Skip to main content

Don Martin, Soldier of the Pen – Introduction

This daily blog has the ambition to bring back to life WWI war correspondent Don Martin, and to make a contribution to the history of American journalism as a contribution to the centennial celebration of the Great War. It is written for the one-hundredth anniversary of Don Martin's death and the end of the Great War, World War I. 
The Great War, which began in August 1914, finally ended in November 1918, just a month after Don Martin’s death from Spanish influenza in France. Much has been written about World War I and the eventual important involvement of the United States. The American public did not go joyfully into this far-off conflict. There was strong opposition to sending an army, and President Woodrow Wilson’s narrow reelection victory in 1916 was helped by the slogan “He kept us out of the war.” When Wilson changed his mind in 1917, the United States Committee on Public Education was set up to engage Americans in supporting the war. It carried out a successful campaign to get Americans to support sending their sons to fight, to provide financing through Liberty Bonds, and to produce an immense amount of munitions, military equipment, clothing and food. 
From the beginning of American involvement with the Great War, control and later censorship of the press was enforced by the American government, initially in line with America’s declared “neutrality”. Reports from the war front by American war correspondents were problematic. Eminent American war correspondent Richard Harding Davis, who had covered many wars including the Spanish American and Boer War in South Africa for the New York Herald, went over when the Germans invaded Belgium in 1914 for the New York Tribune. Upon observing the German takeover of Brussels and Louvain, he found he could not give a “neutral” report on what he saw happening, and his editors declined to print his dispatches because they ran counter to America’s “neutrality.” Davis returned to the U.S. and wrote a best seller about his WWI experiences. He suffered a heart attack and died in April 1916. 
In 1914, the leaders of the allied governments took actions to stop and prevent reporting. British Lord Kitchener, Secretary of State for War, had reporters banned from the Front at the start of the war. A few reporters lived as fugitives near the Front, sending back their reports. Eventually, the British Government in April 1915 accredited selected war correspondents, but kept them under rigid censorship. In America the Woodrow Wilson administration at first attempted to censor not only newspaper accounts of the war but books and magazines. This caused a strong reaction by the press in the effort to gain journalistic freedom. Walter Lippmann, a highly respected journalist and commentator, warned at the time that manipulation of the press through government's "public relations" was highly dangerous.
  However, by 1918 the situation was different. Dr. Margaret Spratt, reviewing Chris Dubbs' book American Journalists in the Great War (Roads to the Great War, Nov 7, 2017), wrote: By the time the U.S. entered the war in 1917, attitudes about the usefulness of the war correspondent had evolved. Rather than viewing them, at best, as nuisances, and at worst, as unwitting spies, the military embraced the significance of accurate and sympathetic reporting. As General Pershing noted, "In this war, I consider a trained newspaperman worth a regiment of cavalry" (p. 203).

    War correspondents became fully integrated into the military system as mouthpieces for the 'official' version of events The U.S. military welcomed and accommodated representatives from American newspapers and organizations near the front – but under strict control and censorship rules.  The major news organizations competed to provide the best coverage of the war, sending their best reporters to serve as ‘war correspondents’. James Gordon Bennett,Jr., owner of the New York Herald, selected his top political journalist, Don Martin, to cover the American Expeditionary Forces in France.

Comments

  1. This is extremely useful background information. It gives us a great way to appreciate the new opportunities and enduring constraints under which Don Martin did his work. I'm looking forward to seeing how Martin negotiates this journalistic and humanitarian challenge.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

‘New war with Israel at any moment’, ‘still digging through rubble’

The news about Iran has taken an ominous tone in the last couple days. Here is some reporting and commentary.  Newsweek on August 18, 2025, reported that Yahya Rahim Safavi, senior military adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, said ‘ We are not in a ceasefire; we are in a stage of war. No protocol, regulation, or agreement has been written between us and the U.S. or Israel. A new war with Israel could break out at any moment .’  Yonah Jeremy Bob commented in The Jerusalem Post on August 19, 2025, that ‘ Khamenei can either “drink from the poisoned chalice” of diplomatic concessions … or face more airstrikes, possibly next time some targeting him directly ’.   Bob also noted that ‘ right now Iran is still digging through rubbl e’. The U.S. attacked Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan on June 22. Two months of digging. No surprise that there has been no public news about that.

Assessing possible outcomes of the snapback mechanism

The initiation by the E3 of the 30-day snapback mechanism in the UN Security Council makes everything more difficult and there is great uncertainty about the outcome. Will it be peaceful with a new nuclear deal with Iran, negotiated by the U.S., endorsed by the UNSC and verified by IAEA, or will Iran withdraw from NPT with further military action by Israel and the U.S.?                 To perhaps shed a little light on what the outcome will be, here is my analysis of how the players - Iran, U.S. and E3 - may be assessing the acceptability of the range of outcomes. Four levels of acceptability were used: 1 Fully acceptable; 2 Less acceptable; 3 Just acceptable; and 4 Not acceptable. Four near term 30-day outcomes are listed, and two optimistic outcomes with an interim U.S.-Iran agreement reached within a 6-month extension.                 For the 30-day near term, the best outcome would b...

‘Making nuclear fuel’ under the NPT

It is with some hesitation that I take issue with the latest publication of the renowned Henry Sokolski and Sharon Squassoni on August 15 in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, titled: “ Actually, the NPT doesn’t guarantee a right to make nuclear fuel .”  But someone should defend the IAEA and international safeguards! Here are points in question.            ‘ The [NPT] treaty was designed to prevent dangerous bombmaking activitie s.’  NPT is far more complex than that. It is common to state the three pillars of NPT: nuclear disarmament; nuclear nonproliferation; and peaceful uses of nuclear technology. Nonproliferation involves the commitment of non-nuclear states not to pursue nuclear weapons and to accept IAEA inspection to confirm that commitment is being followed. Perhaps Sokolsky intends to refer to INFCIRC/153, which lays out how IAEA and the state cooperate to carry out that confirmation. If so, INFCIRC/153 is not designed to ‘prevent’...