Anti-Labor Bias of The Media
In the day following the massacre, the Chicago Tribune bore the front page headline “4 DEAD, 90 HURT IN STEEL RIOT”, with smaller subtitles, “POLICE REPULSE MOB ATTACK ON S. CHICAGO MILL” and “26 Bluecoats Are Injured in Battle”. The use of the words “RIOT”, “MOB”, “ATTACK”, and “Battle” are examples of the anti-union bias of the Chicago Tribune, that many local publications of the time shared. From the very first glance at the paper, the Tribune tried to paint a story of a riotous mob attacking police, in which the police were overpowered. The word battle also made it seem as if the demonstrators had been able to fight back against police. As shown in pictures of the massacre this was simply not true. The Chicago Tribune was not the only anti-labor source though. George Patterson, a labor organizer during the massacre, recounted the public’s reaction to the newspapers, “I saw pictures of myself, pictures of strikers lying on the ground, and I turned around to watch the reaction of the customers. It was amazing how they'd shake their heads and say, 'These damn workers, they ought all to be shot.'” (Eyes on Labor, Carol Quirke). The public’s negative reaction to labor unions and strikes could be held partially accountable to the media, as they often portrayed incidents between strikers and police as battles of equals, rather than an attack on innocents. According to “The Memorial Day Massacre and the Movement for Industrial Democracy”, by Michael Dennis, “the Chicago press labeled strikers a wild mob of dangerous reds (Communists)”.
However, one journalist spread the truth of the police’s brutality. According to Eyes on Labor, “Reporter Paul Anderson, a Lafollette Committee ally, broke the story of the newsreel's contents was the first mainstream journalist to suggest that police killed strikers without a cause.” Anderson claimed, “workers were deliberately murdered in cold blood by the Chicago Police Department as a friendly favor to the Republic Steel Company”. In support for this argument, “He described Sam Popovic, whose "brains literally had been beaten out" (Eyes on Labor). The New York Times reprinted his article and “The National Headliners Club awarded Anderson a gold medal for his exposé, which they thought transformed public attitudes toward the strike” (Eyes on Labor). Paul Anderson took a stand against untrue claims made by the media in his article on the massacre and helped change public opinion on labor unions.
Civil Liberties Committee
The Chicago coroner’s jury acquitted all police involved in the massacre, saying the killings of the 10 civilians were “justifiable homicide” (Chicago Tribune, July 21, 1937), and the “mob” was blamed for trying to “invade” the mill. However, “The Senator La Follette civil liberties committee blamed the police for using ‘excessive force’ against the strikers” (Chicago Tribune, July 25, 1937). The committee came to this conclusion after a thorough investigation involving the use of photographs and video shot during the massacre and witnesses from both sides. As stated in Eyes on Labor by Carol Quirke, “La Follette then proffered a picture of Kilroy watching as police beat downed workers. Pressed to explain, Kilroy said the the victim looked as if her were ‘posing for a picture’”. Such a ridiculous notion could never be taken seriously, and a theme of odd suggestions like these continued with the police testimonies. Quirke continues with, “Sergeant Lyons testified that what appeared to be the batons in photographs were creases in officers' pants; guns in police hands he transformed to photographic smudges or the strikers' missiles; police pulled not guns from holsters, but hankies from pockets.” (Eyes on Labor) Obviously those claims were lies meant to take away blame on the police and place it on the demonstrators. Through his questioning, La Follette took a stand against the police and made it obvious that they were lying about the amount of force used during the massacre.