In May of 1894, socioeconomic inequality was growing in America with the

explosive industrial economy. Big business had just taken its roots and the

powerful new CEOs vacuumed up Americas admiration, replacing farmers old

spot. The reality was that for every powerful CEO, there were thousands of poor

working-class people with minimal, if any, prospect of advancement. These

working-class peoples only protection from greedy savagery by the executives of

the companies are unions, which is exactly the route that the Pullman workers

tried to go down. That is, until Pullman fired three union organizers the day after

they organized a protest for wage cuts. This firing sparked a mass protest that

would come to involve more than 90% of Pullmans 3,300 workers and later train

operating crews across the country. The question is, how justified is each parties

actions and did the media fairly present both sides of the argument to the public

at the time?

The documents provided mostly show two opposing ends of the reporting

spectrum, one that is framed to side with the workers striking and one that is

framed to side with the business and its executives. The Chicago Times was

clearly more sympathetic and rational when reporting on the workers involvement

in the strike while the Chicago Tribune reporting was more sensationalized and

irrationally painted the workers in a negative light. For example, a Chicago

Tribune excerpt shown in document 4 states continued and menacing

lawlessness marked the progress yesterday of Dictator Debs. The Tribune

obviously did not have to use words like menacing lawlessness and Dictator

Debs, but chose to with the intention of trying to subconsciously mold the
readers perspective of the event. Another example is how the Chicago Times

reported in document 2 The real but remote cause is the question of wages over

which the men have long been dissatisfied. Here the Times is simply acting as

the messenger for all the workers they came in contact with, not spinning the

issue in either direction. The real contrast here lies with the fact that in none of

the documents sourced does the Tribune once, even vaguely, attempt to explain

the reasoning the workers have for protesting.

Because of the inherent bias in some of the reporting, certain groups of

people would only have a desire to read reporting with a certain undertone. It is

only natural for humans to try to look for information that conforms to their beliefs

instead of forcing their beliefs to conform to new information. As such, it seems

reasonable to say that the majority of Americans at the time this strike was a

current event favored the Chicago Times. The paper consistently approached

reporting the strike cautiously as to not misinform the public, while never shying

away from the real heart of the issue. For example, in document 6 the Times

reports The perpetrators are not American Railway Union men. The people

engaged in this outrageous work of destruction are not strikers, most of them are

not even grown men. The persons who set the fires yesterday on the authority of

the fireman and police are young hoodlums and the police on the scene

apparently didnt care to or would not make arrests. It is imaginable that a

regular middle class worker would read something like that in the newspaper that

day and think the protests were legitimate displays of justified rebellion.
 On the other hand, the Tribune consistently gave the business the benefit

of the doubt and scarcely challenged it in any capacity. As a result, it seems

reasonable to say that business owners would be more inclined to like the

reporting of the Tribune at this time. After all, it is fathomable that another

business owner would be more likely to empathize with Pullman and his pickle of

wanting to acquire as much personal wealth as possible and trying to pay

workers a somewhat decent wage. For example, the Tribune reports in document

5 Not less than $750,000 possibly a whole $1,000,000 of property has been

sacrificed to the caprice of a mob of drunken Anarchists and rebels. In this

example, the first reason business owners would be likely to favor the reporting

by the Tribune is that they immediately would empathize with the loss someone

has to take to pay for that damaged property. The second reason is again the

connotation in the diction used to report it, using words like sacrificed to the

caprice of a mob of drunken Anarchists and rebels that would appeal to those

with frustration toward the strikers.

The document that does not fall on either end of the reporting spectrum is

document 7 by Nellie Bly. Nellie Blys approach was to write her initial thoughts

before becoming fully informed and then to write the contrast to her original

thoughts after she became informed. She stated she had come to Chicago very

bitterly set against the strikers and then stated Before I had been half a day in

Pullman I was the most bitter striker in the town. Nellie Bly arguably has the

most relatable and thus persuasive article of all the documents sourced due to

the fallibility she showed in the article. She states, Ive [flip] flopped, as they call
it, and I am brave enough to confess it. If ever men and women had cause to

strike, those men and women are in Pullman. Over the course of Blys article,

she goes from being bitterly set against the strikers to explicitly admitting that she

was wrong about them initially to taking stories from the workers so that she can

improve their situation by creating public accountability through reporting of those

stories. Anyone can relate to being wrong about something and having to admit

they were wrong.

So what caused all of this? Like most times when a lot of people suddenly

demand change, people were getting tired of the way things were for some time.

The textbook reports that between May and December 1893, workers saw their

wages slashed five times for a total of at least a 28% cut in pay. During this time,

some companies, Pullman included, made entire towns for their workers to live in

where they owned the living quarters and rented them out to the workers. Well

while the workers got 5 pay cuts totaling at least 28%, their living expenses did

not go down one cent. Pullman insisted, the renting of the dwellings and the

employment of workmen at Pullman are in no way tied together. The textbook

reports that the problems were not simply economic inequity but also the

companys attempt to control the work process, substituting piecework for day

wages and undermining skilled craftsworkers. The synergy of these problems

caused the American Railway Union to pay attention to Pullman and send its

representatives to Pullman to establish itself among the workers. Pullman

recognized that an organized union is not good for his bottom line and fired three

organizers of the union the day after they protested wage cuts. That firing is the
straw that broke the camels back that triggered more than 90% of Pullman

workers and the train operators around the country going on strike. Not only

economic, but also social conditions like soaring inequality and inadequate living

conditions led workers to strike. The textbook reports about a man who after 2

weeks of work and his mandatory rent subtraction from his check, earned 47

cents. That type of working environment is simply unsustainable for humans;

eventually it cannot be tolerated anymore.

The media at any time in history greatly influences how populations look at

current events. What words they use to describe it, whose story they decide to

give more credibility and/or time to, the issues that are brought up in the first

place are all essential aspects of the medias influence. This strike and its

portrayal is still relevant today, today the media has the same balancing issues to

take into account with their obligation to report the news and keep the powerful

accountable and their obligation to not make their advertisers look bad. The

lessons learned from Pullman and the media at that time are timeless lessons

that will unfortunately be largely ignored as to allow history to repeat itself as it

usually does.