The Survival of Journalism in the Colonies

As a journalist if fascinates me how little journalism existed in the early days of the colonies. The reason there was little journalism was because most publications were shut down by British rule. Obviously, this angered the colonist. The idea of "no taxation without representation" in some ways falls under this. Part of being represented was allowing the colonist to have newspapers to share information. Most colonist did not know what was going on across the pond in Britain, due to the lack of not having a strong newspaper in the colonies. The colonist did not like the power that Britain had over them to shut such things down. It is one of the big reasons that our American values shares the idea of the publics check on government. We have journalists to check our government, by expressing what the people want changed. 

The Boston News Letter was not the first newspaper in the colonies. It was technically the second one. However, the first printed newspaper, Publick Occurrences, was only printed once. It was shut down immediately by British rule. The Boston News Letter was the first newspaper to be printed more than once. In fact in stayed in print for 72 years. The Boston News Letter was eventually shut down by the British, but it stayed in print for years. 

The Boston News Letter was not supposed to be a newspaper, but rather a political letter between two colonists. John Campbell wrote political letters to Connecticut's Governor Fitz-John Winthrop. Campbell began writing to other political leaders too. Everyone loved Campbell's political and newsworthy updates that they urged him to turn them into a newspaper. With the help of John Green, Campbell started the Boston News Letter (hence the newspapers name). 

The big question is: how did The Boston News Letter continue to be published, when other newspapers were being shut down? 

There is no clear answer as to how The Boston News Letter continued its publications for 72 years under British law. However, it is clear that at the the time of its publication the newspaper was not just a luxury to the colonists, but a need. They also needed a place to obtain information about what was happening locally and in Britain. Campbell, understood that people wanted their political voice to be heard. He left the last page of the newspaper blank for readers to contribute to the dialogue. This was significant because it helped fuel the new idea of the "marketplace of ideas". 

A lot of sources have concluded that it is not so much that it was allowed to be published, but rather that it survived British rule. The paper printed stories and ideas that the British definitely did not like, but it prevailed and continued publishing stories. 

The truth is there were lots of journalists in the early days of the colonies. That is why the concept of the "marketplace of ideas" eventually took shape. People have opinions and need a place to voice them. However, their voices were suppressed by the king. The Boston News Letter survived because those journalists needed a place to publish their voice.

DEFINE JOURNALISM: Why we need more REAL journalists

 Journalism was first invented as a method to check government. In the United States a newspaper was first invented to keep the colonist informed on important information such as government (both international and national) and other things happening within the community such a weddings, deaths or other events. Journalism has always been a way for a journalists to communicate with a large on audience on information they deserve to know. 

However, journalism has always been highly controversial. The definition of journalism has varied since the founding fathers began the United States and created the First Amendment, which gave journalists freedom of speech. 

I define journalism as people who express their opinion, state facts, begin new dialogue and contribute to a discussion. I am a journalist. I love writing opinion pieces, doing research to bring new facts to those who need to know them, and contributing to a discussion. 

Journalism has become very hard. There is the constant argument that journalism no longer exists. Mostly, because today, anyone can become a journalist. In just a few minutes and clicks on a computer you can start your own personal blog or post to a blogging website. No one needs a degree in journalism to express their opinion or release news bearing facts anymore. 

So the big question is: why would I want to become a journalist? 

When I tell people that I am studying journalism the most common response is, "finally, we need better journalists in our world." I always question what they mean by this. There are plenty of fantastic journalist that I read every day. I finally came to the decision after a conversation with my mother that it is not so much that we need "better" journalists, but rather we need journalists that want to deliver factual information that better the people. 

All you need to be a journalist is the ability to write. However, being a good journalist is much harder, you need to learn how to provide the people with the information they deserve to know. Not everyone knows how to do that. In recent years, people have discovered that journalists have covered up information that the public ought to know. Journalists also need to learn to present every side of the story with room for discussion. Most journalists today do not do this. 

To answer the big question: I want to be a journalist because I want to provide the public with information that they deserve to know in a way that is bipartisan and opens a discussion. We need to better define journalism and journalists. I am not just a journalist, but an advocate for the people. A REAL journalist advocates and acts for the people.