Newspaper quotes can be wrong, here’s an example

[Dempsey-Louis]

It is probably better to read the article first and then my remarks; my remarks will make more sense.

Here is I believe an excellent example of why we have to be careful when quoting newspapers.

It is a common misnomer that the Sims Act (the prohibition against the interstate transportation of fight films) was a direct result of the Johnson-Jeffries fight (as this article erroneously states).

The Sims Act prohibiting the interstate transportation of fight films was passed by Congress on July 31st 1912, in direct response to the Johnson-Flynn fight (07-04-12 New Mexico), not the Johnson-Jeffries Reno fight from 07-04-10.

At the time of the Johnson-Jeffries fight in 1910 local authorities (city by city) did indeed prohibit the showing of the film, but Congress did not act on the issue until two years later (in response to the Johnson-Flynn fight.)

This article has the correct date for the passage of the law but references the wrong fight occurring 27 days earlier; ironically the correct date for the Johnson-Flynn fight.***

It is amazing that even as early as 1915 they were getting this wrong; confusing the two fights.

The Sims Act did indeed pass in 1912 but it was 27 days after the Johnson-Flynn fight.

Here is a primary source that fosters a wrong, that to this day, is constantly repeated.

*** The Johnson-Jeffries fight did occur two years and 27 days earlier; both fights were on the Fourth of July, probably making is easier for the writer to get it wrong.

[travestyny]

It is probably better to read the article first and then my remarks; my remarks will make more sense.

Here is I believe an excellent example of why we have to be careful when quoting newspapers.

It is a common misnomer that the Sims Act (the prohibition against the interstate transportation of fight films) was a direct result of the Johnson-Jeffries fight (as this article erroneously states).

The Sims Act prohibiting the interstate transportation of fight films was passed by Congress on July 31st 1912, in direct response to the Johnson-Flynn fight (07-04-12 New Mexico), not the Johnson-Jeffries Reno fight from 07-04-10.

At the time of the Johnson-Jeffries fight in 1910 local authorities (city by city) did indeed prohibit the showing of the film, but Congress did not act on the issue until two years later (in response to the Johnson-Flynn fight.)

This article has the correct date for the passage of the law but references the wrong fight occurring 27 days earlier; ironically the correct date for the Johnson-Flynn fight.***

It is amazing that even as early as 1915 they were getting this wrong; confusing the two fights.

The Sims Act did indeed pass in 1912 but it was 27 days after the Johnson-Flynn fight.

Here is a primary source that fosters a wrong, that to this day, is constantly repeated.

*** The Johnson-Jeffries fight did occur two years and 27 days earlier; both fights were on the Fourth of July, probably making is easier for the writer to get it wrong.

Sure, I see what you are saying here. But there are some things to consider.

1. This is not exactly what we were discussing in the other thread. We were basically discussing libel by misquotation.

2. This appears to be an honest mistake based on confusing the fights/the dates. Not such a big deal, but inaccurate nonetheless.

3. I think you're "right and wrong" about what the Sims act was a response to. Yes, it came about regarding the Johnson-Flynn fight, but it was definitely and obviously a result of the Johnson-Jeffries fight. The sims act was for sure being used as a way of quelling race riots (in it's most "benign" purpose, for lack of a better way to phrase this, because I don't believe it was truly meant in a positive way for sure). The confusion may have come from Thetus Sims himself mentioning specifically Jack Johnson when discussing the bill. "....Moving picture films of prize fights, especially the one between a negro and a white man, to be held in New Mexico on the 4th of July [1912]." Not sure why he said "New Mexico," but as the brackets seem to indicate, he felt no need to include the current year and this seems to have been shoddy reporter work, which is your point. But it did indeed and of course have something to do with Johnson-Jeffries.

4. When I try to find information of the Sims Act, I haven't seen anything say that it came about at the incorrect time mentioned above. All sources that I've found clearly state that it was in 1912 at the time of the FLYNN fight, but was at least linked to the Jeffries fight. So I'm trying to point out that it isn't such an egregious error to say that the Jeffries fight had a lot to do with this.


So of course newspapers can be wrong, and I've never tried to say that they can't be to be clear. But my point again is that this is very different from malicious altering of quotations, which clearly can happen, but there is an element of common sense to this, as Billeau stated, and information can be bolstered by other sources. Personally, I've given several sources for the information I've provided. For example, the quotation that we were discussing was responded to by Mullins, and his response was then responded to by Dempsey. There was no significant misquotation there.

[Dempsey-Louis]

Sure, I see what you are saying here. But there are some things to consider.

1. This is not exactly what we were discussing in the other thread. We were basically discussing libel by misquotation.

2. This appears to be an honest mistake based on confusing the fights/the dates. Not such a big deal, but inaccurate nonetheless.

3. I think you're "right and wrong" about what the Sims act was a response to. Yes, it came about regarding the Johnson-Flynn fight, but it was definitely and obviously a result of the Johnson-Jeffries fight. The sims act was for sure being used as a way of quelling race riots (in it's most "benign" purpose, for lack of a better way to phrase this, because I don't believe it was truly meant in a positive way for sure). The confusion may have come from Thetus Sims himself mentioning specifically Jack Johnson when discussing the bill. "....Moving picture films of prize fights, especially the one between a negro and a white man, to be held in New Mexico on the 4th of July [1912]." Not sure why he said "New Mexico," but as the brackets seem to indicate, he felt no need to include the current year and this seems to have been shoddy reporter work, which is your point. But it did indeed and of course have something to do with Johnson-Jeffries.

4. When I try to find information of the Sims Act, I haven't seen anything say that it came about at the incorrect time mentioned above. All sources that I've found clearly state that it was in 1912 at the time of the FLYNN fight, but was at least linked to the Jeffries fight. So I'm trying to point out that it isn't such an egregious error to say that the Jeffries fight had a lot to do with this.


So of course newspapers can be wrong, and I've never tried to say that they can't be to be clear. But my point again is that this is very different from malicious altering of quotations, which clearly can happen, but there is an element of common sense to this, as Billeau stated, and information can be bolstered by other sources. Personally, I've given several sources for the information I've provided. For example, the quotation that we were discussing was responded to by Mullins, and his response was then responded to by Dempsey. There was no significant misquotation there.

Thanks for the response.

I recognize the difference you are referring to, this is just poor reporting, not malice, but it has helped to confuse many.

Here I am using one source (Fight Pictures, A History of Boxing and Early Cinema) and making a mistake, the fight was planned for New Mexico while the bill was being debated but got moved to Vegas. At one point it was to be in Utah. Johnson, to no surprise was having a hard time finding a cooperative State.

Why I say it is directly related to the Flynn fight: Sims (and side kick Roddenberry) are on (congressional) record that they were determined to 'starve Johnson out of the championship by cutting off his revenue streams.' Johnson had bragged he would make ten times more money from the (Flynn) film. This is why Sims and the Southern 'blue dawgs' moved against fight films.

They tried to pass the bill before the fight (in June) but failed. After Flynn humiliated himself, and Congress reconvened, they passed the bill before the fiasco could hit the theaters.

If white society convinced itself to be humiliated by Jeffries performance (and they shouldn't have) imagine the violence that would have followed after Flynn's embarrassing performance.

This is when the northern based progressives got on board and there were enough votes. They had to stop the Flynn's humiliation from making it to the theaters.

Yes you are correct, the northern progressive reformers who also supported the bill, saw prize fighting as exploitation and for them the Jeffrries fight and its subsequent violence was the motivating factor and the Jeffries fight was often mentioned during the debate. There were two groups with different agendas.

What is funny, when Willard defeats Johnson (and the white man wins) three years later all the southerners thought the law would just go away and they would get to see the fight, but by then the progressives were now in power under W. Wilson and continued the prohibition, to the reformers it was never about race, but stopping prize fighting.

The correct date of the Sims Act is July 31st 1912.

[travestyny]

Thanks for the response.

I recognize the difference you are referring to, this is just poor reporting, not malice, but it has helped to confuse many.

Here I am using one source (Fight Pictures, A History of Boxing and Early Cinema) and making a mistake, the fight was planned for New Mexico while the bill was being debated but got moved to Vegas. At one point it was to be in Utah. Johnson, to no surprise was having a hard time finding a cooperative State.

Why I say it is directly related to the Flynn fight: Sims (and side kick Roddenberry) are on (congressional) record that they were determined to 'starve Johnson out of the championship by cutting off his revenue streams.' Johnson had bragged he would make ten times more money from the (Flynn) film. This is why Sims and the Southern 'blue dawgs' moved against fight films.

They tried to pass the bill before the fight (in June) but failed. After Flynn humiliated himself, and Congress reconvened, they passed the bill before the fiasco could hit the theaters.

If white society convinced itself to be humiliated by Jeffries performance (and they shouldn't have) imagine the violence that would have followed after Flynn's embarrassing performance.

This is when the northern based progressives got on board and there were enough votes. They had to stop the Flynn humiliation from making it to the theaters.

Yes you are correct, the northern progressive reformers who also supported the bill, saw prize fighting as exploitation and for them the Jeffrries fight and its subsequent violence was the motivating factor and the Jeffries fight was often mentioned during the debate. There were two groups with different agendas.

What is funny, when Willard defeats Johnson (and the white man wins) three years later all the southerners thought the law would just go away and they would get to see the fight, but by then the progressives were now in power under W. Wilson and continued the prohibition, to the reformers it was never about race, but fighting.

Well that's what I was wondering about (with regards to your last paragraph here). I wondered if they regretted this after Johnson finally lost.

And yea, agree with what you said above 100%. I was trying to find the words to allude to this not being solely about preventing race riots. It was clear that there was an alternate, more sinister agenda.

Man, what a mess. I've been meaning to rewatch "Unforgivable Blackness," but I haven't had a chance to just yet. Perhaps I will get to it this weekend. But because of your newspaper article today I've been looking around online and ran into some quotations from Jeffries that I either never knew about or never thought much of. You've at least made me weary of attributing them to him because I haven't looked into them much, and I don't really plan to honestly. But did he really say:

"I am going into this fight for the sole purpose of proving that a white man is better than a Negro."

I don’t care whether Johnson licks the Japanese army. . . . I have repeatedly declared that, so long as I am in the fighting business, I will never make a match with a black man. The negroes may come and the negroes may go, and some of the negroes may be excellent fighting men. Just tell the public that James J. Jeffries has made up his mind that he will never put on boxing gloves to give battle to an Ethiopian.

An Ethiopian? lol

Man, these were crazy times!

[Dempsey-Louis]

Well that's what I was wondering about (with regards to your last paragraph here). I wondered if they regretted this after Johnson finally lost.

And yea, agree with what you said above 100%. I was trying to find the words to allude to this not being solely about preventing race riots. It was clear that there was an alternate, more sinister agenda.

Man, what a mess. I've been meaning to rewatch "Unforgivable Blackness," but I haven't had a chance to just yet. Perhaps I will get to it this weekend. But because of your newspaper article today I've been looking around online and ran into some quotations from Jeffries that I either never knew about or never thought much of. You've at least made me weary of attributing them to him because I haven't looked into them much, and I don't really plan to honestly. But did he really say:





An Ethiopian? lol

Man, these were crazy times!

He said this in '09 LOL

[travestyny]

He said this in '09 LOL

hahaha. Wow. I'm definitely going to smoke some ribs and rewatch "Unforgivable Blackness" tonight. Man. I was just about to say that I wish I could have been around back then to witness this shlt, then caught myself about how stupid it would be to wish I was back in that time that was so disgustingly racist. What a place and time!

[billeau2]

Well that's what I was wondering about (with regards to your last paragraph here). I wondered if they regretted this after Johnson finally lost.

And yea, agree with what you said above 100%. I was trying to find the words to allude to this not being solely about preventing race riots. It was clear that there was an alternate, more sinister agenda.

Man, what a mess. I've been meaning to rewatch "Unforgivable Blackness," but I haven't had a chance to just yet. Perhaps I will get to it this weekend. But because of your newspaper article today I've been looking around online and ran into some quotations from Jeffries that I either never knew about or never thought much of. You've at least made me weary of attributing them to him because I haven't looked into them much, and I don't really plan to honestly. But did he really say:





An Ethiopian? lol

Man, these were crazy times!

Travesty

Yes he did! And here is the backstory....you can blame Jack London for this situation. London, a progressive, who fought for the rights of the working class strevedores on the docks of Oakland, London who wrote socialist essays and who loved animals writing "Call of the Wild and "White Fang."

London had a hatred for Johnson and rode out and convinced Jeffries that "White man's burden" dictated that he fight Johnson. Jeffries, by the way, was a soft spoken giant, who liked to farm and mind his business...London started that one.

After convincing him to stop farming alfalfa others came fourth and coerced Jeffries into fighting Johnson.

Its a really sad thing being that London was otherwise a decent guy, but that is quite a caveat.

[travestyny]

Travesty

Yes he did! And here is the backstory....you can blame Jack London for this situation. London, a progressive, who fought for the rights of the working class strevedores on the docks of Oakland, London who wrote socialist essays and who loved animals writing "Call of the Wild and "White Fang."

London had a hatred for Johnson and rode out and convinced Jeffries that "White man's burden" dictated that he fight Johnson. Jeffries, by the way, was a soft spoken giant, who liked to farm and mind his business...London started that one.

After convincing him to stop farming alfalfa others came fourth and coerced Jeffries into fighting Johnson.

Its a really sad thing being that London was otherwise a decent guy, but that is quite a caveat.

I was looking into some of Jack London's quotations yesterday actually. Seems there were some good quotations against racism by him, but at the same time, he's quoted as saying something like "It's up to Jeffries to win the championship back for the White man." That's not a direct quotation, but you get the gist, and that's probably one of the quotations you are referring to. Hopefully his quotations against racism came later and he realized how stupid racism is in the end.

[billeau2]

I was looking into some of Jack London's quotations yesterday actually. Seems there were some good quotations against racism by him, but at the same time, he's quoted as saying something like "It's up to Jeffries to win the championship back for the White man." That's not a direct quotation, but you get the gist, and that's probably one of the quotations you are referring to. Hopefully his quotations against racism came later and he realized how stupid racism is in the end.

Sadly it will never make sense. He was by all accounts a progressive guy who was a rascist. I think it was Behind the tar heel or something, he wrote a real progressive socialist work as well and there was the rascism. Also? an animal lover... It makes little sense really and shows how arbitrary we can be with cultural boundaries.

[Dempsey-Louis]

Sadly it will never make sense. He was by all accounts a progressive guy who was a rascist. I think it was Behind the tar heel or something, he wrote a real progressive socialist work as well and there was the rascism. Also? an animal lover... It makes little sense really and shows how arbitrary we can be with cultural boundaries.

I read an article that said he was a correspondent for the New York Herald (he covered the fight in Reno) where he is quoted, calling Johnson a "master mouth fighter."

I have no access to old Herald articles, I wonder if anyone does?

Maybe all the talk was about selling papers, then again maybe he was a racist.