Ellen Browning Scripps


In my past post, I discussed the overall impact that Ellen Browning Scripps left on the field of journalism, as well as the society around her. She was truly one of those people that truly wanted to make the world around her a better, more financially sound place and that is what I admire the most about her. She was worth $30 million, but yet still wished to remain modest and frugal throughout her life to donate to charities and setting up funds for the benefit of humanity. 

As such, for a woman to be in possession of such a substantial amount of money was almost unheard of, especially in that era, where the country was facing a depression after the tumultuous civil war. She made logical, educated choices in what she should invest her money into and also how to efficiently save money as well.

She left behind such a significant legacy when she passed away. To this day, there are a plethora of monuments, establishments, hospitals, ad schools in her name to commemorate all that she gave to society around her, especially to children and adolescents, hence why she donated so profusely to the YMCA and YMCA. 

To her, ensuring that children had a stable and intellectually enriching and inspiring environment within access was of the utmost importance. 

It came as no surprise to hear of people talking very highly of the philanthropist back when she passed away. I managed to find an older New York Times article discussing the lasting impact that she made on society and how her legacy will continue on. What I was upset about is that it focused a lot on the accomplishments of her brothers as opposed to her. 

While she appeared to be remembered fondly in the article, it made it difficult to read about them when she was the one who passed away and deserved more recognition of her lifetime work than she got. She sacrificed so much, and truly deserved to have so much more than that smaller article written about her briefly discussing her financial achievements.

 I also had to remember that society and the press were much different back in 1932 and I could see why many would find it unusual to write about a woman millionaire who was not married. It introduced a revolutionary legacy that she left behind conveying that you do not have to marry to become influential and to make an impact on society. 

In a 1905 article, the same concept of not elaborating more on her specific achievements annoys me quite a bit. She is one of the most accomplished female figures of the 19th century and I think somehow, newspapers failed to report that, in a sense. 

The article from 1905 specifically talked about how E.W.'s business savvy investments in different newspapers led to his financial success. With Ellen, they merely stated that she was a woman of prominent financial stature. 

She was so much more of a revolutionary figure than that, and I wish the press could have potentially revealed that more in past media release to leave more of a lasting impact on generations such as mine. 

  



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

EOTO Part I: Ellen Browning Scripps

Censorship in our Society

How Journalism Affects War