William Russell
An Irish born reporter for The Times Russell is generally considered to be one of the first war correspondents, despite the fact that he hated the term. Raised and taught in Ireland who then moved to London to become a maths teacher, it was during this time tat he did some freelance work for The Times. His work was found to be of such quality that he was offered a full time role in the paper, around this time he covered a small war going on in the disputed territories between Prussia and Denmark. In 1854 he was sent to the Crimea to send reports back to The Times on the stories of the war. He was a controversial figure in the eyes of the military, Lord Raglan disliked him so much that he encouraged his officers not to speak with him. Russell later said that 'Raglan is utterly incompetent to lead an Army'. Modern Historians have said of him 'Russell made friends with junior officers, and from them and other ranks, and by observation, gained his information. He wore quasi-military clothes and was armed, but did not fight. He was not a great writer but his reports were vivid, dramatic, interesting, and convincing.... His reports identified with the British forces and praised British heroism. He exposed logistic and medical bungling and failure, and the suffering of the troops.' This illustrates the honest approach Russell took to writing, which may have been part of his appeal, yes he 'Praised British Heroism' but he was not afraid to inform the public of 'bungling[s] and failure'. Raglan however did not take kindly to this kind of reporting and said that Russell may be revealing information that could be useful to the enemy, even Queen Victoria condemned him, saying '[Russell writes] infamous attacks against the army which have disgraced our newspapers'.
Russell's reporting allowed the public to have a non establishment perspective of war for really the first time; and it was this that led to radical reform of the military. Russell was so influential in fact, that Florence Nightingale claimed that she was inspired to join the war effort because of his reports. Russell was a great reporter, maybe not because of his writing skill or even his ability to get information, but in his honesty in his writings, it seems to me that before the advent of independent war Journalism, the public simply had no information or only positive information about wars. Thus people didn't know about defeats, or tragedies or 'bungles'. People like Russell informed the public, and they were outraged, and consequently reforms were established to prevent these failures from happening again. Even though Russell was only a part of a much larger chain of events, I think he had a profound effect on British Journalism.
An Irish born reporter for The Times Russell is generally considered to be one of the first war correspondents, despite the fact that he hated the term. Raised and taught in Ireland who then moved to London to become a maths teacher, it was during this time tat he did some freelance work for The Times. His work was found to be of such quality that he was offered a full time role in the paper, around this time he covered a small war going on in the disputed territories between Prussia and Denmark. In 1854 he was sent to the Crimea to send reports back to The Times on the stories of the war. He was a controversial figure in the eyes of the military, Lord Raglan disliked him so much that he encouraged his officers not to speak with him. Russell later said that 'Raglan is utterly incompetent to lead an Army'. Modern Historians have said of him 'Russell made friends with junior officers, and from them and other ranks, and by observation, gained his information. He wore quasi-military clothes and was armed, but did not fight. He was not a great writer but his reports were vivid, dramatic, interesting, and convincing.... His reports identified with the British forces and praised British heroism. He exposed logistic and medical bungling and failure, and the suffering of the troops.' This illustrates the honest approach Russell took to writing, which may have been part of his appeal, yes he 'Praised British Heroism' but he was not afraid to inform the public of 'bungling[s] and failure'. Raglan however did not take kindly to this kind of reporting and said that Russell may be revealing information that could be useful to the enemy, even Queen Victoria condemned him, saying '[Russell writes] infamous attacks against the army which have disgraced our newspapers'.
Russell's reporting allowed the public to have a non establishment perspective of war for really the first time; and it was this that led to radical reform of the military. Russell was so influential in fact, that Florence Nightingale claimed that she was inspired to join the war effort because of his reports. Russell was a great reporter, maybe not because of his writing skill or even his ability to get information, but in his honesty in his writings, it seems to me that before the advent of independent war Journalism, the public simply had no information or only positive information about wars. Thus people didn't know about defeats, or tragedies or 'bungles'. People like Russell informed the public, and they were outraged, and consequently reforms were established to prevent these failures from happening again. Even though Russell was only a part of a much larger chain of events, I think he had a profound effect on British Journalism.
No comments:
Post a Comment