Wounded Knee Press Coverage in Omaha 

A Nebraska Newspaper Comparison and Analysis 

 

  

 

Quincey Epley 

History of Nebraska, Fall 2022 

Dr. Mark Scherer 

Cressey, Charles H. Omaha Daily Bee, December 30, 1890, to January 3, 1891. 

“Bright Eyes” Susette La Flesche Tibbles and Thomas H. Tibbles. Omaha World-Herald, December 30, 1890, to January 4, 1891.  

December 5, 2022 

The Battle of Wounded Knee occurred December 29, 1890, on the Pine Ridge Reservation located on the border of South Dakota and Nebraska, and today is widely known as the Wounded Knee Massacre as 150-300 Lakota people were killed by United States Seventh Cavalry, who lost 25 men total. Two weeks prior, Chief Sitting Bull was shot and killed by the Indian Police causing high tensions leading up to the massacre. The way the media covered the events at Wounded Knee had a profound impact on public opinion relating to Indigenous peoples and United States military intervention. By looking at the press coverage in the aftermath, from December 30 to January 4, community sentiment can be better understood and put into context.  

Nebraska journalists were at the battle as it occurred: Charles H. (C.H.) Cressey of the Omaha Daily Bee, and Thomas Tibbles and Bright Eyes (Susette La Flesche Tibbles) of the Omaha World-Herald. Their accounts of the battle and aftermath align, but their methods of engagement with the Lakota people and the federal agents differed, as well as their perspective in their newswriting based on their own interests. The reporters all had first-hand accounts of the massacre and aftermath, but they heavily relied on the information given to them by unnamed scouts to gain the full picture. 

Cressey was with the army as the massacre happened and is said to have grabbed guns from dead or wounded soldiers and joined in the ranks as a volunteer.1 Because of the proximity to and participation in the massacre, his account served to justify his own actions and villainize the Native Americans. Cressey’s brothers were all Union soldiers in the Civil War, and later became clergy,2 which likely influenced Cressey’s worldview to be pro-military and pro-assimilation. Fear was his main reaction to the events. He warned that there could be another attack any time, with hopes of increasing paranoia in the readers. His coverage mainly focused on the tactics, successes, and tragedies of the military, and the ferocity and slaughter of the Native Americans 

On the other hand, Tibbles and Bright Eyes provided more balanced coverage of the events. Tibbles tended to write from the military perspective, while Bright Eyes wrote from her perspective as a Native American, and what she witnessed as she aided with treatment of the wounded. Tibbles and Bright Eyes had a history of Native American activism, especially with their association with the Omaha Nation and involvement in the Trial of Standing Bear a decade before. After the trial, couple traveled the United States with Standing Bear to advocate for Native rights. Their coverage would likely favor the Lakota, but it did not. They even advocated for General Miles to gain more control after the massacre, thinking it would help stop a larger clash from happening.3 Their work together showed a more fair, balanced representation of the massacre by representing both groups of people involved. They also did more research into the situation's context to identify potential causes of the battle. 

The language used varied greatly between the writers. Cressey consistently used “reds,” “devils,” “hostiles,” “squaws,” “savages,” and overall negative and derogatory descriptors for the Lakota, and positive descriptors like courageous, brave, gallant, and handsome to describe the soldiers. Tibbles consistently referred to the Lakota as Indians, and the soldiers as their titles of soldiers, generals, and the cavalry, using objective labels and far less emotionally charged language. Bright Eyes refers to “the white people,” and uses emotional language as she describes what she witnessed happening in the hospital after the massacre. She describes the graphic physical condition of the women and children there and describes the fear these people experienced and questions what would happen next for their people.4 

The day after the massacre, December 30, 1890, The Bee published the article by Cressey titled “A Bloody Battle” which separated the article with the subtitles summarizing: “Ordered to give up their arms; Sent to search the teepees; Pouring bullets into the ranks; It was a frightful rush; Fired a hundred shots; Pouring shots into the gulleys.” Followed by a list of army men killed and wounded. If a reader were skimming a newspaper, these would be the only part of the article they would likely read, and the wording favors the soldiers and paints the natives as defiant and the army as defensive against the “red assailants.” The same day, along with a list of soldiers killed and wounded, Tibbles wrote in the World-Herald, “It was a war of extermination now with the troopers. […] Down into the creek and up over the bare hills they were followed by artillery and musket fire, and for several minutes the engagement went on until not a live Indian was in sight.”5 This paints a different picture; perhaps the army’s motives started in defense but devolved into anger and revenge, in hopes to eradicate the defiant Native Americans. 

The day after the massacre, there was a large blizzard which prevented travel and assessment of the battleground which held more information about the massacre. Cressey wrote there were nine wounded people who had taken shelter under a log during the storm, and a few babies who were swaddled up and laid crying next to their mothers’ corpses.6 He said it was a mystery how they could have survived under such conditions, which implies that they are stronger, and their survival could be interpreted as an effect of the Ghost Dance invincibility that people feared. Fear grew in the non-indigenous groups due to this new practice of the “Ghost Dance” which some believed to be resistance to colonization and would grant the dancers immunity to bullets. White Americans feared this would bring indigenous groups together to revolt against the reservation system and assimilation practices in the United States. Both publications mentioned this practice in their coverage. Cressey wrote: 

 

By using this illustration, Cressey presented the reader with the notion that indigenous children are so accustomed to violence they are desensitized to the ongoing warfare in front of them. This implied that the whole band, tribe, or even all Native Americans are innately violent and dangerous and should be feared. Cressey continued to use the dance to strike fear in the readers by warning of an unnamed scout who saw a group of Natives only eight miles away involved in a war dance and trying to provoke the Army.9 Bright Eyes’s mention of the ghost dance occurs in the makeshift hospital after the massacre: “One young girl, who had a ghost shirt on underneath her clothes, said, ‘They told me if I put this on the bullets would not go through, and I believed them. Now see where we are,’ and then she cried.”10 This showed the reader that wearing a ghost shirt does not make Indians invincible but may have acted as a safety blanket to keep children from frightened by the colonizers and military presence. 

Bright Eyes gives more insight to the state of the reservation before and after the massacre. She illustrates the government and Indian Bureau’s “ugly spirit” by reporting excess medical supplies were not given to wounded Indians, and the useless material provisions given to them while their people were starving. She also notes that people living on the reservation had no way of making money outside of these provisions. The aspect that bothered Bright Eyes most is the government’s awareness of the problem, and the inaction in response. Hundreds of white women living near the reservation signed a petition to give the Sioux more rations, and Agent Gallagher advocated for them in the department, and both were ignored.11 Bright Eyes makes the connection between the government’s desire for the Black Hills and the tactics of starvation and violence to get it:  

Bright Eyes’s viewpoint shifts from the massacre being an unfortunate “causeless war” to it being a deliberate action of the United States against Indigenous peoples. She finds more evidence to support this theory when a group of “friendly” Indians went to their deserted camps and saw clothes, food, and tents, signaling they fled in terror because they believed Big Foot’s band were killed after their surrender.13 Tibbles also wrote of the neglect of the United States in his article “Disgraceful Incompetence,” and expressed similar disappointment in the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ management of resources and annuity payments that led to the inhumane living conditions on the reservation, and the lack of response to requests for intervention.14 Cressey did not mention conditions leading to the massacre in any of his writing and chose to focus on nearby “hostiles” in the Cheyenne tribe, military movement, and burial costs and practices for the deceased “hostiles,” which went against their cultural burial practices by burying them in an unmarked, communal gravesite.15 He then ended his writing, “There will probably be another big event in this vicinity within forty-eight and possibly twenty-four hours,”16 which fostered community fear and panic for the days to come, while blatantly diffusing blame or responsibility from the military. 

All writing contains some bias, but good journalism looks at all sides and reports all available viewpoints to let the reader make their own educated judgment or opinion. Objective reporting was even more important in an age when news was only accessible locally or regionally. Today, readers can easily fact check the media, but this was not possible or plausible for the average person to do in the 1890s. This happened right as we see widespread “Yellow Journalism,” which sensationalized the news like a tabloid would today, not caring much about objectivity like the Omaha Daily Bee in their coverage of the Wounded Knee Massacre. The Omaha World-Herald was much more balanced when comparing the two, but because of their activism the reader should also look for their bias. Cressey’s coverage and lack of context entertained the average reader and confirmed already held prejudices, fueling their xenophobia, and allowed the increase of harmful legislation, practices, and exploitation of native culture. It is important to study the information communities receive to accurately gauge popular opinion and the spread of ideas, especially when it came to Indian Affairs and the unofficial “end” of the Indian Wars in the United States. 

 

Bibliography 

“Bright Eyes” Susette La Flesche Tibbles. “Horrors of War.” Omaha World-Herald, January 2, 1891. 

“Bright Eyes” Susette La Flesche Tibbles. “Pleading for her People.” Omaha World-Herald, January 3, 1891. 

“Bright Eyes” Susette La Flesche Tibbles. “Sang War Songs.” Omaha World-Herald, January 1, 1891. 

“Bright Eyes” Susette La Flesche Tibbles. “What Bright Eyes Sees.” Omaha World-Herald, January 4, 1891. 

“Buffalo Bill Indian War Pictures Bring Tears to Major Burke, 'The Peacemaker'.” William F. Cody Archive: Documenting the life and times of Buffalo Bill. McCracken Research Library. Accessed November 20, 2022. https://codyarchive.org/texts/wfc.nsp11345.html.  

Cressey, Charles H. “The Beginning of the End.” Omaha Daily Bee, January 2, 1891. 

Cressey, Charles H. “A Bloody Battle.” Omaha Daily Bee, December 30, 1890. 

Cressey, Charles H. “A Deadly Triangle.” Omaha Daily Bee, December 31, 1890. 

Cressey, Charles H. “No Friendlies Now.” Omaha Daily Bee, January 1, 1891. 

Cressey, Charles H. “One Killed, Six Wounded.” Omaha Daily Bee, December 31, 1890.  

Cressey, Charles H. “Riderless Horses.” Omaha Daily Bee, January 3, 1891. 

Cressey, Charles H. “Rumors of a Skirmish.” Omaha Daily Bee, January 3, 1891. 

Cressey, Charles H. “The Soldiers Funeral.” Omaha Daily Bee, January 1, 1891. 

Cressey, Charles H. “Will Fight to Death.” Omaha Daily Bee, January 1, 1891. 

Cressey, Ernest. “Charles H. Cressey.” Edited by LeRoy D. Cressy and Charlotte Cressy. The Cressy family. Henry S. Cobb Publisher. Accessed November 20, 2022. http://lrcressy.com/family/fam-tree/0644.html.  

Digitized Web version of a family history ledger from August 10, 1935. 

Tibbles, Thomas H. “Closing Around Them.” Omaha World-Herald, January 4, 1891. 

Tibbles, Thomas H. “Disgraceful Incompetence.” Omaha World-Herald, January 3, 1891.  

Tibbles, Thomas H. “For a Long War.” Omaha World-Herald, January 1, 1891. 

Tibbles, Thomas H. “Red Blood Flows.” Omaha World-Herald, December 30, 1890.