audience for this collection, is its overall commentary on Wells-Barnett’s advocacy reporting strategies, which stand in stark contrast to the ways in which previous scholars have conceptualized black press journalism generally. Joe Hayden and R.J. Vogt emphasize how much Wells-Barnett relied on carefully vetted facts—rather than emotion—to convey the horrors of lynching. “Wells was trying to counter propaganda with facts, logic, and moral principles, weapons with which she was well-armed, but in the United States she was outgunned in terms of sheer publicity,” writes Hayden (p. 22) in a sardonic nod to today’s “post-truth” climate. Vogt (in an essay in Part 2 describing what modern journalists might learn from WellsBarnett) does a particularly good job of de-marginalizing her work—and by extension, the work of the black press—and recasting it within the normative values of American journalism. In histories of American journalism, black press newspapers have often been treated as interlopers and outcasts for “eschewing” principles of objectivity held so dear by mainstream publications in favor of using advocacy reporting practices. What this collection shows is that Wells-Barnett was clearly working as a truth-seeking, evidence-based journalist, and perhaps those “driven by emotion” were not the advocacy reporters of the black press but rather the racist journalists who failed to cover lynching objectively. Overall, the collection captures Wells-Barnett’s fierceness, fearlessness, and stubbornness in a way that not many previous works on her have. However, I believe its real contribution is how it extends her legacy beyond “just” a story of a fearless pioneer. In particular, contributions from Hayden and Vogt (punctuated by Kathy Roberts Forde’s powerful indictment of the southern press, which serves as the collection’s afterword) have implications for how journalism scholars generally have created artificial categories of “objective” and “advocacy” journalism—classifications that ring more hollow than ever in 2019.

中文翻译：

---

通过报纸报道的美国民权运动史：种族议程，第1卷

本次展览的观众是对Wells-Barnett的倡导报告策略的整体评论，与以前的学者一般性地将黑人新闻业概念化的方式形成鲜明对比。乔·海顿（Joe Hayden）和RJ沃格特（RJ Vogt）强调，威尔斯·巴内特（Wells-Barnett）在很大程度上依靠经过仔细审查的事实（而不是情感）来传达私刑的恐怖。海登（Harden）（第22页）写道：“威尔斯试图用事实，逻辑和道德原则来反击宣传，她拥有精良的武器，但在美国，她的宣传能力远远超出了宣传。”向今天的“后真相”气候致敬。沃格特（在第二部分的一篇文章中，描述了现代记者可能会从WellsBarnett中学到什么）在消除她的工作的边缘化方面做得特别出色-进而，黑人新闻的工作-并在美国新闻业的规范价值观内进行改写。在美国新闻史上，黑人新闻报纸经常被视为“逃避”客观性原则的闯入者和抛弃者，客观原则在主流出版物中非常受欢迎，赞成采用倡导性报道做法。该收藏集显示，Wells-Barnett显然是一名寻求真相，基于证据的记者，也许那些“受情绪驱动”的人不是黑人新闻界的鼓吹记者，而是未能掩盖私刑的种族主义记者。客观地。总的来说，该系列以一种以前很少有的作品来捕捉到韦尔斯·巴内特的凶猛，无畏和强。然而，我相信它的真正贡献是如何将她的遗产扩展到“仅”一个无所畏惧的先驱者的故事之外。特别是，海顿和沃格特（Hayden and Vogt）的贡献（被凯西·罗伯茨·福特（Kathy Roberts Forde对南方报刊的有力指责，作为该刊集的后记）打断了点滴），这对新闻学者通常如何创建“客观”和“拥护”新闻主义的虚假类别具有影响。该戒指在2019年比以往任何时候都更空心。