Synopsis

Seldom in United States history has the press been so prominently involved in a major controversy as that surrounding Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican of Wisconsin, who rose from relative obscurity in 1950 to become a household name almost overnight by making repeated charges that the national government was riddled with communist spies. The press was widely blamed for providing McCarthy with a forum for his unsubstantiated charges. This set off soul-searching and debates among journalists that helped lead to new practices in both publishing and broadcasting.

Objectives

First of all, this case serves to acquaint students with one of the most important chapters in the history of American journalism As one who was a newspaper and wire service reporter during McCarthy's heyday and read the literature of the period, I was surprised to learn in researching the case half a century later how much I had forgotten or did not know about McCarthy and the press, how closely related were the lessons of that period to the ones of today despite the vast differences in how news is gathered and distributed.

One question for students raised by this case is what level of proof should be required for publication, especially in a highly competitive situation in which there are varying degrees of ethical standards among reporters and their outlets. Another is what is a proper relationship between a reporter and the person he or she is covering on a running story. The lessons of the McCarthy case remain valid today.

Teaching Plan

The McCarthy case is packed with drama and suspense, but because it occurred so long ago, it might be better to open the class with a recent event that shows how contemporary the issues remain.

In the age of 24-hour Internet news, false reports about companies are passed along without vetting by financial websites and cable channels. During the Lewinsky scandal, newspapers published on their websites allegations that hours later they had to retract in their newspapers.

In 1994, newly elected Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, appeared on Meet the Press and said that he had evidence that "up to a quarter of the White House staff" were drug users. We think the Gingrich example, outlined below, might make a useful tool to make the issues come to life. This could be done at the opening of the class discussion. You could also either let the students know from the start that this is a real example or wait until further in the discussion. Here is what transpired:

Newt Gingrich, speaking on NBC's Meet the Press, December 4, 1994:
"I also believe you in the press have an obligation to take, whether it's the speaker or the House or the Senate majority leader or the president and vice president—to look at everything. I mean, if you found out we were a cocaine dealer in 1965—I wasn't, I don't want this to be isinterpreted—but, I mean, if you were to find that out, that is a relevant fact about the potential president of the United States, and people need to know it. Every presidential candidate is a volunteer and their entire life should be open, because we're going to give them the most powerful job on the planet.

"Having said that, ...my point is, you've got scattered throughout this administration counterculture people. I had a senior law enforcement official tell me that, in his judgment, up to a quarter of the White House staff, when they first came in, had used drugs in the last four or five years. Now that is a very serious private conversation. He's not—I'm not making any allegations of any individual person, but it is very clear that they had huge problems getting people through security clearance, because they kept bringing people in who had a lot of things that weren't very easy to clear. Now that's a current attitude about a current position on a current problem. That's not 10 or 15 or 20 years ago."

Tim Russert, the host, did not acknowledge the allegation nor press Gingrich for details or proof. Nonetheless, Gingrich's statements became front page news.

If the teacher wanted to use the example as is, he or she could simple explain it occurred on Meet the Press. Or the instructor could introduce the example blind, saying a major U.S. official is on live television and alleges the following.... Then the teacher could ask the students, what questions should reporters ask? Would prolonged, repeated questioning make more of the allegation than it deserves? Will the television audience think the official is being ganged up on? How do the reporters deal with allegations made live that have not yet been verified or refuted? McCarthy's charge that he held in his hand the names of 205 communist spies in the State Department was made in a small political gathering far from Washington covered by only two reporters. But the students will find that the questions raised for the press in the days following the speech are similar to those raised in the hypothetical press conference.

In real life, the next day, Dan Rather reported on the CBS Evening News, "President Clinton's chief of staff today tried to fight off the latest attack by House Speaker-to-be Newt Gingrich. Gingrich is again accusing the President and those around him as being way outside the American mainstream, not what normal Americans are. This time, Gingrich charges White House staffers have histories of drug abuse. He gave no names or specifics."

Tim Russert, on CNBC, raised the Gingrich charge with his guest Michael Kelly of the New Yorker and then asked, "Is that reckless, is that calculated?" And later, "How aggressive should the press be in saying 'what is your evidence?'"

The episode was also written about in the Washington Post, the New York Times, Atlanta Journal and Constitution, USA Today and other newspapers across the country. Unlike McCarthy, however, Gingrich did not press the case, and thus the story died after a couple of days.

The question of responsibility
The key issue is what is the responsibility of reporters here? Is it to report what a major official says? Is it to publish only things that the press believes to be true or adequately substantiated? Is it to publish what the official says and challenge him to substantiate his allegations? Is it to publish what the official says and point out that it is not substantiated? Or is it to publish the official's allegations and then find out for themselves if they are true? The instructor might even take a show of hands to see which students see as their responsibility.

[NOTE: As far back as 1947, even before McCarthy's anti-communist crusade, the Hutchins Commission, trying to identify the responsibilities of the press, argued, "There is no fact without a context... modern conditions require greater effort than ever to make the distinction between fact and opinion.... The account of an isolated fact, however accurate in itself, may be misleading and, in effect, untrue ... It is no longer enough to report the fact truthfully. It is now necessary to report the truth about the fact." (A Free and Responsible Press, p.22)]

Verification
In addition to the journalists' responsibility of how to handle unsubstantiated accusations, the practical question of how to perform in a highly competitive environment is a crucial one. In 1950, the vast majority of Americans received their national and foreign news from daily newspapers. The papers received it from the three major wire services. And the competition among these was equally as intense as it is today among the confusing maze of outlets vying for public attention. The wire services rarely if ever retained from publishing unsubstantiated charges, just as in the 1990s few reputable organs declined to publish unsubstantiated charges once their competitors made them public.

Questions posed by the McCarthy case for today's journalists

Do the journalists of today's multiple news media have the courage to demand proof before publication?

ANALYSIS: This question is particularly germane today because the proliferation of media outlets—cable TV, the Internet, etc.—has intensified competition and economic pressures. The news business is one that, generally speaking, does not perform better, i.e., offer a better product, because of competition. Generally, the opposite is true. Economic competition and insecurity results in a degraded product as news organizations seek the lowest common denominator, i.e., the widest possible audience. Those that are secure are most likely to have the most stringent standards. It is no accident that the best journalism is done by near-monopolies like the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and New York Times and the Big Three broadcast networks when they were a small, economically secure oligarchy.

What if the Associated Press, the leading wire service, had advised its client newspapers that it would delay filing stories until McCarthy's charges could be substantiated? Would the media have run the stories from other sources? Would McCarthy have risen to prominence as he did? Would such a policy today serve the public interest?

ANALYSIS: It is difficult to imagine one news outlet's having full control over the story. Most likely, if newspapers were interested in McCarthy's charges, someone was going to provide them. The corrective had to be industry-wide, although the AP certainly was in a position to lead such a move. Something we need to deal with is how the entire industry did finally respond to the problems stemming from "objective" journalism that put such charges out unattended. This change brought the realization that journalism had the responsibility to provide the full story, not just act as stenographers for any public figure, of whatever repute, who came along. How does this change affect the way today's journalists react to the competitive pressures to be first with the story?

Another factor has been the rise of reporting on private lives and character, which probably would have made a difference with McCarthy. This, of course, didn't really develop until the Vietnam War and the counter-culture revolution, which made personal psyches and habits both relevant and open to discussion.

The Power of the Source
If you have additional class time, another concern worth discussing is the relationship between the newsperson and the subjects about which they are writing. Aside from his policies, McCarthy was a likeable man who mixed socially with reporters on Capitol Hill. They partied together and got drunk together, and at the time no one publicly objected. It was thought this social relationship gave reporters greater access to the news. But in retrospect it appears that without this relationship, reporters, and some editors, would have caught on much earlier to McCarthy's game.

Was this really any different from reporters, editors and publishers of today mixing socially with public officials at Gridiron-type dinners, and at times getting drunk together?

ANALYSIS: The relationship between public officials and the media has always been a problem. The rationale for socializing with sources is that it enables the reporter to "cultivate" sources because they get to know each other and become more open and trusting. This is fine as far as it goes, but there has always been too much of the desire to rub elbows with the famous and powerful: the Gridiron and White House Correspondents' dinners are almost grotesque examples of this. The diplomatic reporters' fascination with Henry Kissinger and their desire to be in his inner circle became almost pathetic. This obviously leads to softer coverage, justified by the desire not to alienate a good source. Reporters need to be constantly reminded of the danger of this.

Collateral Readings:

Although McCarthyism has long been a household word used almost daily in public dialogue to characterize unfair tactics of one's opponents, few people born after 1950 are familiar with the state of communications that enabled Senator McCarthy to manipulate public opinion as successfully as he did. By far the best book in this regard is Joe McCarthy and the Press by Edwin R. Bayley (The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, 1981). Bayley covered McCarthy as a reporter for the Milwaukee Journal and served in the Kennedy White House and National Educational Television before joining the Graduate School of Journalism at the University of California, Berkeley, where he was a professor and dean. He took a year's leave from the University, read and compiled statistics from hundreds of newspapers and interviewed both print and broadcast journalists from coast to coast who were active during the McCarthy era. Now retired and living in Carmel, he has returned to Berkeley every year to address journalism students on McCarthy. He said in a telephone interview in December 1999, that conclusions he reached in the book are still valid and the McCarthy experience had a lasting impact on American journalism.

For a quick introduction to McCarthyism the students could read Joseph McCarthy, the Misuse of Political Power by Daniel Cohen (The Millbrook Press, Brookfield, Connecticut, 1996).

For an understanding of McCarthy the man read The Life and Times of Joe McCarthy, a 675-page paperback biography by Thomas C. Reeves (Madison Books, Lanhan, Maryland, 1997). McCarthy "could be reckless and ruthless," Reeves wrote in his preface. "He was ignorant about too many things. From 1952 to his death in 1957, he was an alcoholic. He did not discover a single communist anywhere. Above all he did a great deal of harm—to individuals, to the political system, to an assortment of educational and cultural institutions, and to the cause of authentic anti-Communism. But there was far more to Joe McCarthy than this. There is another side to the man virtually ignored by journalists and historians that helps explain the love and loyalty that many, especially in Wisconsin, had for him throughout his life."

For a study in how McCarthy drew crucial support from the Hearst newspapers and a number of intellectuals, columnists, commentators and others in New York, including Francis Cardinal Spellman, read McCarthyism and the New York Hearst Press by Jim Tuck (University Press of America, Inc., New York).

For interesting articles published during McCarthy's heyday, there are, among others: "The Captive Press" by Douglas Cater, The Reporter, (a magazine now defunct but available in some libraries) June, 1950, pp. 17-20; and "Is the Press Unfair to McCarthy?" by Ronald May, New Republic, April 20, 1954 pp 10- 14.

An excellent retrospective on the press role written by Alfred Friendly appeared in the Washington Post on Feb. 13, 1977, pp. C I, C3, entitled "McCarthy Revisited, the Role of the Press in a dark hour."

Millions of words have been printed on the McCarthy saga taking readers through wave after wave of revisions about the man and the case. The New York Times Magazine carried a cover story on November 28, 1999, entitled "The Rehabilitation of Joe McCarthy" and described it as "just the latest offensive in the nasty, never-ending battle over American Communism." The subject, now as then, is the extent of Soviet penetration in American government in the postwar years, but it is important to remember that this case is not about that. It is about how McCarthy was able to manipulate the press to his ends and what this shows about American journalism, then and now.