearts.
Copyright 2006 Tribune Media Services
9 of 9 people found the following review helpful
Format:Hardcover
You have had it up to here with newspapers and news broadcasts that are partisan and shrill. You are sick of the media focusing on scandal or even making up scandals. You can't stand the prospect of hearing from another pundit who calls for the death of her political opponents. You wish that newspapers would go back to the good old days of objectivity and impartial promotion of the public interest, perhaps when Freedom of the Press was a new concept and was being flaunted with energy and joy. Don't be too sure. In _Infamous Scribblers: The Founding Fathers and the Rowdy Beginnings of American Journalism_ (PublicAffairs), Eric Burns (who works for Fox News!) has given a funny and thoughtful look at our nation's initial press. The title of the book comes from a phrase George Washington, who had more than his share of problems with the papers, used to describe his newsprint detractors. We may have come a long way in the technologies we use for our media, but the problems here of lies, leaks, and libel will sound familiar to modern readers.
One excuse the newspapers had then that they do not have now is that they were new. Neither Europe nor the colonies had a tradition of an impartial press, so the press had to invent itself. The first newspaper was closed because the publisher was obnoxious and refused to get a license. The second was a toadying journal that printed what the authorities wanted. Ben Franklin's elder brother was the first crusading journalist, but took up a malicious crusade against smallpox inoculations. Founding father Sam Adams edited the _Boston Gazette_ and had no interest in printing the truth, unless the truth happened to promote American liberty. If a false story about British troops raping helpless American women incited violent protests against the redcoats, Sam Adams didn't mind. As Burns writes, "History has vindicated Adams's political ends; it cannot justify his journalistic means." The exaggeration and outright lying was continued by others during the time of the writing of the Constitution and during the initial decades of the new nation. The Federalists (in favor of strong central government) and the opposing Republicans had their pet journals, and even arranged for the editors to be on the federal payroll when they could.
Burns's lively history is a reminder of how venerable is the tradition of parties loving a press that agrees with them and excoriating the press that disagrees. It also goes a long way to making the gigantic marble statues that we think of as our Founding Fathers into human figures motivated at least in part by lust, vanity, and eagerness for power. The vehemence and outright deceitfulness that they could use when deploying the press is remarkable. It is also worth being reminded that for all the good that came from our founding, those involved in it were often unsure about what they were doing, and if sure, were often sure of what proved to be error or misjudgment. Burns commends the nation for coming to admire the strengths of the founders, but not emulating their style of journalism. Perhaps the papers of two hundred years ago were more extreme in their bluster, malevolence, and inattention to fact, but those who look at current cable news, blogging, or even supermarket tabloids will find that the reformation has not been total.
One excuse the newspapers had then that they do not have now is that they were new. Neither Europe nor the colonies had a tradition of an impartial press, so the press had to invent itself. The first newspaper was closed because the publisher was obnoxious and refused to get a license. The second was a toadying journal that printed what the authorities wanted. Ben Franklin's elder brother was the first crusading journalist, but took up a malicious crusade against smallpox inoculations. Founding father Sam Adams edited the _Boston Gazette_ and had no interest in printing the truth, unless the truth happened to promote American liberty. If a false story about British troops raping helpless American women incited violent protests against the redcoats, Sam Adams didn't mind. As Burns writes, "History has vindicated Adams's political ends; it cannot justify his journalistic means." The exaggeration and outright lying was continued by others during the time of the writing of the Constitution and during the initial decades of the new nation. The Federalists (in favor of strong central government) and the opposing Republicans had their pet journals, and even arranged for the editors to be on the federal payroll when they could.
Burns's lively history is a reminder of how venerable is the tradition of parties loving a press that agrees with them and excoriating the press that disagrees. It also goes a long way to making the gigantic marble statues that we think of as our Founding Fathers into human figures motivated at least in part by lust, vanity, and eagerness for power. The vehemence and outright deceitfulness that they could use when deploying the press is remarkable. It is also worth being reminded that for all the good that came from our founding, those involved in it were often unsure about what they were doing, and if sure, were often sure of what proved to be error or misjudgment. Burns commends the nation for coming to admire the strengths of the founders, but not emulating their style of journalism. Perhaps the papers of two hundred years ago were more extreme in their bluster, malevolence, and inattention to fact, but those who look at current cable news, blogging, or even supermarket tabloids will find that the reformation has not been total.
11 of 12 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars
The eye-popping true story of how raucous and undisciplined American journalism once was
April 7, 2006
Format:Hardcover
Infamous Scribblers: The Founding Fathers and the Rowdy Beginnings of American Journalism is the eye-popping true story of how raucous and undisciplined American journalism once was. Feuds, partisanship, and outright lies often colored journalism of the era. Some founding fathers, such as Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and Sam Adams, were leading journalists, others, such as George Washington and John Adams, passionately disdained journalists; and Thomas Jefferson was a skillful manipulator of journalists. Infamous Scribblers is divided into three sections: "The Role of Authority", "The Approach of War", and "The Tumult of Peace", all tracing the contentious relationship between the founding fathers and journalism throughout the birth of America. Highly recommended for American history shelves, and an absolute "must-have" for public and college libraries.
Most Recent Customer Reviews
5.0 out of 5 stars
A book about the history of the newspapers
This book explains the history of Journalism since the beginning of the new Americas. This book is a good read to understand the history from word of mouth to the printed word.
Published 3 months ago by John J. Phillips
5.0 out of 5 stars
Great book and great deal
I happened to see this book while on vacation; we were killing time in a beautiful atheneum in St. Johnsbury, VT waiting for the start of a movie we wanted to see down the street. Read more
Published 3 months ago by Pamela Munton
4.0 out of 5 stars
Another slant on the founders.
The book is a readable account of the beginnings of American newspapers, which were at times more biased and full of lies than today's worst news outlets. Read more
Published 8 months ago by maryl
5.0 out of 5 stars
Infamous Scribblers
Very comprehensive review of the early history of American journalism and its impact on the politics of the day leading up to the Revolutionary War. Read more
Published 12 months ago by Warren Cook
4.0 out of 5 stars
Indispensible scribblers
To a great degree, the Founding Fathers were the "Infamous Scribblers." Only George Washington, writes Eric Burns probably never wrote a line intended for newspaper... Read more
Published on November 13, 2010 by Harry Eagar
5.0 out of 5 stars
Very Interesting
Eric Burns provides a brilliant look at the major newspapers of this country, starting with the first in the colonies from the early 18th century, onward through about 1804. Read more
Published on April 19, 2010 by Adam Rackis
3.0 out of 5 stars
Very Interesting... But Very Dry
Really interesting topic and history, but very dry. Great for journalists, and those who are interesting in see how far (or not so far) American journalism has progressed since... Read more
Published on April 18, 2009 by Redd
5.0 out of 5 stars
Newspapers are still a rag
"Infamous Scribblers" was a fantastic read. Newspapers haven't changed much since colonial times. the best part of the book was the historical facts brought up, and the infighting... Read more
Published on March 28, 2008 by Kenneth Alling
2.0 out of 5 stars
Flat
Covering the lies and slanders in US journalism from colonial times through the revolution and Federalist time periods, this book delivers an overview of the major events during... Read more
Published on December 26, 2007 by Michael E. Fitzgerald
4.0 out of 5 stars
Not a History of Journalism, But Journalism as History
The early chapters are extremely well-researched and well-written. Unfortunately, as work progressed and the deadline approached, the quality declined -- but only from an A+ to a... Read more
Published on November 5, 2007 by ArizonianaLLC
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Listmania!
So You'd Like to...
Look for Similar Items by Category
- Books > Education & Reference > Writing, Research & Publishing Guides > Writing > Journalism & Nonfiction
- Books > History > Americas > United States > Colonial Period
- Books > History > Americas > United States > Revolution & Founding
- Books > History > Modern (16th-21st Centuries) > 18th Century
- Books > History > Modern (16th-21st Centuries) > 19th Century
- Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Social Sciences > Communication & Media Studies
- Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Social Sciences > Library & Information Science
