Printed press evolves together with the society that presents a demand for it. The changes that accumulate over may include language and word choice, stylistic features and tone, as well as structure and presentation. This is why it may be fruitful to compare newspaper pieces on the same topic and published in the same area yet separated by a century. Two articles on supporting American troops from Columbia, Missouri – one from the 1917 issue of The Evening Missourian and one published in the same paper, now named Columbia Missourian, in 2020 – represent a good example. While they discuss the same topic of supporting military personnel, the older article uses a more ceremonial tone, flowery language, and gender-exclusive word choice.
One difference that immediately catches the eye is the fact that the older articles’ language is markedly non-gender-inclusive. When talking about supporting American troops currently fighting in Europe in the First World War, the article in The Evening Missourian rarely fails to use gendered language to describe them. It consistently refers to soldiers as “men,” “fighting men,” or “our boys” (Gray & McPheeters, 1917, p. 5). This stands in stark contrast to how the media, including Columbian newspapers, refer to the service personnel of the United States military in the 21st century. An article in Columbia Daily Tribune, also dedicated to the necessity of helping those who serve their country, uses strictly non-gendered language simply referring to “veterans” (Feffer, 2020). This difference in word choice evidently reflects the shift in the gender composition of the armed forces that has occurred in the past 100 years. Apart from reflecting the actual gender composition of the military, it also signifies its perception for each period. While being a soldier was seen as an invariably male profession a century ago, it is not anymore, and the articles reflect that.
Another difference between the two pieces is stylistic, as the article from 1917 uses a much more flowery language than the one from 2020. Generally speaking, the former is much more elaborate in its style and does not shy away from using fancy words and lengthy descriptions. For example, when discussing the difficulties endured by soldiers, the authors refer to them as “the manifold dangers and bitter hardships that beset the men in the trenches” (Gray & McPheeters, 1917, p. 5). In contrast, the contemporary article is much more reserved in this regard. At one point, the author quotes Larry Washington, a participant in the “Mask a Vet” campaign launched by the United States Exercise Tiger Foundation, that “a lot of veterans are homeless” (Feffer, 2020). This is as far as the article goes in listing and describing the difficulties experienced by veterans. The prevalence of flowery language most likely signifies different stylistic preferences in the newspaper’s audience back in the day. As for the general wordiness, it is likely a testimony to the mindset of earlier readers who were willing to read longer pieces with lesser concentration of information.
Yet another nobel difference that strikes the eye when reading the articles next to each other is that of tone. The piece from The Evening Missourian is pronouncedly solemn and describes the effort to improve the soldiers’ condition at the frontline in almost pompous terms. Passages like “a stirring record of heroic and efficient work for the preservation of health and morals among the millions exposed to the horrors… of war” are quite common (Gray & McPheeters, 1917, p. 5). The piece from Columbia Daily Tribune, on the other hand, adopts a neutral tone that does not convey any emotional predisposition and is not nearly as solemn. For example, the article simply mentions that the United States Exercise Tiger Foundation “was founded in 1989 in order to help veterans and active military” rather than refer to it with pompous reverence (Feffer, 2020). This difference most likely owes just as much to the stylistic preference of the time as the flowery language discussed above.
As one can see, the two articles separated by 103 years of history demonstrate significant stylistic and lexical differences despite being written on similar topics and published in the same locality. A 1917 piece from The Evening Missourian uses gender-exclusive language to designate the service personnel of the US military, while the recent article from Columbia Missourian opts for gender-neutral language instead. In terms of style, the older article is considerably wordier and uses elaborate and colorful language. As for the tone, the pronouncedly solemn promulgations of the older piece stand in sharp contrast to the neutral tone of the modern article.
References
Gray, O. D., & McPheeters, H. M. (1917). The War Work Council of the Young Men’s Christian Association of Missouri provides for soldiers and sailors. The Evening Missourian, 5.
Feffer, A.(2020). Photo Gallery: Columbia organization takes to the air to help veterans fight COVID-19. Columbia Missourian.