American abolitionist John Brown was hanged in 1859 for leading a raid on a federal arsenal in order to arm a slave rebellion. | Reproduction of daguerreotype attributed to Martin M. Lawrence (via Wikimedia)
It’s a careful examination of the mainstream media’s discourse around slavery during the period beginning in the late 18th century until the beginning of the American Civil War.
We sat down with Gabrial to discuss the central elements of his new work.
What specifically are you examining in your book?
Brian Gabrial: The book delves into press coverage of slave revolts and conspiracies in the years leading up to the civil war. These events elicited significant press coverage about black Americans at a time when most black Americans were invisible in the news media and slavery was an issue best left unspoken about among white Americans.
By examining this press coverage we get a good sense of how attitudes around slavery evolved over time as well as how the American population was changing demographically and intellectually.
Why is press coverage of slavery important when it comes to understanding this phenomenon?
BG: Slave revolts or the threat of revolt nearly always caused intense, fearful reactions by the white population. These fears were reflected in the press accounts. You have to remember that before the telegraph, newspapers relied on the stories from other newspapers, meaning that someone in New York would read the same stories as those in Louisiana, Virginia, or Montreal, for that matter.
Though news delivery changed with the telegraph, newspaper language about these slave troubles was eerily similar and helped cement attitudes about black Americans as violent and dangerous.
After any revolt or conspiracy, African Americans were framed as a threat in newspaper stories. These frames fed into a discourse that spurred racial panics among whites and led to increasingly repressive measures by white authorities to contain the slave populations. As a result, slaves and free blacks would be denied access to literacy or assembly or other civil rights. Slaves were property, period.
What does this teach us about the contemporary media landscape when it comes to race?
BG: Ultimately, many of the same attitudes that were expressed in these pre-Civil War newspaper stories have resonance in modern US media. While the words have changed, the underlying message remains. Just look at how African Americans are talked about when it comes to the Black Lives Matters movement. Though the language is less inflammatory than in the 19th century, there is still an underlying frame of Black people as potentially dangerous.
Of course it is not just African Americans who can be framed in this way, Muslim Americans and illegal immigrants are too. So, the language the media chooses does matter as do the words of political and other leaders.
Brian Gabrial’s The Press and Slavery in America, 1791–1859: The Melancholy Effect of Popular Excitement is available from the University of South Carolina Press.
Find out more about Concordia’s Department of Journalism.
