The article discussed among other topics the dramatic exchange at a Senate hearing on June 9, 1954, in which lawyer Joseph N. Welch supposedly deflated Senator Joseph McCarthy and his communists-in-government witch-hunt by declaring:
“Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”
The correction in the Times today addresses the context of the encounter and states:
“Senator McCarthy was serving on the committee investigating suspected Communist infiltration of the Army; he was not at the hearings to testify.”
But McCarthy wasn’t serving on that Senate panel (which in fact was a subcommittee–a temporary subcommittee of the Senate permanent subcommittee on investigations) and he was there to testify.
(McCarthy and a top aide, Roy Cohn, were focal points of what were called the Army-McCarthy hearings of 1954. At the time, McCarthy was chairman of the Senate’s permanent subcommittee on investigations. He removed himself from the temporary subcommittee which conducted the Army-McCarthy hearings and which was chaired by Senator Karl Mundt of South Dakota. McCarthy, however, was permitted to cross-examine witnesses during the hearings.)
Had the Times consulted its back issues, it would have found that not long after Welch’s pointed questions about McCarthy’s “sense of decency,” the senator was sworn in as a witness.
According to hearing excerpts published in the Times, McCarthy said upon being sworn in:
“Well, I’ve got a good hog-calling voice, Mr. Chairman. I think I can speak loudly enough so that the mikes will pick it up.”
And he proceeded to discuss at length his views about the Communist Party U.S.A. and its leadership. “The orders flow, of course, from Moscow,” McCarthy declared.
In a front-page article published June 10, 1954, the Times focused on the Welch-McCarthy encounter of the day before, stating in its lead paragraph:
“The Army-McCarthy hearings reached a dramatic high point … in an angry, emotion-packed exchange between Senator Joseph R. McCarthy and Joseph N. Welch, special counsel for the Army.”
The four-column headline over the Times article read:
WELCH ASSAILS M’CARTHY’S ‘CRUELTY’ AND ‘RECKLESSNESS’ IN ATTACK ON AIDE; SENATOR, ON STAND, TELLS OF RED HUNT
Interestingly, coverage in the Chicago Tribune on June 10, 1954, focused on McCarthy’s having taken the witness stand the day before, announcing in bold headlines stripped across the top of a cluttered front page:
QUIZ OF M’CARTHY STARTS!
The opening paragraphs in the Tribune read:
“Sen. McCarthy [R., Wis.] warned that a Red world would follow communist penetration of the United States government as he took the witness stand … in his battle with the Pentagon.
“The appearance under oath of McCarthy came on the 30th day of the senate inquiry ….
“McCarthy outlined the nature and size of the communist conspiracy in this nation, describing it as a militant organization of 25,000 trained spies and saboteurs.”
Not until the fifth paragraph did the Tribune mention the Welch-McCarthy encounter.
Quite clearly, then, McCarthy was “at the hearings to testify.” And testify he did, in rather typical fashion.
So why does all this matter? So what if the Times flubbed a correction about its reference to a long-ago moment that probably wasn’t so “transformational”?
After all, as media critic Jack Shafer of slate.com has pointed out:
“Readers should recognize that in journalism as in life, some number of mistakes are unavoidable. And some of those mistakes, while deplorable, don’t matter all that much.”
But injecting fresh error into a correction goes beyond trivial, and may signal trouble in the newspaper’s internal fact-checking procedures.
There is, of course, inherent value in setting the record straight, as the Times recognized in publishing the correction in the first place.
Setting the record straight supposedly helps promote a newspaper’s credibility, too. As I note in Getting It Wrong, my book debunking prominent media-driven myths, “a central objective of newsgathering” is “that of seeking to get it right.”
I further note in Getting It Wrong that “journalism seldom is seriously introspective, or very mindful of its history. It usually proceeds with little more than a nod to its past.”
Flubbing the correction suggests a broader unfamiliarity at the Times with an important period in American history–and hints, too, at a reluctance to consult its electronic database of back issues.
Recent and related:
- On ‘transformational moments’ that journalists see
- Indulging in myth on the way out
- ‘Doctrinaire feminist in the bra-burning mold’?
- Slaying the McCarthy dragon: It wasn’t Murrow
- Excess praise for Edward R. Murrow
- Murrow the brave? Not in McCarthy days
- Did he say it? A curious Murrow quote
- Suspicious Murrow quote reemerges
- Only Murrow had the bona fides? Nonsense
- Jimmy Carter fumbles Watergate history
- Media myths, the ‘junk food of journalism’
- Not off the hook with ‘reportedly’
- Media history with Olbermann: Wrong and wrong
- ‘Regret the Error’ considers ‘Getting It Wrong’