The commentary said of Hearst:
“His most infamous manipulation was the warmongering his papers did in pushing the U.S. into war with Spain in 1898. He sent artist Frederick Remington to Cuba to cover the native uprising against Spain. Remington reportedly cabled Hearst that there was no war in Cuba. Hearst responded, ‘You get me the pictures; I’ll get you the war.’ He was true to his word.”
No serious historian embraces the notion that Hearst’s newspapers were decisive or much of a factor at all in the U.S. declaration of war against Spain in April 1898. That is a simplistic explanation about a war that was fought largely on humanitarian grounds — those of ending Spain’s long and harsh rule of Cuba.
As often is the case when such mediacentric claims are advanced, the commentary in the Tennessean left wholly unaddressed the method or mechanism by which the content of Hearst’s newspapers — he published three in 1898 — was transformed into military action.
Three was, in fact, no such mechanism.
As I pointed out in my 2001 book, Yellow Journalism: Puncturing the Myths, Defining the Legacies, top officials in the administration of President William McKinley largely disregarded the content of the Hearst press. They certainly didn’t turn to it for policy guidance.
“If the yellow press did foment the war,” I wrote in Yellow Journalism, “researchers should be able to find some hint of, some reference to, that influence in the personal papers and the reminiscences of policymakers of the time.
“But neither the diary entries of Cabinet officers nor the contemporaneous private exchanges among American diplomats indicate that the yellow newspapers exerted any influence at all. When it was discussed within the McKinley administration, the yellow press was dismissed as a nuisance or scoffed at as a complicating factor.”
Advocates of the mediacentric interpretation of the Spanish-American War invariably cite — as the Tennessean did — the tale about Hearst’s vowing to furnish the war. It’s their Exhibit A.
It’s more than 110-years-old; during that time, no compelling evidence has ever emerged to support or document the tale.
The telegram to Remington has never surfaced. And Remington apparently never discussed the tale, which was first recounted in 1901, in a brief, unsourced passage in memoir by James Creelman, a blowhard journalist known for frequent exaggeration.
Perhaps the most compelling reason for doubting Creelman’s undocumented account rests on an irreconcilable internal inconsistency.
As I write in my latest book, Getting It Wrong, it “would have been absurd for Hearst to vow to ‘furnish the war’ because war — specifically, the Cuban rebellion against Spain’s colonial rule — was the very reason Hearst sent Remington to Cuba in the first place.
“Anyone reading U.S. newspapers in early 1897 would have been well aware that Cuba was a theater of a nasty war.”
Recent and related:
- CBS marks a Cronkite anniversary, invokes a tenacious media myth
- The ‘anniversary’ of a media myth: ‘Furnish the war’
- James Fallows and ‘furnish the war’: Indulging in a media myth
- ‘Furnish the war’ lives on, and on
- In myth, a truism: Hearst’s vow ‘will forever live on’
- ‘Famously rumored’: Hearst and his reputed vow
- ‘War means profits’? It didn’t for Hearst’s papers
- Hearst ‘pushed us into war’? How’d he do that?
- Obama, journalism history, and ‘folks like Hearst
- Hearst, agenda-setting, and war
- Yellow journalism: A sneer is born
- Two myths and today’s New York Times
- Wrong-headed history: Yellow press stampeded U.S. to war
- ‘Persuasive and entertaining’: WSJ reviews ‘Getting It Wrong’