Race, Riots, and Reporting

Author(s): Terry Ann Knopf

Source: Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 4, No. 3 (Mar., 1974), pp. 303-327
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2783659
Accessed: 05/04/2009 23:39

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Black
Studies.

http://www.jstor.org
 RACE,RIOTS,ANDREPORTING
TERRY ANN KNOPF
Cambridge, Massachusetts

On the evening of July 1, 1917, in East St. Louis, Illinois, a

Ford car (perhaps two) driven by whites fired gunshots into
the homes of some blacks. When the whites returned a
second time, the residents were better prepared and returned
the fire. No action was taken by the police in regard to the
white assailants. However, after receiving a report about
armed blacks, a squad car-significantly, a Ford make-was
sent to the scene and met by gunfire. Two detectives were
killed. The next day the St. Louis Republic asserted that
blacks had arranged the killings beforehand. Other local
newspapers followed suit, charging the killings were both
planned and deliberately provoked.
Later testifying before a congressional committee, the
reporter who covered the story for the Republic admitted the
killings could have been a case of mistaken identity. But such
an admission had come too late. An excited white population
already on the verge of riot had been given all the "proof' it
needed for a bloody massacre. By the time the violence was

AUTHOR'SNOTE:This article is adapted from the book Rumors,

Race and Riots (New Brunswick,N.J.: Trans-action,1974). Whenthis
article was written, the author was affiliated with the Lemberg Center
for the Study of Violence,BrandeisUniversity.
Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 4 No. 3, March 1974
? 1974 Sage Publications, Inc.
[303]
[304] JOURNAL OF BLACK STUDIES / MARCH 1974

over nine whites and about 39 blacks had been killed, some
300 buildings had been destroyed, and the property damage
was estimated at $400,000.
Some fifty years later a riot took place in Cleveland, Ohio,
under circumstances that were surprisingly similar. On July
28, 1968, in response to intelligence reports (later shown to
be rather shaky) that some blacks were about to stage an
armed uprising, the police sent several unmarked cars to the
area. A few hours later, a group of blacks emerged from a
house under surveillance. Almost at once, an intense gun
battle broke out between the police and the armed men.
Shortly after, sporadic looting and firebombing erupted and
continued for several days. By the time order had been
restored, 16,400 National Guardsmenhad been mobilized, at
least nine persons had been killed (including three police-
men), and the property damage losses were put at $1.5
million.
Immediately the Cleveland tragedy was described as a
deliberate plot against the police and said to signal a new
phase in the course of racial conflict. The Cleveland Press
(July 24, 1968) compared the violence in Cleveland to
guerrilla activity in Saigon and noted: "It didn't seem to be a
Watts, or a Detroit, or a Newark. Or even a Hough of two
years ago. No, this tragic night seemed to be part of a plan."
A reporter writing in the New York Times (July 28, 1968)
stated: "It marks perhaps the first documented case in recent
history of black, armed, and organized violence against the
police." Investigations later undertaken by a task force of the
National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of
Violence, the Lemberg Center for the Study of Violence at
Brandeis University, and the New York Times (which
reversed itself) cast serious doubts on the initial press reports,
while revealing the situation was far more complicated than
originally thought. The investigations suggested that, in all
probability, a series of provocative actions by the police prior
to the confrontation actually triggered the disorder.
 Knopf / RACE, RIOTS, AND REPORTING [305]

The parallels between the two cases are indeed striking:

armed confrontations between blacks and police precipitating
large-scale riots; initial press reports placing the responsibility
on blacks, faulting them as the aggressors,asserting they had
planned the violence; and subsequent evidence which showed
the press was in error. Because the riots are so far apart in
time-1917 versus 1968-a question arises as to why the
misreporting occurred in each instance. Is the answer to be
found in the context of the immediate situation? Were the
errors simply due to sloppy reporting by a few newspaper-
men or to the prevailing chaos of the moment? Or do the
errors stem from more fundamental weaknesses inherent in
the system of reporting? For example, is it in the nature of
the press to sensationalize so as to sell newspapers? Are
journalistic lapses such as those just mentioned rooted in
certain perceptions about blacks shared by the bulk of the
white press? Or does some sort of conspiracy exist within the
press (as many young activists charge today) designed to
degrade blacks and perpetuate their position as second-class
citizens? Put very simply: do East St. Louis and Cleveland
represent historical accidents in misreporting, or are they part
of a more general pattern that has tended to characterize
press coverage of interracial conflict? Moreover, if the latter
explanation is correct, what is the nature of the pattern,
along with its possible causes and consequences?
The issues raised here are not simply academic. Because
the press has traditionally been defined as an authoritative
source of information, its statements are bound to carry
more weight than those of average citizens. As Shibutani
(1966: 22) points out: "Whether communication occurs
through personal contact, writing, print, or some electronic
device, if the channel is defined as authoritative, it serves as
the standard against which reports attributed to all other
sources are checked." Spiro Agnew aside, most Americans
continue to have a good deal of confidence in the press. In a
recent Gallup poll, over sixty percent of those interviewed
rated newspaper performance as good or excellent.
[306] JOURNAL OF BLACK STUDIES / MARCH 1974

Crisis situations simply increase the public's reliance on the

news media. During most serious disturbances, the press
(indeed, the entire media) is bombarded with calls from
anxious citizens wanting information, clarification, verifica-
tion of what they have heard. Thus, the mandate of the press
is at once terribly difficult and important: to sift through bits
and fragments of information, to try to piece together an
accurate, balanced account as to just what has happened or is
happening.
Throughout this nation's history, the press has not exactly
been at a loss for material, for violent clashes between the
races have occurred at fairly regular intervals. The so-called
"Draft Riots" occurring in New York and in other Northern
cities during the Civil War are probably the best-known
illustrations of this earlier violence. But while riots are not a
new phenomenon, it is the twentieth century that ushered in
a new, and in some ways more painful, era of racial conflict.
In his dissertation on urban race riots, Grimshaw (1959: 179)
identified 33 "major interracial disturbances" between 1900
and 1949. The two world wars represented peaks in terms of
the number of outbreaks. Grimshaw recorded eighteen
disturbances between 1915 and 1919; five were recorded
between 1940 and 1944. With the exception of the race riot
in Detroit in 1943, however, none of the later outbreaks were
as serious as those occurring at the time of World WarI.
For the present inquiry, the writer has selected eleven riots
occurring between the years 1917 and 1943.1 Our purpose is
to examine press coverage of these disorders, exploring the
implications of our findings for more recent disturbances.
With one exception, all of the cases fall within the riot cycles
of World Wars I and II and represent every section of the
country. The main criterion in selecting the cases was the
sufficiency of data concerning press coverage at the time. Not
surprisingly, such data tended to be more plentiful for the
largest, most studied and therefore best-known riots. Never-
theless, within the eleven cases chosen the newspapers
 Knopf / RACE, RIOTS, AND REPORTING [307]

involved were highly divergent in terms of size, reputation,

and political outlook. The material was gathered from a
variety of sources-not only historical, but sociological and
journalistic as well. In addition, thanks to the superb
resources of Harvard University's Inter-Library Loan, the
writer examined scores of original newspaper documents.
Based upon a survey of the riots studied, the writer found
many glaringinstances of misreporting by the press-spanning
both world wars, encompassing every section of the country,
and including newspapers large and small, supposedly liberal
and conservative. Generally speaking, this misreporting took
the form of one-sided, biased, and distorted press coverage
against blacks, reflecting and exploiting the sentiments of the
white community. An initial inspection of the data revealed
four themes: a receptiveness to many rumors circulating
among whites that were hostile in content and directed
against blacks; unwarranted and unnecessary attacks on
blacks which continually placed them in an unfavorable light;
the use of loaded language when describing or referring to
blacks; and a rigid adherence to the white version of events.
Evidence of misreporting was found in the majority of
disorders-six out of eleven cases. We turn now to a more
detailed account of the six cases.

EAST ST. LOUIS (1917)

Many of the riots during World War I followed a mass

exodus of blacks from the rural South to the urban North. In
East St. Louis, Illinois, the number of blacks jumped from
nearly 6,000 to perhaps as many as 13,000 between the years
1910 and 1917. The increase in the percentage of blacks
relative to the total population was even more startling, rising
from ten percent to perhaps eighteen percent. Not surpris-
ingly, the white population felt threatened by this influx. Its
fears were greatest in the areas of housing-where the
[308] JOURNAL OF BLACK STUDIES / MARCH 1974

migrants came to "invade" white neighborhoods-and jobs,

due to the increased competition. Complicating the situation
was a new determination on the part of blacks to claim their
fundamental rights.
The situation was ripe for one of the largest race riots in
our history. Actually, the riot consisted of two separate
outbreaks, the first coming in late May, the second-and far
more serious one-coming about a month later in early July2
(see Rudnick, 1964).
Even before the first outbreak, newspapers in the area
seemed to play on the sensitivities of the people. In May,
news stories told of an impending residential "invasion" by
blacks. On the last weekend of the impending violence, a
series of fights broke out featuring a clash between some fifty
blacks and whites. With more than a faint trace of pride, the
St. Louis Republic reported that, while blacks fired more
than a dozen shots, their defeat at the hands of their
adversarieswas decisive.
What the news accounts of the time failed to mention was
that whites had also carried weapons. Instead the emphasis
was on the automatic pistols and loaded revolvers in the
possession of blacks. Given the frontier-like status of East St.
Louis in 1917, guns were in fact plentiful among both
groups. But because white citizens were not, as a general rule,
subjected to routine searches by the police, a dispropor-
tionate number of blacks were arrested for carrying con-
cealed weapons. On the rare occasion when a white man was
arrested, the local newspaper did not usually take the trouble
to do a story. Thus, the discriminatory treatment meted out
to blacks by the police and press alike helped confirm the
stereotyped picture of "gun-totin' niggers."
Throughout the riot unverified statements, unfounded
stories, and unsupported conclusions were continually issued
as indisputable facts. Some of the errors were less serious
than others. The East St. Louis Daily Journal greatly
exaggerated on two occasions (May 29 and June 3) when it
 Knopf / RACE, RIOTS, AND REPORTING [309]

reported that more than 6,000 blacks had left the city. In
fact, some blacks (though considerably under 6,000) did go
to St. Louis between May 29 and May 30, in all probability
to avoid trouble. But several days later, when the riot had
subsided, most returned to their homes. Newspapers also
overstated the situation in reporting that the mobs were
comprised of "10,000 blood-crazed whites." While the active
participants undoubtedly enjoyed the support of thousands
of bystanders along the streets, the groups of assailants were
actually quite small, usually comprised of twenty-five persons
at most.
Far more reprehensible and dangerous were the journalistic
lapses into rumor-mongering which exploited white fears.
Misreporting of testimony allegedly given at the coroner's
inquest provides an appropriate example. The St. Louis
Republic ran a banner headline: "25,000 Whites Were
'Doomed' in Negro Murder Plot." According to the account
that followed, the riot on July 2 had actually forestalled a
plot to massacre innocent women and children on July 4.
Prominent citizens were reportedly marked for assassination,
while blacks were supposedly making preparations to march
through the city, killing and plundering along the way. Other
newspapers added their own embellishments to the story.
The East St. Louis Daily Journal asserted that the invasion
army was to contain 1,500 men in three divisions. According
to its story, the invasion would have been carried out, were it
not for an alert police officer who discovered the plot. (How
convenient when the "invasion" failed to materialize!)
Following the publication of these stories, the St. Louis
Post-Dispatch interviewed members of the coroner's jury and
found no evidence whatsoever to support charges of a plot.
Unfortunately, the net effect of such inflammatory stories
was to condone rather than explain the riot and to usher in
another tense period bordering on hysteria. In the weeks
following the riot, a powerful black invasion force was seen
everywhere. Frightened families were unable to sleep; some
[3101 JOURNAL OF BLACK STUDIES / MARCH 1974

whites in middle-class sections fled their homes; while other

townspeople formed vigilante committees.
Without doubt the most serious example of rumor-
reporting by the press (serious in the sense that its damaging
consequences were immediately apparent) came just prior to
the second wave of violence. Misreporting an incident that
took place on July 1, newspapers charged that blacks had
lured police to a predetermined spot where the policemen
became the defenseless victims of an armed attack. The
details of this incident have been reviewed earlier in this
article. We might point out here that this particularinstance
of misreporting constitutes one of two cases in which an
inflammatory and distorted news account actually precip-
itated the violence. The other case involves the riot in
Washington, D.C., to which we now turn our attention.

WASHINGTON,D.C. (1919)

The most serious interracial violence that our country had

experienced up until that time occurred during the summer
of 1919, called by James Weldon Johnson "The Red
Summer." The race riot occurring in Washington, D.C., in the
month of July was the first to receive national attention. At
least 1,000 white citizens participated in the violence, 2,000
federal troops were called in, and the rioting lasted four days.
But for our purposes, the chief significance of the riot is that
it was precipitated by a series of rumors prominently
featured in the local press. Prior to this riot, the daily
newspapers, especially the Washington Post, needlessly and
incorrectly played up alleged attacks on white women by
blacks. These news stories included large front-page headlines
as well as predictions of lynchings following the capture of
the assailants.
One story on July 19, 1919, was especially provocative
and directly triggered the riot. On the second page, the Post
 Knopf / RACE, RIOTS, AND REPORTING [311]

reported another case of an alleged assault with the headline:

NEGROES ATTACK GIRL...
WHITE MEN VAINLY PURSUE

The body of the story indicated that the "attack" consisted

of an incident in which two blacks jostled a young lady on
her way home from work and tried to take her umbrella.
After their "insulting actions" were met by resistance, the two
men fled. Significantly, the original story mentioned that the
girl was the wife of a man who worked in the naval aviation
department. In a matter of hours after the story appeared,
some 200 sailors and marines lynched two black suspects
who had been released by the police, and then began
indiscriminately beating blacks, both men and women. The
riot had begun.
In its voluminous report which touched on the Washington
riot, the Chicago Commission on Race Relations (1922: 585)
stated that the total number of alleged assaults previously
reported in Washington newspapers was seven. In each case, it
was claimed that a black man had assaulted a white woman.
In fact, four of the seven assaults involved black women.
Furthermore, three of the suspects arrested and held for
assault were white men, and at least two of the white men
were later prosecuted for attacks on black women.
To assert that there would not have been a riot had the
press been more restrained and more accurate would be to
oversimplify the situation considerably. Underlying factors
were, of course, present at the time. A large influx of
Southern whites and blacks, competition for wartime jobs,
and the increased frustration of blacks over discrimination
must be acknowledged as important contributing factors.
Nevertheless, irresponsible reporting on the part of the press
served to whip up the passions of the people and clearly set
the stage for the riot. As Waskow (1967: 22) states: "The
existing conflicts were brought to a boil by opportunistic
journalism."
[312] JOURNAL OF BLACK STUDIES / MARCH 1974

The deficiencies in reporting, however, were by no means

restricted to the Washington press. Loyal readers of The New
York Times today might well spill their morning coffee if
they could read the blatantly racist message contained in the
following editorial appearing in America's most prestigious
newspaper on July 23, 1919 (italics added):
The majority of the negroes [sic] in Washingtonbefore the great
war were well behaved.... More of them admitted the superior-
ity of the white race, and troubles between the two races were
undreamedof. Now and then a negro intent on enforcing a civil
rights law would force his way into a saloon or a theatre and
demand to be treated the same as whites were, but if the manager
objected he usually gavein without more than a protest.

The editorial proceeded to take note of "a criminal element"

among blacks and suggested the police might have had a
much easier time quelling the riot had it not been for this
group.

OMAHA(1919)

The riot in Omaha, Nebraska, had its origin in a highly

disturbed social climate. Months before the outbreak, blacks
were repeatedly denounced as criminals by the chief of
police, members of organized labor, and the local press. In
April 19 17, a meeting of 600 blacks sponsored by the
NAACP accused local newspapers-with justification-of
"using in glaring and sensational headlines expressions of
special reference to the race." At the time of the riot, in
September, the county attorney complained of unfounded
rumors that blacks accused of rape were being allowed to go
free. The same official also voiced concern over published
reports in some local newspapers which charged that he had
failed to file complaints involving rape. Brandingsuch charges
as "ridiculous," the county attorney said he had never even
 Knopf / RACE, RIOTS, AND REPORTING [313]

granted interviews attributed to him by these papers.

Given the tense atmosphere, it was not surprisingthat the
riot began with an especially vicious lynching of a black
accused of raping a white girl. After forcing the man's release
from jail, a mob of whites dragged the helpless man through
the streets, shooting more than a thousand bullets into him.
The mob proceeded to burn the mutilated body, leaving it to
hang from a trolley pole in a busy downtown area. Federal
troops had to be dispatched to restore order.

ELAINE,ARKANSAS(1919)

Several days after the riot in Omaha, rumors of a black

insurrection burst upon the nation. The town of Elaine was
reportedly under siege by heavily armed blacks. On October
1, 1919, the Arkansas Democrat reported it had received
messages to the effect that blacks "were massing from over
the county."
The rumors had their origin-at least in an immediate
sense-in a meeting of sharecroppers held in a country
church. Dissatisfied with the abusive practices of the planta-
tion owners, the blacks had organized a "ProgressiveFarmers
and Household Union of America." The group's purpose in
meeting was to formulate a strategy that would force the
landlords to make an equitable settlement. Unfortunately,
the meeting came to an abrupt end and with a violent clash
between a group of deputy sheriffs and the Progressive
Union.
Two entirely different versions later emerged as to what
had happened, with each version developed along racial lines.
According to the "white" explanation, the deputy sheriffs
had been traveling in the area for reasons that had nothing to
do with the Progressive Union, and were not even aware of
the meeting inside the church. Stopping in the vicinity of the
church because of a flat tire, the group was suddenly fired
[314] JOURNAL OF BLACK STUDIES / MARCH 1974

upon by guards who feared the discovery of the Union's plot

to murder whites. Thus, members of the Progressive Union
initiated a savage attack on the sheriff's group and other
whites.
Blacks said that no plan to murder whites existed; that
whites had panicked after somehow learning about the
prospective demands on the plantation owners; that on
September 30, a barrage of shots had been fired into the
church; and that a large group of armed whites burned the
church the next day so as to destroy evidence of the
unwarrantedattack.
Although facts were at a premium at the time, this did not
deter the press from immediately embracing the white
explanation of events. A news story appearing in the
Arkansas Gazette on October 2, 1919, is at once typical and
instructive. The body of the story made reference to
"numerous stories and rumors and suspicions" circulating
among whites:

Returning possemen brought numerous stories and rumors and

suspicions, through all of which ran the belief that the riot was
due to propagandadistributedamong the negroes [sic] by white
men. It was clearlyindicated,they said, there was an organization
of negroesantagonisticto the white residentsin the southernpart
of the county.

By the end of the article the tenuous views of the white

possemen were meshed with those of the white reporter filing
his report; in fact, the two sets of views were indistinguish-
able. The last paragraphread:

It is stated that on good authority that negroes [sic] of the

vicinity of Elaine have been holding secret meetings at night and
that unidentifiedwhite men had been circulatingliteratureamong
them.

It was not clear who or what the "good authority" was.

Many years later, in his careful review of the evidence on
both sides, Waskow (1967: 134) concluded as follows:
 Knopf / RACE, RIOTS, AND REPORTING [315]

the weight of the evidenceindicatesthat the originalwhite

versionof events in PhillipsCounty was false, and that the
Negroeswho joined the Progressive
Unionwere not planninga
massacre.

At the time, however, rumor proved to be a more potent

force than reason or restraint. Word spread like wildfire that
blacks had launched an insurrection. In the ensuing reign of
terror, scores of blacks were shot and several killed.

CHICAGO(1919)

Of all the race riots during "The Red Summer," the one
occurring in Chicago stands out as the most serious. The
violence raged for four days; 38 persons were killed, 23
blacks and 15 whites; about 1,000 persons were left
homeless.
In an exhaustive investigation made by the Chicago
Commission on Race Relations following the riot, no group
came in for more extensive criticism than the press. In a basic
sense, the press was accused of contributing to the poor state
of race relations by its handling of general news concerning
blacks. Studies conducted by the commission disclosed that
local newspapers tended to overemphasize crimes involving
blacks against whites, while underplaying crimes in which
whites were the aggressors against blacks (for example,
bombing incidents of homes in which blacks lived). The
effect was to convey a stereotyped picture to the reading
public in which the entire black race was branded as criminal.
With reference to the riot, much of the criticism concern-
ing the press centered on numerous instances in inaccuracy,
distortion, exaggeration, and sensationalism. For example,
several weeks before the riot, the press added to the tensions
in the community by misreporting an incident in which a
white saloon-keeper died of a heart attack. Accounts appear-
[316] JOURNAL OF BLACK STUDIES / MARCH 1974

ing in the local papers indicated that the man had been killed
by a black. That evening a raiding party of young whites
riding in an automobile fired on a group of blacks.
During and after the riot, the press continually echoed
rumors already circulating in the white community, thereby
giving them additional credence. The following list of
headlines from local newspapers is really no more than a
rundown of such rumors:
ALD. JOSEPH McDONOUGH TELLS HOW HE WAS SHOT AT ON SOUTH
SIDE VISIT-SAYS ENOUGH AMMUNITION IN SECTION TO LAST FOR
YEARS OF GUERRILLA WARFARE [Daily News, July 30, 1919].
NEGROES HAVE ARMS [Herald-Examiner, July 28, 1919 ].
FOUR BODIES IN BUBBLY CREEK [Daily News, July 29, 1919].
RED PLOT NEGRO REVOLT
I.W.W.BOMBPLANTFOUND ON SOUTHSIDE [Herald-Examiner,
January
4, 1920].

In each case, the headline was either not explained, not

elaborated, or not documented in the body of the story. But
at least the local press was not alone in its preoccupation
with plots and conspiracies-indeed, such sentiments were
even more pronounced outside the Chicago area. The New
York Times, for example, was an early and enthusiastic
advocate of the conspiracy idea. In a strongly worded
editorial appearing exactly one day after the riot broke out
(July 28, 1919), the Times charged that the outbreaks in
Chicago and Washington were not spontaneous, and involved
"intelligent direction and management." The editorial made
reference to another news story on the same day in which a
federal official (unidentified) exhibited to the Times a
supposedly seditious black periodical. The magazine (not
named) reportedly contained articles urging blacks to join the
I.W.W. and left-wing Socialist organizations. Adding a more
sinister cast to the story was the unexplained revelation that
the magazine "was illustrated and is printed on the finest of
newsprint paper." The Times case for conspiracy also rested
 Knopf / RACE, RIOTS, AND REPORTING [3171

on the assumption that because the riots in Chicago and

Washington were closely linked in time, they must therefore
be part of a master plan.
It might be worth citing the Chicago Commission's (1922:
635-636) finding that such charges of conspiracy had no basis
in fact and, as with so many rumors at the time, were rooted
in the minds of an excited public-and press, we might add.

LOS ANGELES (1943)

For more than a year before the riot in Los Angeles, the
local press, especially the Hearst newspapers, whipped up
anti-Mexican sentiment in the community-needlessly head-
lining every case in which a Mexican-American was arrested,
prominently displaying photographs of Mexican-Americansin
zoot-suits, and continually prodding the police to make more
arrests. The effect was to create a climate of fear and
reprisal-a conclusion reinforced by a content analysis of the
press undertaken by Turner and Surace (1956). For their
study the two researchers examined the Los Angeles Times,
the largest of the four dailies, considered responsibly con-
servative, and a newspaper with no connection with the
Hearst chain. The analysis spanned ten and one-half years,
from January 1933 until June 30, 1943, encompassing the
riot period. The findings showed the culmination of a trend
at the time of the riot in which the newspaper's references to
"Mexicans," evoking ambivalent reactions, tended to be
displaced by the term "zoot-suiter," a symbol with predom-
inantly negative connotations. Unlike the term "Mexican"
which, to some extent, conjured up visions of the distant and
romantic past, the latter phrase suggested only a sordid
picture of a social outcast, lacking in moral character and, as
befits a deviant individual, not entitled to the usual standards
of justice and fair play. The phrase was associated with sexual
offenses and other crimes, gangster activities, and even
[3181 JOURNAL OF BLACK STUDIES / MARCH 1974

draft-dodging. It thus became the basis of the following

proposition: all Mexican-Americans were "zoot-suiters;"
all "zoot-suiters" were criminals; therefore all Mexican-
Americans were criminals. The effect on the mind of the
public was to encourage a stereotyped picture of Mexican-
Americans, one with almost exclusively negative connota-
tions. For Turner and Surace (1956: 20) the symbol
"zoot-suiter," embedded in the mind of the public by an
incautious press, resulted in unambivalent community feel-
ings which could accommodate and support aggressivecrowd
behavior: "This new association of ideas relieved the commu-
nity of ambivalence and moral obligations and gave sanction
to making the Mexicans the victims of widespread hostile
crowd behavior."
The actual riot began on a Thursday evening, June 3, after
a group of young men of Mexican descent assembled at a
police station to discuss ways of preserving peace in the
community. At the conclusion of the meeting, the youths
were driven in a squad car to the area where most of them
lived. Shortly later, the boys were attacked in what proved to
be the first of a series of vicious assaults made over the next
few nights. The disturbance reached its height on Monday
evening, June 7, when a crowd estimated at 1,000 persons,
and mostly comprised of soldiers and sailors, set out to
unleash its fury on every "zoot-suiter" it could find. Angry
mobs of people invaded downtown movie houses, bars, and
streetcars, all in search of victims. Mexican-Americans and a
few blacks were dragged through streets, kicked, beaten and,
in some instances, stripped naked and left lying on the
pavement.
Once the riot was underway, the stereotyped picture of
Mexican-Americans found expression in a series of inac-
curacies and distortions by the press. These errors were
disseminated by the major newspapers of the city and
constituted the "official version" of what had happened.
 Knopf / RACE, RIOTS, AND REPORTING [3191

The official version was woven together with the following

strands. First, press reports suggested that Mexican-Americans
were the aggressorsand that the servicemen had merely acted
in self-defense. While there were a few cases in which some
Mexican-Americans may have initiated attacks, in reality, the
servicemen were the main perpetrators of the violence.
Nevertheless, just as the violence in the city had subsided,
news stories appearing in late-afternoon editions of the
Hearst newspapers, the Los Angeles Examiner and the Herald
& Express, along with Harry Chandler's Los Angeles Times,
warned of an armed attack by "zoot-suiters" that night:
"We're meeting 500 strong tonight and we're going to kill
every cop we see." The Herald & Express blazoned:
"ZOOTERS THREATEN L.A. POLICE." It is significant
that these predictions were based upon nothing more than a
purported anonymous call to police headquarters. It is also
significant that the worst of the violence occurred that night
as soldiers, sailors, and white civilians took to the streets
following publication of these reports.
Second, news stories conveyed the misleading impression
that all the young Mexican-American participants were
criminals, gangsters, and hoodlums. For example, the Exam-
iner blared: "Police Must Clean Up L.A. Hoodlumism." The
first paragraph of an editorial stated: "Riotous disturbances
of the past week in Los Angeles by zoot-suit hoodlums have
inflicted a deep and humiliating wound on the reputation of
the city." In fact, while juvenile delinquency was on the
increase in the city since the start of the war, it had risen less
among Mexican-Americans than any other ethnic group.
Furthermore, there was no such thing as a "zoot-suit gang" in
the criminal sense of the word. The so-called "gangs" in the
area were actually loose conglomerations of neighborhood or
geographical groups, with little or no organizational struc-
ture. Many of these groups were, as McWilliams(1943: 819)
put it, simply "boys' clubs without a club house."
Even the term "zoot-suiter," with all its sinister overtones,
[3201 JOURNAL OF BLACK STUDIES / MARCH 1974

was misapplied by the press. The attacks on Mexican-

Americans were indiscriminate; many of the victims were not
wearing zoot-suits. McWilliams estimated that "perhaps not
more than half" the victims wore zoot-suits. Nevertheless,
press reports at the time used the term repeatedly in
situations where it did not apply. In one instance, a story
appearing in the Los Angeles Times on June 9 indicated that
the police had rounded up 200 youths, and that "only a few"
were wearing zoot-suits. Yet other related headlines, captions
and stories-all in the same newspaper-made reference to
"zoot clashes," "zoot-suit gangs," and "wearers of peg-
trousers." Even Time magazine (1943) which took a con-
structive stand in criticizing the Los Angeles newspapers,
chose to title its story "Zoot-Suit War."
For sheer inventiveness, however, the Los Angeles Daily
News on June 8 surpassed all other journalistic efforts at the
time by condensing the largest number of errors into the
smallest space possible. A headline appearing over a story
read simply: "Zoot-Suit Gangsters Plan Waron Navy."

FINDINGS

In reviewing the six cases, the writer discerned one or more

of the following characteristics which, taken together, may
be said to constitute a general pattern of misreporting:

(1) Rumor-mongering. Unverified reports disseminated by

the press ran the gamut of rumors circulating in the white
community. In a study (Knopf, 1974) of rumors and riots for
the same time period (1917-1943), certain themes were
found to be salient among each race. Included in the themes
discerned among whites and concerning blacks were: (a) rape
rumors-reports of sexual assault by blacks against white
women; (b) black brutality rumors-all kinds of violent,
criminal acts by blacks (subsumed under the general heading
of black brutality were several other themes including
 Knopf / RACE, RIOTS, AND REPORTING [321]

predictions of violence and atrocity stories-tales of outra-

geous, horrible deeds allegedly committed by blacks); (c)
conspiracy rumors-reports of massacres, the stockpiling of
arms, uprisings and insurrections supposedly planned by
blacks, but never proven.
In unsubstantiated news stories, headlines, and editorials
which merely echoed rumors floating through the white
community, blacks were frequently seen beating, raping,
shooting, murdering, plundering and plotting against whites.
Such misreporting was found prior to as well as during the
riot period. In at least one case, an inaccurate and distorted
report actually precipitated the riot-i.e., East St. Louis,
where unverified news stories charged that blacks had
arrangedto ambush the police.

(2) Race-baiting. If rumors spread by the press fed the

fears of whites, then repeated and unwarranted attacks on
blacks by the press undoubtedly fed their prejudices. In
sensationalized and inflammatory news accounts-especially
in the preriot period-blacks were continually presented in an
unfavorable light, while their activities, accomplishments, and
contributions somehow went unnoticed. The area of crime
was a favorite baiting ground. Criminal acts involving blacks
against whites were overemphasized, while, at the same time,
similar acts in which whites were aggressors were under-
played. News stories and photographs concerning black
arrests were another prominent feature, while white arrests
on the same charges tended to go unreported. Interestingly
enough, crimes committed by blacks against other blacks
received relatively little coverage. Newspapers did not seem
to have been particularly concerned with black activities
except when they bore on the interests of the white
community. Evidence of race-baiting was discerned in four
out of the six cases. In one case (Washington, D.C.) a
singularly provocative headline, implying that blacks had
sexually assaulted a white girl, was directly responsible for
the initial outbreak of violence.
[322] JOURNAL OF BLACK STUDIES / MARCH 1974

(3) Loaded language. The tendency of the press to use

terms with negative connotations when referring to blacks
represented a special form of race-baiting. In line with the
prevailing belief that there was something peculiarly criminal
about blacks, newspapers frequently entered into vicious
denunciations, branding the entire race as criminal. Even
during those riots where whites were the obvious aggressors,
it was not uncommon to find blacks-the innocent victims-
labeled as rowdies, hoodlums, and gangsters. At times the use
of the value-laden terms was a bit more subtle, as when the
Los Angeles newspapers kept referringto Mexican-Americans
as "zoot-suiters" before and during the riot in that city.
While the inclination of the press to use loaded language may
have done little to clarify the events going on at the time, it
did make it much easier for the general public to confirm in
its own mind which guys were wearing the white hats.

(4) Advancing the white version of events. Given the fact

that most of the riots involved direct confrontations between
two hostile groups, and given the general chaos of the time, it
was not surprising that two versions of the events among the
antagonists usually emerged-one white, the other black.
Nevertheless, despite the responsibility of the press to present
a balanced account of the proceedings, numerous instances
were uncovered whereby the white version of events was
impulsively, if not automatically, adopted by the press-
thereby becoming the official version. All too often, and on
the basis of virtually no evidence, blacks were incorrectly
blamed as the aggressors and main perpetrators of the
violence, while whites were portrayed as the defenseless
victims. Lending added significance to this finding is the fact
that this misreporting came at at critical time when many
citizens-anxious, confused, and bewildered-were seeking
details and information, trying to understand the tragic
events before their eyes.
 Knopf / RACE, RIOTS, AND REPORTING [323]

It would of course be foolhardy as well as unfair to make

harsh generalizations about the entire press on the basis of
eleven cases. But our findings are at least highly suggestive
that the errors concerning the riots in East St. Louis in 1917
and Cleveland more than fifty years later do not simply
represent minor "goofs" of no particular significance, but are
part of a more fundamental and more serious pattern of
misreporting.
To be sure, not every error uncovered in our study can be
traced to a general pattern of bias. Early statistical reports,
for example, fall into this category. Black as well as white
newspapers were prone to miscalculate (usually exaggerate)
the number of casualties, the size of crowds, the amount of
property damage, and the like. Considering the confusion of
the time, in addition to the exigencies of newspaper
deadlines, these kinds of errors were not unexpected. Our
main concern is with those errors which seemed to come at
the expense of blacks and perpetuated a distinctly white
point of view in the nation's press.

ROOTSOF MISREPORTING

Given the nature of our findings, we are led to ask the

following questions: What is the source of this bias against
blacks? What is it about the system of reporting that has
invited, if not encouraged, this tendency? A natural inclina-
tion to sensationalize the news may provide a partial answer
to these questions, for any picture of murderers, gangsters,
criminals, and plotters is almost guaranteed to whet the
appetite of the average reader. The difficulty with this
explanation, however, is that it begs the question of why
blacks rather than whites have continually been the object of
attention. After all, there is really no reason to suppose that a
picture of whites engaging in these same violent activities
would not prove just as exciting and stimulating to the same
reader. Thus sensationalism as an explanation appears to lead
us just so far.
[3241 JOURNAL OF BLACK STUDIES / MARCH 1974

The notion of a conspiracy by the press-despite the

widespread currency of this view among many activitists
today-provides an even less satisfactory answer to the
questions posed. Aside from the fact that no hard evidence
exists to support this view, the picture conjured up of a
bunch of "press barons" meeting secretly to devise ways of
keeping blacks down, is no more plausible than the picture of
blacks continually conspiring against whites. Moreover, it is
important that we draw a distinction between cause and
effect. While the net result of the kind of misreporting
uncovered in our study may well have been to help maintain
the status quo, it does not necessarily mean that the press has
pursued such a course as a matter of conscious policy. The
press has been woefully irresponsible at times, yes, but
inherently evil, no. If only the latter diagnosis were correct,
then the bad guys could simply be exposed by Nader's
Raiders and sent to a special home for wayward journalists.
(Or better yet, they could all be exiled to the New York
Daily News.) As it is, the conspiratorial view remains an
overly sinister and simplistic explanation, while adding
virtually nothing to our understanding of the problems facing
the press.
Probably the best explanation for the kinds of deficiencies
uncovered by our survey can be found in the very structure
of the press itself. For when we speak of the general press, we
are really speaking about the white press-white-owned,
white-controlled, white-operated, white-dominated, and
geared to an almost exclusively white audience. Throughout
its history, the press has been comprised of thousands of
individuals who, by and large, come from and represent the
mainstream of American life. Is it not therefore likely we
should find the press expressing the prevailing sentiments of
the dominant majority?
What complicates matters is that the traditional views of
the public have tended toward the conservative side and have
been generally weighted against blacks. Further complicating
 Knopf / RACE, RIOTS, AND REPORTING [3251

the picture is the fact that these views have been modified-
but not to any great extent over time. In its section on public
opinion, the Chicago Commission on Race Relations (1922:
438-440) listed a number of beliefs held by whites against
blacks. Included in the list were the following:

(1) Blacks are naturally criminal. "There is . . . no section of the

country in which it is not generally believed by whites that
blacks are instinctivelycriminalin inclination."
(2) Blacks are basically immoral and promiscuous. "Another of
these primary beliefs is that Negroes are not yet capable of
exercising the social restraints which are common to more
civilizedwhite persons."
(3) Blacks are overassertive. "Constant harping on constitutional
rights is a habit of Negroes, especially of the newer genera-
tion; . . . in their demandsfor equal rightsand privilegesthey are
egged on by agitators."

Despite the significant advances in science and an impres-

sive body of literature in recent years which have either
disproven or placed these beliefs in proper perspective, the
basic views of whites toward blacks have not changed terribly
much. Forty years later Newsweek (1963: 50) published the
results of its own nationwide survey showing huge pockets of
racism in our society: "The prejudices documented in the
Newsweek poll are so widespread that it may come as news
to many Americans that they represent a naive amalgam of
fiction, distortion, and half-truth."
The latest cycle of racial disturbances which began in the
mid-sixties has actually coincided with a hardening of white
attitudes. A more recent poll by Newsweek (1967: 18) found
that whites were:

more inclined than at any time in recent years to admit to

stereotyped views reflecting anti-Negro prejudice, e.g., that
Negroes are lazier, more slovenly, more immoral and less
intelligentthan whites-and more prone to violence.
[3261 JOURNAL OF BLACK STUDIES / MARCH 1974

In an unpublished survey of six Northern cities by the

Lemberg Center made at about the same time, 77% of all
whites interviewed believed that "outside agitators" were a
major or contributing cause of disorders-this despite a
notable lack of evidence. Similarly, more than half the white
respondents (54%) believed that hoodlums were likely to get
involved in disturbances, while only 2 1%felt that people who
were "fed up" were apt to participate. (These beliefs come in
the face of studies conducted by the Kerner Commission and
others showing riot participants to be more dissatisfied about
conditions than nonparticipants. The same studies also failed
to show a disproportionate number of "criminal elements"
involved.)
The picture of the black man-aggressive, violent, criminal,
prodded on by agitators-should have a familiar ring to the
reader. Public opinion surveys underscore just how pervasive
negative and stereotyped white views about blacks are and
suggest that the press has mirrored these views, sharing the
perceptions of the larger society. But the role of the press has
not been entirely passive. Like an actor before his audience
longing to please, the press has not been above playing to its
audience-pandering to the fears, frustrations, and hostilities
of the general public. In this sense, the press stands highly
accountable for the kinds of misreporting revealed in this
study.

NOTES

1. In 1917-East St. Louis (Illinois). In 1919-Washington, D.C., Knoxville

(Tennessee), Omaha (Nebraska), Elaine (Arkansas), and Chicago. In
1935-Harlem. In 1943-Beaumont (Texas),Los Angeles,Detroit,and Harlem.
2. To date, there have been relatively few case histories of racial riots.
Rudwick'sthoroughaccount is thereforean extremelyvaluablecontributionto
our knowledge.
 Knopf / RACE, RIOTS, AND REPORTING [3271

REFERENCES

ChicagoCommissionon Race Relations(1922) The Negroin Chicago:A study of

Race Relations and a Race Riot. Chicago:Univ. of ChicagoPress.(reprinted
by ArnoPressand The New YorkTimesin 1968)
GRIMSHAW,A. D. (1959) "A study in social violence: urbanrace riots in the
UnitedStates."Ph.D.dissertation.Universityof Pennsylvania.
KNOPF, T. A. (1974) Rumors, Race and Riots. New Brunswick, N.J.:
Transaction.
McWILLIAMS,C. (1943) "The zoot-suit riots." New Republic (June 21):
8 18-820.
NEWSWEEK (1967) "Afterthe riots: a survey."(August21): 18-19.
---(1963) "How whites feel about Negroes: a painful Americandilemma."
(October21): 44-55.
RUDNICK,E. M. (1964) Race Riot at East St. Louis, July 2, 1917. Carbondale:
SouthernIllinoisUniv. Press.
SHIBUTANI,T. (1966) ImprovisedNews: A SociologicalStudy of Rumor.New
York:Bobbs-Merrill.
Time (1943) "Zoot-suitwar."(June21): 18-19.
TURNER,R. H. and S. J. SURACE(1956) "Zoot-suitersand Mexicans:symbols
in crowdbehavior."Amer.J. of Sociology 62 (July): 14-20.
WASKOW A. I. (1967) From Race Riot to Sit-In,1919 and the 1960's: A Study
in the Connections Between Conflict and Violence. Garden City, N.Y.:
Anchor.