Maxwell “Max” Aitken was born in 1879 in Maple, Ontario; but, he spent most of his childhood in Newcastle, now Mirimichi, in New Brunswick. According to his family, he was mischievous and clever child. In fact, Newspaper Lords in British Politics cites Aitken as an equivalent to “Dennis the Menace” (fig.1). At the age of twelve he was writing, and as he got older, “he dabbled in journalism and sold insurance before becoming a clerk in a Chatham, NB, law office.” In 1900, Aitken sold utility bonds and he began work in stocks and merge businesses. "‘Max displayed a passion for money-making . . . within 5 years [he] was a millionaire,” with notable companies under his name such as Stelco and Canada Cement. He eventually moved to London and began to make ties with powerful political people, and soon after, in 1911, he was knighted. Aitken became a baron and a member if the House of Lords in 1916, taking the name of a brook near his home in New Brunswick – Lord Beaverbrook. Earning the title of the 1st Baron of Beaverbrook, Aitken also gained more controversial labels for his fast money making. He was criticized for being “a gambler,” “shady,” “irresponsible,” and “a bad man.” Conversely though, he would also earn the title of “The Most Influential Press Baron in Britain” later in his career.
Lord Beaverbrook began his journalism career once World War I broke out in 1914. He was not invited to join the Conservative War Cabinet in Britain, so he reached out to Canadian Minister of Militia and Defense, Sam Hughes. He gave Beaverbrook the mandate to be an “eye-witness overseas;” therefore, Beaverbrook was responsible for reporting and writing “praiseworthy newspaper accounts about the Canadians in battle, highlighting their distinctiveness in relation to British soldiers. These were followed by contemporary histories, a semi-official newspaper, and a series of additional commemorative publications.” Beaverbrook expanded his role to be a historian, publicist, and cheerleader for the Canadian forces.
In his first book, Canada in Flanders, Beaverbrook composed a three volume account of Canadian contributions to the war effort. He writes, “if we speak of disappointments we had at the start of the war, let us never forget to realize that the disappointments of the enemy must be ten times greater.” This theme is carried throughout his conflict reporting. Beaverbrook continues to emphasize that no matter the loss or massacre, the enemy, in this case Germany, suffered a greater detriment. In addition, he glorifies losses of Canadian and British troops such as in the battle of Ypres. He credits the “favourable wind” for German soldiers’ success, and reports that “the [Canadian] Battalion was expelled from the trenches early on Friday morning by an emission of poisonous gas; but, recovering in three-quarters of an hour it counter attacked, retook the trenches it had abandoned, and bayoneted the enemy.” It is favourable piece, reminding readers that there is hope for victory in the war against the Germans. His patriotic view also paints the opposing side as nothing more than “the enemy.” However, Beaverbrook can also be celebrated for his specialized reporting on war tactics. He includes maps and battle plans in his pages which would have typically been censored at the time. That being said, the more accurate details may have been eliminated from the copy, but the never before seen war maps would be new for the public.
Despite his own accounts, “Beaverbrook had difficulty of convincing the War Office of the value of documenting the war.” He urged them to commission photographer and videographers to capture the visual aspects of war, yet he was continually denied. He writes in his biography, that there was a fear of access to information. Thus, this drastically affected the way reporting could be done in the field. It is reflected in his own work, for example he precedents his books with notes that names of soldiers and places were misspelled “for the benefit of the war effort and through fault of his own.” Nevertheless, by the summer of 1916, Beaverbrook had established the Canadian War Memorial Fund which would capture and paint the war in a new light.
Through not credited to him, Beaverbrook commissioned mass amounts of Canadian War Effort Art which could be argued to be a form of conflict journalism. “Beaverbrook told his 120 war artists to capture war as they felt it should be viewed.” In a way, his reporting and war experience supplemented war art which played a critical part in how war was viewed. In addition, Beaverbrook’s narratives constructed “a distinct national identity. One that focused on pride, camaraderie, and resilience” of being Canadian. He also made sure there were factual documentary films to record Canada’s contribution to the war.
Interestingly, one piece that Beaverbrook commissioned, The Second Battle of Ypres, 22 April to 25 May 1915, mimics the reporting he did on the battle. Created by war artist Richard Jack, the painting coalesces aspects of the trenches commonly reported on. It should be noted, Jack never witnessed the war, so he merely went off of Beaverbrook’s account. The painting is littered with empty food cans, bodies, and colour. However, though the Canadian battalion was overrun in Ypres, this painting still captures the soldiers in a heroic light. Beaverbrook wrote, “the hearts of his [royal majesty’s] men were as completely unbroken as the parapets of his trenches were completely broken.” In Beaverbrook’s article, he explained how “Canadian troops were holding out against impossible odds, and the nefarious release of chlorine gas, resulted in a stirring narrative for readers in the super- charged patriotic atmosphere in Britain and in Canada.” According to him, Canadians had joined for the “glory of adventure but more out of the spirit of self-sacrifice.” As portrayed in the painting, these men are fighting for their country first and foremost and cast in a victorious glow.
This fondness for Canada and the war effort created a bias in Beaverbrook’s reporting. He knew he must keep up moral on the home front in order to maintain support for the political and national stance on war. This passion clouded his accuracy and facts; however, his narrative matched with the conflict reportage at the time. Accordingly, “a tidy narrative of quick and relatively easy “warfare” (built around myths of national glory, macho heroism, monstrous villainy and ‘precision weaponry’) was manufactured in the British [and Canadian] mainstream press.”
Laura Brandon, a historian at the Canadian War Museum, said that “what Beaverbrook wrote at the time was propaganda, but now it’s record.” He was a businessman after all. He knew what people wanted to read about, when it came to war. A good fight or hard victory sells better than a loss at least. He even admitted to embellishing his stories and called himself the Minister of Propaganda (instead of Information). For this reason, conflict journalism in this era rarely showed the other side of the war. That could be the enemy or the tragic losses, yet neither were central to what Beaverbrook though was news