Tweet
After the initial murder of several laborers on May 3, 1886, laborers demanded a meeting among the remaining laborers be held the following night after work was done. It was a protest near their workplace, Haymarket Square, and the reality of it was it was held to achieve a fair wage, and reasonable hours for laborers there and eventually across the country. Unfortunately, the protest slowly descended into a riot when an individual in the protest’s audience said something inflammatory about law-enforcement and a still unknown assailant launched a bomb into the middle of the crowd. Violence and chaos broke out, resulting in more deaths and the conviction of eight radical protestors in the assumed connection with the bombing. Law enforcement assumed the projectile was meant for them.
Firsthand accounts state several objections against the supposed events that took place at Haymarket Square that day. For example, it was not called a riot, or even a protest, though it was that by definition. The gathering was referred to as a mass meeting, and its initial intent was not to change anything about the laborers day or wages, but to examine the brutality experienced by fellow working men at the hands of local law enforcement. Great speakers were advertised, rather than deadly projectiles, and it appeared the only aim was to understand what steps could be taken against law enforcement should it happen again. The workingmen in the area were so adamant about this goal flyers were printed in different languages to accommodate immigrants, allowing for the largest gathering possible. It is important to note only eight people died during the riot on May 8, and while this is devastating, especially to the families of these individuals, the mass media used these deaths to their advantage. For example, illustrated newspapers characterized a bomb being thrown into a crowd of police officers. It was followed by a police officer dying and being consoled by a priest. There is no visual mention of the protestors, and the first panel is made to look as though a disobedient citizen launched a deadly projectile into the middle of a group of police officers for no reason. This, however, was not the case. Further panels in the same illustrative newspaper show law enforcement charging, “murderous,” workmen during the riot, depicting them as the immediate villainous party, and the law enforcement as the heroes. The periodical clearly indicates the workforce was not protesting, but instead acting unruly, as well as generally acting out against law enforcement. It is important to address the inaccuracy in this because without the Haymarket protests labor today might look very different.
Despite their efforts to change the average workday and other aspects for a laborer in America, the end of the Haymarket Riot was largely considered a failure, as well as a setback for America’s organized labor union. This was largely because the labor union was not heard. For example, they were fighting specifically for an eight-hour workday, rather than a day deemed justified for pay by the supervisor, and this was overshadowed by police brutality mislabeled as heroism. Unfortunately, the inaccurate media coverage also forced many in the labor union to view the eight convicted individuals who were later executed as martyrs. The union began to fracture at this point. The mass media understood the strategy that needed to be used in order to win; it had to fracture the group, while making the villain look like the hero. Many periodicals, including the illustrative newspapers found it easier and more efficient to do this through pictures. An illustration of a dying police officer being consoled by a priest sticks in a reader’s mind much longer than a lengthy report about the actual events. Moreover, if the protestors are not included in the illustration at all, there is no need to even dehumanize them, as they are completely removed from the scenario. The particular tactic used by the dissenters, i.e. martyrdom and meetings, would have been effective had it not been for the widespread misrepresentation of events; they held a meeting with speakers based on previous events concerning working men and law enforcement. Furthermore, they had simple goals in mind and were willing to attempt to meet them as a group. The labor movement would have been a quicker success without the unnecessary and violent intervention of police, as well as the overwhelming and sweeping coverage of the media, allowing citizens to view the laborers as rioters, rather than agents of changes.
The periodical account for this specific act of dissent was significant for several reasons, the primary of which being law enforcement launched the initial attack on May 3, 1886, and for seemingly no reason. Laborers were assembled peaceably causing no disruption to others. Furthermore, they had clear goals to accomplish that would help the American labor union. Unfortunately, there was no mention made of this prior, initial incident in the periodical. Instead, the only reports made were based around the incident that occurred on the following day, wherein laborers assembled again, a bomb was launched into the crowd, and law enforcement once more rushed the crowd. At this point, the periodical had a chance to speak the truth about the labor union, as well as the unfair treatment they received. In addition, there was no evidence to state who had thrown the bomb into the crowd, meaning it could have been a laborer, a police officer, or even a bystander. The periodical did not report or investigate on any of this and instead chose to make law enforcement look like the victim. It began to create a complex social structure between the working individual and police, reinforcing an, “us versus them” dialogue that has lasted until today. While not all police officers would behave this way, reports of these incidents are made largely in this manner. There is nobody who speaks with an unbiased voice, nor a periodical that speaks on behalf of laborers or the common citizen. As was the case with the Haymarket riot, the periodical allowed for the peaceful act of dissent with the intention to make a working day fairer for all working class individuals appear to be a violent riot against police officers. No biased journalism is evident in any capacity, giving proof that not only was the periodical unbiased, but perhaps on a mission to vilify the working class, making it more difficult for the American labor union to achieve fair hours and wages in the future. It oversimplified the dissent simply by not mentioning the dissent itself at all. It was easier and more effective for their purposes to focus on the violence that broke out as a result of the law enforcement’s reaction, as well as the ignition dissent, rather than the root of the issue. While dissent such as this eventually shifted public opinion, the periodical managed to turn the labor union against itself, successfully creating a biased environment.
In sum, how acts of dissent are covered can impact how we view them. The Haymarket riot began as a peaceful act of dissent to achieve fair standards for the working class, including a standard workday and fair wages. Police created a violent and tumultuous situation surrounding the act of dissent, leading to a riot. Rather than focusing on the two-day situation as a whole, or investigating the dissent itself, the media focused on how painful the violence was for police officers to endure, presenting a biased view of the situation and creating a narrative set against the average laborer. The media was biased against this act of dissent.
References
"Blood and the Bomb," The Fort Worth Daily Gazette (Fort Worth, TX), May 5, 1886.
"Chicago's Wild Mobs," The Sun (New York, NY), May 6, 1886.
"Haymarket Meeting." Chicago: Haymarket Laborers, 5 May 1886.
"The Anarchists," The Salt Lake Herald (Salt Lake City, UT), July 17, 1886.
Bunnel, C. "Labor Troubles in Chicago." Frank Leslie's Illustrated Paper 15 May 1886: 198.