introduction

While the social movements that have changed the course of history in this country have been well documented and studied, the history of the social movement press, the voice that transmits a movement's ideals, has, surprisingly, received little attention.

The thesis of this book is that the history of social movement journalism can be understood only in the context of the particular movements of which each journal was a part. The book looks at the press/media of five social movements:

- the abolitionist movement
- woman's suffrage
- the gay/lesbian movement
- GI press anitwar movement in Vietnam
- the enviromental movement

In addition, the book looks at the interplay between the journals, the social movements that produced them, and the social and political conditions the movements sought to address.

Key points:

- that the birth of a journal often coincided with the birth of a social movement, not vice versa

- that when the goals of a movement are achieved, the associated journal(s) usually collapse(s)

- that conventional/traditional measures such as objectivity, circulation, longevity, geographic distribution, and advertising revenue, do not necessarily reflect the significance, influence, or impact of a particular s.m. press on society

- that the notions of "objective" and "unbiased" are a recent emergence, coinciding with the increased corporate conglomeration/monopilization of recent decades. Before the emergence of this construct (which only further contributes to the framing of the public mind), it was held that those who produced media had a point of view to present, that that was inherent in the nature of the endeavor.

- that there is no reliable correlation between a journal's longevity and its contribution to a movement's goals

- that there is often an inverse relationship between the quality of a journal and its profitability

- that a journal can become an institution in and of itself, subject to the contraints inherent in an institution (rigidity, resistance to change) which can inhibit its ability to respond to new changes

- that new technologies have affected/framed the emergence/growth of journals: the printing press, the iron press/machine-made paper, offset printing, desktop publishing, the Internet.

- that "accidental journalists", those without professional training (indoctrination?) in the field of journalism itself, have made significant contributions to social movements in the past.

- that the press/journal(s) is one of many resources that are available to a social movement, and the success of that s.m. depends on how well those resources are utilized (other resources include money, guns, land, technical expertise, votes, education, social history, cultural coherence, communication channels, access to means of production, the means of culture and the means to disrupt the peace, among others...)

- that "the media" has undergone massive change since its humble origins at the beginning of the republic to what it has burgeoned into today. A nice line from Bob, "Media images and sounds are as inescapable to use as the natural environment once was to agricultural societies." We live in a media-drenched world, and the reach of that media into our personal lives is cause for alarm...just how much are we influenced by it on a daily basis?

- that advertising has infiltrated almost every conceivable social space in our lives

- that the nature of censorship has undergone a significant change. What once used to be the direct control of information by a government (like WWII-era censorship, for example), has morphed into the framing of the public mind itself, such that the choices that seem available to us are confined to a particular spectrum, a spectrum whose range is defined by the corporate interests that control and direct modern mass media. Example...how are topics/events that do not coincide with corporate interests portrayed in the media controlled by them? (consider no coverage at all, or if covered reduced to a spectacle, with little or no substance present )

-that to call discussions that take place within that corporate-defined spectrum "debate" is akin to calling Pro Wrestling an athletic sporting competition (analogy from Jon Stewart)