What do you think?
Telling the Story: The Armenian Genocide in The New York Times and Missionary Herald
Telling the Story focuses on two leading journals, The New York Times and Missionary Herald, to see how news of the Armenian Genocide filtered through to the United States between 1914-18. It also looks at how the American public reacted to such news with a humanitarian intervention program. There were undoubted differences between the two journals, as The New York Times was a leading news organization while Missionary Herald was part of an institution with vested interests in Turkey. However, the flow of information to the United States was clear and compelling, especially as many reports were actually written by United States officials in Turkey and leaked to the press by the State Department in Washington DC.
Telling the Story is an invaluable addition to our understanding of the Armenian Genocide and United States policy in the Near East.
Telling the Story is an invaluable addition to our understanding of the Armenian Genocide and United States policy in the Near East.
234 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2012
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review
February 12, 2013
I requested this book, recently published, because the premise (and much of the format) is very similar to my own Master's Thesis.
While I appreciated seeing the style and reading some of the insights the author made based on the information, the book itself was not that great. Elbrecht could have done a better job at connecting the coverage of the New York Times and the Missionary Herald. The only connection in the book was based on the time period and a few other brief references. Because Elbrecht did not connect the coverage of the two papers, the switching back and forth made for a disjointed read.
It also seemed very dry, almost like a time line of events. (The events themselves were certainly not dry, though that was the only emotion in the telling.) The book could have been much more compelling if the author had given a purpose for why she told to story, or at least attempted to prove the point she mentioned briefly in the introduction and conclusion.
I am glad that more academic work is being done on the topic though and hope that more people will read this book and use it as a starting point for further and better research, writing and publication.
While I appreciated seeing the style and reading some of the insights the author made based on the information, the book itself was not that great. Elbrecht could have done a better job at connecting the coverage of the New York Times and the Missionary Herald. The only connection in the book was based on the time period and a few other brief references. Because Elbrecht did not connect the coverage of the two papers, the switching back and forth made for a disjointed read.
It also seemed very dry, almost like a time line of events. (The events themselves were certainly not dry, though that was the only emotion in the telling.) The book could have been much more compelling if the author had given a purpose for why she told to story, or at least attempted to prove the point she mentioned briefly in the introduction and conclusion.
I am glad that more academic work is being done on the topic though and hope that more people will read this book and use it as a starting point for further and better research, writing and publication.
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review