W. Joseph Campbell

Two myths and today’s New York Times

In Cronkite Moment, Debunking, Media myths, Murrow-McCarthy myth, New York Times on December 27, 2010 at 1:33 am

Today’s New York Times offers up a double-myth story, a rare article that incorporates two prominent media-driven myths.

The Times invokes the Murrow-McCarthy and “Cronkite Moment” myths in suggesting that TV comedian Jon Stewart is a latter-day equivalent of Edward R. Murrow for advocating congressional approval of a health-aid package for first responders to the terror attacks of September 11, 2001.

That’s certainly a stretch.

But here’s what the Times says in presenting its double dose of media myths–both of which are addressed and debunked in my latest book, Getting It Wrong:

  • “Edward R. Murrow turned public opinion against the excesses of Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s.”
  • “Walter Cronkite’s editorial about the stalemate in the war in Vietnam after the Tet Offensive in 1968 convinced President Lyndon B. Johnson that he had lost public support and influenced his decision a month later to decline to run for re-election.”

Both claims are delicious, and often invoked as evidence of the power of the news media.

But both claims are specious.

As I discuss in Getting It Wrong, public opinion began turning against McCarthy well before Murrow’s often-recalled half-hour television report in March 1954 that scrutinized the senator and his communists-in-government witch-hunt.

Specifically, I note Gallup Poll data showing McCarthy’s appeal having crested in December 1953, when 53 percent of Americans said they had a favorable view of him. The senator’s favorable rating fell to 40 percent by early January 1954, and to 39 percent in February 1954, when an almost identical number of Americans viewed him unfavorably.

“To be sure,” I write in Getting It Wrong, “it wasn’t as if Americans in early 1954 were hoping for someone to step up and expose McCarthy, or waiting for a white knight like Murrow to tell them about the toxic threat the senator posed.

“By then, McCarthy and his tactics were well-known and he had become a target of withering ridicule—a sign of diminished capacity to inspire dread.”

On March 9, 1954, the day Murrow’s See It Now program on McCarthy was aired, former president Harry Truman reacted to reports of an anonymous threat against McCarthy’s life by quipping:

“We’d have no entertainment at all if they killed him.”

And long before Murrow took on McCarthy, “several prominent journalists—including the Washington-based syndicated columnist Drew Pearson—had become persistent and searching critics of McCarthy, his record, and his tactics,” I note.

A media-driven myth even more tenacious than the Murrow-McCarthy tale is the legendary “Cronkite Moment” of February 1968, when CBS anchorman Cronkite declared on-air that the U.S. military was “mired in stalemate” in Vietnam.

I point out in Getting It Wrong that by early 1968, Cronkite’s assessment was neither novel nor exceptional.

Indeed, the Times had reported August 1967, months before Cronkite’s on-air assessment, that the war effort was not going well.

Victory in Vietnam, the Times said then, “is not close at hand. It may be beyond reach.”

The article appeared on the front page August 7, 1967, beneath the headline:

Vietnam: The Signs of Stalemate

That wasn’t only occasion in 1967 when the Times invoked “stalemate” to characterize the war. In a news analysis published July 4, 1967, the newspaper stated:

“Many officers believe that despite the commitment of 466,000 United States troops now in South Vietnam … the military situation there has developed into a virtual stalemate.”

Moreover, the Times anticipated Cronkite’s “mired in stalemate” commentary in an editorial published February 8, 1968.

“Politically as well as militarily,” the editorial declared, “stalemate increasingly appears as the unavoidable outcome of the Vietnam struggle.”

So “stalemate” was much in the air weeks and months before Cronkite invoked the word on television.

Moreover, as I note in Getting It Wrong, President Johnson didn’t even see the Cronkite program when it aired February 27, 1968.

Johnson wasn’t at the White House that night. And he wasn’t in front of a TV set.

The president was in Austin, Texas, offering light-hearted remarks at the 51st birthday party of a longtime political ally, Governor John Connally.

About the time Cronkite was intoning his “mired in stalemate” assessment, Johnson was saying in jest:

“Today, you are 51, John. That is the magic number that every man of politics prays for—a simple majority.”

It’s difficult to make a persuasive case that the president could have been much moved by a television report he didn’t see.

Not only that, but Johnson may have decided in 1967 or even earlier against seeking reelection in 1968. He wrote in his memoir, The Vantage Point: “Long before I settled on the proper forum to make my announcement, I had told a number of people of my intention not to run again.”

Johnson’s memoir, by the way, has nothing to say about the Cronkite program of February 1968.

WJC

Recent and related:

Many thanks for Ed Driscoll and Jim Romenesko for linking to this post

About these ads
  1. [...] other embedded myth was the allusion to the “Cronkite Moment” of February 1968. That was when Cronkite [...]

  2. [...] Media myths, Murrow-McCarthy myth, New York Times, Newspapers on January 23, 2011 at 11:58 am The New York Times today publishes a correction to last week’s “Week in Review” article about sudden [...]

  3. [...] Two myths and today’s New York Times [...]

  4. [...] suppression myth has it that the Times, at the behest of President John F. Kennedy, spiked or emasculated its detailed report about [...]

  5. [...] evidence that Kennedy or anyone in his administration pressured, lobbied, or persuaded the Times to modify, emasculate, or sanitize the article it published April 7, 1961, which lies at the heart [...]

  6. [...] in a front-page analysis published August 7, 1967, the Times declared “the war is not going well.” Victory “is not close at [...]

  7. [...] another occasion, Loeb was quoted by the New York Times as [...]

  8. [...] that was a wholly unremarkable and unoriginal observation. The New York Times had for months been using “stalemate” to characterize the war [...]

  9. [...] Keller, executive editor of the New York Times, who rubbed shoulders with the Bay of Pigs suppression myth in a column in the Times in January. [...]

  10. [...] not seen the movie but have enjoyed reading the reviews, such as the one in the New York Times that called Kill the Irishman “an extravagantly corny ode to the collapse of the Cleveland [...]

  11. [...] Good history and successful cinema are quite often at odds, as Richard Bernstein noted in a memorable essay published several years ago in the New York Times. [...]

  12. [...] Media myths, New York Times on June 20, 2011 at 4:36 pm I enjoy Bill Keller‘s column in the New York Times Sunday magazine, not so much for strength of argument and depth of reporting as for its tendency to [...]

  13. [...] Vargas took his account to the New York Times, which published it in today’s [...]

  14. [...] 20 percent of respondents in the Pew study said they believed all or most of what they read in the New York Times; 25 percent said they believed all or most of what they read in the Wall Street [...]

  15. [...] that hour approached on October 3, 1995, the country seemed almost to shut down. The New York Times reported that for 10 minutes, from 1 p.m. to 1:10 p.m. Eastern, “people didn’t work. [...]

  16. [...] U.S. news outlets such as the New York Times had invoked “stalemate” periodically in the months before the Cronkite [...]

  17. [...] characterize the formerly staid titles that used to disparage the yellow press—titles such as the New York Times and Washington [...]

  18. [...] the mythical tale that the New York Times, at the request of President John F. Kennedy, censored itself in the run-up to the Bay of Pigs [...]

  19. [...] an earlier occasion, Loeb was quoted in a commentary in the New York Times as [...]

  20. [...] Cohen, a twice-a-week foreign affairs columnist for the New York Times, stirred murmured commentary not long by defending Rupert Murdoch as a phone-hacking scandal [...]

  21. [...] The Post’s local report is superficial, a diet of eye-rolling, feel-good features. The newspaper carries little staff-produced national coverage. Its international report is undistinguished, especially compared to that of the New York Times. [...]

  22. [...] of that observation came yesterday in an otherwise thoughtful essay in the New York Times about the deference Americans across the political spectrum tend to pay the [...]

  23. [...] years ago, for example, the New York Times revisited predictions about how 9/11 would forever change Manhattan, and found them mostly empty [...]

  24. [...] U.S. news outlets such as the New York Times had turned to “stalemate” for months before the Cronkite [...]

  25. [...] New York Times inaccurately declared over the weekend that Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, in their reporting for [...]

  26. [...] wave of mass hysteria seized thousands of radio listeners throughout the nation,” the New York Times said on its front page of October 31, [...]

  27. [...] myth based more on anecdote than solid, sustained research.” It turned out to be, as the New York Times put it in 2009, “the epidemic that [...]

  28. [...] August 1967, for example, the New York Times said in a news analysis that the war in Vietnam “is not going [...]

  29. [...] I note in Getting It Wrong, Loeb on another occasion was quoted in a commentary in the New York Times as [...]

  30. [...] In designating Freeman’s disclosure as the “debunking of the year,” I’m reminded of high-minded observations offered in 1998 by Max Frankel, formerly the executive editor of the New York Times. [...]

  31. [...] another occasion, Loeb was quoted in a commentary in the New York Times as [...]

  32. [...] the NCAA men’s basketball tournament opened today, the New York Times college sports blog, “The Quad,” embraced the myth with a headline warning that U.S. [...]

  33. [...] about “stalemate” was a rehash of what other news organizations, such as the New York Times, had been saying for [...]

  34. [...] less than three weeks before Cronkite’s televised commentary, the New York Times declared in an [...]

  35. [...] to report the payment of hush money to the burglars, a pivotal disclosure in mid-January 1973. The Times report made clear that efforts were under way to cover up and conceal the roles of others in the [...]

  36. [...] movie won rave reviews. The New York Times called it “a spellbinding detective story” and “an unequivocal smash-hit — [...]

  37. [...] New York Times lined up Chris Matthews, voluble host of cable television’s Hardball program, to review [...]

  38. [...] New York Times has ignored written requests by two senior former Associated Press journalists seeking the [...]

  39. [...] swan song column of Arthur Brisbane, the New York Times public editor, salutes the newspaper’s corrections desk as “a powerful engine of [...]

  40. [...] has taken more than three months, but the New York Times today published a sort-of correction of its erroneous description about the napalm attack in [...]

  41. [...] New York Times repeated the misidentification in a report posted online — a report that [...]

  42. [...] New York Times considers in a commentary posted yesterday the prospect of “digital wildfires” — [...]

  43. [...] organizations such as the New York Times had invoked “stalemate” as early as the summer of 1967 in reporting and commenting [...]

  44. […] inauguration, and his news conference in late January 1969. Newspapers in the database include the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Baltimore Sun, Chicago Tribune, Wall Street  Journal, and the Washington […]

  45. […] was the Post’s onetime archrival, the New York Times, that indulged today in the most excessive […]

  46. […] is clear in a search of a full-text database of leading U.S. newspapers in 1968 — among them the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Baltimore Sun, Wall Street Journal, and Chicago Tribune. The […]

  47. […] in the week and across the spectrum, the New York Times profiled the Post’s new publisher, Frederick J. Ryan Jr., and took the occasion to recall one […]

  48. […] is clear in reviewing a full-text database of leading U.S. newspapers in 1968 — among them the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Baltimore Sun, Wall Street Journal, and Chicago Tribune. The […]

  49. […] online version of the New York Times obituary about Bradlee stated that he “presided over The Washington Post’s Watergate […]

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,762 other followers

%d bloggers like this: