This study deals with press performances by The New York Times before and during the trial of President James A. Garfield’s assassin, Charles J. Guiteau. The study focuses on how The New York Times - in news columns, headlines and editorials - covered the event during this emotionally charged time in American history. Evidence was abundant to support the contention that a madman stereotype was created by the newspaper that would have made it difficult for the defendant to receive a fair trial had the trial been held in New York City rather than in Washington, DC, where the crime occurred..
Much of the coverage of the trial by The New York Times painted a picture of the defendant as an obstinate, erratic, fanatical, crazy, eccentric and wicked person who turned to assassination to wreak vengeance on the person he thought dashed his hopes for a public office. A front page story on July 3, 1881, one day after the assassination, carried a headline that read: "President Garfield shot by an assassin," and described Guiteau as a "half-crazed, pettifogging lawyer who has been an unsuccessful applicant for office under the Government, and who has led a precarious existence in several of the large cities of the county." Never was Guiteau referred to as the accused or the suspect, but instead he was identified as the assassin, the murderer, the dastard, the traitor, the wretched miscreant, the abominable creature, the crank, the crazy fraud, the dead-beat, the dastardly criminal and the miserable felon.
The New York Times did not act responsibly in its reporting of the Guiteau case. It never questioned jury selection. It never reported in a way so as to provide the defendant with a presumption of innocence, constantly referring in headlines, stories and editorials to the defendant as if he were already judged to be guilty. Of course, what appears to be irresponsible press performance must be weighed against the prevailing public opinion at the time. Inappropriate and unconscionable by modern standards, the newspaper’s performance in 1881 and 1882 closely mirrored public sentiment.
The evidence gathered in this study suggests that the newspaper yielded to the public clamor and perhaps acted in concert with the prosecution. The paper’s coverage reflected much of the public opinion that Guiteau was sane when he committed the crime, and the constant diatribe from the pulpit from ministers who wanted to hasten Guiteau’s demise reverberated in news columns, editorials and headlines. It is apparent that the paper was instrumental in created a crazed or madman stereotype even as the paper sought to portray Guiteau as sane for purposes of expediting his conviction. The paper left little doubt as to Guiteau’s guilt or fate. In performing as it did, The New York Times abdicated its watchdog role. Had the trial been held in New York City instead of Washington, DC, Guiteau could well have been denied a fair trial based on prejudicial, unfair newspaper reporting prior to and during the trial.
Back to the 1998 Symposium Program
Back to the Symposium Index
UTC Communication Department
comments to: commdept@cecasun.utc.edu