Mumler's Trial Controversy

The debate of faith versus fact is one that has been argued many different ways by, many different people throughout the course of history. In recent years, rhetoric has taken a turn to argue for the merging of fact and faith, but for most of history could only take one side or the other. If you took the side of faith you had to dismiss anything that you could, not definitely prove. While on the faith side you had to live with the knowledge that you would never be able to have definitive proof that what you believed was true. While Mumler’s trial did pit fact against faith, for those who argued either side it was not about whether faith or fact was better, it was about securing the authentication for their beliefs. For those who believed in facts, the trial was about holding on to the validity of their belief and for those who believed in faith, the trial was about …show more content…
Since Spiritualism was such a controversial topic at the time, almost all of the most popular newspapers in New York dedicated space in multiple issues to the coverage of Mumler’s trial. Normally this would not be cause for pause, but the coverage of Mumler’s trail was for the most part very biased. In the papers, Mumler was made out to be a charlatan and his photography was reduced to nothing more than a developing trick. The people of 1870 New York depend on the newspaper for news, the only other way to get news was by word of mouth and this news did inform but it was also exaggerated by the author and filled with their bias so it could not be trusted. However, this type of reporting caused a complication for readers that were a part of the Spiritualist movement. They either had to keep their faith in the established newspapers or choose to believe in the facts of the trial, facts that were unable to determine the validity of Mumler or his spirit