Journalism with Passion and Spirit Voices of Revolution: The Dissident Press in America
By Rodger Streitmatter
Columbia University Press
340 pages; $18.50 paperback
Voices of Revolution” is a useful if unrevolutionary history of
America’s non-mainstream press—until the last two pages. At that point,
the author incites his own little rebellion.
Book review by Carl Sessions Stepp
Carl Sessions Stepp (email@example.com) began writing for his hometown paper, the Marlboro Herald-Advocate in Bennettsville, South Carolina, in 1963, after his freshman year in high school. He studied journalism at the University of South Carolina, where he edited The Gamecock.
After college, he worked for the St. Petersburg Times and the Charlotte Observer before becoming the first national editor at USA Today in 1982. In 1983, he joined the University of Maryland journalism faculty full time.
In the ensuing 30 years, he also has served as senior editor and book reviewer for AJR, writing dozens of pieces. He has been a visiting writing and editing coach for news organizations in more than 30 states.
Voices of Revolution" is a useful if unrevolutionary history of
America's non-mainstream press – until the last two pages. At that point,
the author incites his own little rebellion.
After chapters on the labor press and the anti-lynching journals, on
the anarchist pamphleteers and the free-love champions, Rodger
Streitmatter stops and issues a plea.
"The mainstream news media," he declares, "should stop ignoring the
dissident press and start emulating it."
Streitmatter, a former reporter who teaches at American University,
believes today's beleaguered big media are increasingly losing respect
and attention, widely seen as "rude, arrogant, self-righteous, cynical,
irresponsible, unpatriotic, and amoral."
This is a harsh but presentable judgment, and it leads Streitmatter
to conclude that the media need "to regain a sense of mission." He
believes that emulating the dissidents, in at least some ways, might
Although the dissident press can be criticized for many
shortcomings, he writes, it has "never wavered from being an exemplar of
passion, conviction, sacrifice, and commitment to a cause." That energy
and fervor, he maintains, could help reinvigorate major media.
Learning from the anti-Vietnam War press, Streitmatter says, today's
media should reassert their roles "as watchdogs over – not bedfellows
with – the government."
Learning from the counterculture journals of the 1960s, they "should
look beyond middle-aged politicians and elected officials...to reflect
the realities of contemporary life."
Learning from the civil-rights press, they should avoid "focusing
exclusively on the dominant segments of society."
And learning from the gay and lesbian press, they should appreciate
"the virtue of supporting causes that are just and right, despite the
fact that many Americans do not yet embrace those beliefs."
For whatever reasons, Streitmatter spins out these suggestions in a
few paragraphs, then leaves it to readers to contemplate their
Many might agree that a bedrock principle of
journalism – impartiality – can make newspeople seem cold and unconcerned.
Journalists themselves don't lack passion, but their journalism often
does. Is that an inevitable byproduct of the neutrality needed to keep
credibility and serve diverse audiences? Or could the news media ramp up
their passion levels without forfeiting public trust?
A huge issue left unexplored by Streitmatter is that the dissident
media never much cared about overall public trust anyway. By definition,
a specialized medium appeals to a limited group and tends to embrace
that group's values. Traditional media, by contrast, serve heterogeneous
and often contending audiences.
Streitmatter's own definition of a dissident medium is that its
"primary purpose must have been, in short, to effect social change" (his
italics). These media are agitators by nature. Traditional news media,
on the other hand, generally put their information and even
entertainment functions ahead of pushing for change.
Still, these points do not negate Streitmatter's basic diagnosis. To
the degree that media reflect a just-the-facts detachment, they can seem
sterile and uncaring. But sterile and uncaring are hardly qualities
associated with the dissident press he portrays.
He begins with the Mechanic's Free Press, a pro-labor paper founded
by shoemaker William Heighton in 1828. It celebrated the "blood, bone
and sinew" of the working classes and demanded that the "money changers"
be driven "from the temple of freedom."
Other dissident journalists shocked society even more. Woodhull &
Claflin's Weekly, founded in 1870, pushed for free love, sex education,
abortion and "Progress! Free Thought! Untrammeled Lives!" Streitmatter
writes that its publisher, Victoria Woodhull, financed the paper by
seducing Commodore Cornelius Vanderbilt, "a seventy-year-old widower
with more money than sense."
Later publications espoused everything from socialism and anarchy to
feminism and civil rights. Robert Abbott's Chicago Defender, reaching a
circulation of 230,000 in the early 1900s, urged Southern blacks to flee
oppression by moving North.
Streitmatter traces several generations of civil rights, women's
liberation and counterculture media into the 1960s, where his study
He enumerates important "common threads" among these highly varied
outlets. They tend to speak for the oppressed, to act as "proactive
agents of change," to operate in dicey ethical territory, to attract
unconventional personalities, and to blur the lines between their status
as media and as instruments of the movements they chronicle.
They also are magnets for censorship and oppression. Victoria
Woodhull was jailed on obscenity charges. Margaret Sanger's columns on
birth control were banned by postal authorities. J. Edgar Hoover's FBI
used forgery, harassment, infiltration, obscenity laws and other
shameful tactics to disrupt and suppress 1960s counterculture media.
Most striking for journalists, perhaps, is how mainstream media
typically boil over with contempt for their dissident cousins and their
causes. The New York Herald ridiculed anti-slavery editor William Lloyd
Garrison for his "bald head, miserable forehead, and comical
spectacles." Much of conventional media not only lagged in supporting,
but actively resisted, civil rights, feminism and the anti-Vietnam War
Given this history, it may be unlikely that the mainstream press
will emulate the dissident press in the narrow sense of issue advocacy.
But in a broader sense, Streitmatter is pointing to matters of character
and relationships. Dissident media represent a community with passion
and spirit. It might well be worthwhile, and possible, for today's media
to do more of that.
Stepp, an AJR senior editor, teaches at the Philip Merrill College of
Journalism at the University of Maryland.