Sunday, March 3, 2013

Blog post (from readings) #13: (Due Monday, March 11)
Leeman, Nicholas. “The Murrow Doctrine;” Campbell, W. Joseph. “Murrow vs. McCarthy: Timing Makes The Myth” and “Debunking the ‘Cronkite Moment. ” Post thoughts or questions about the reading to the class blog for discussion. What struck you as interesting? What did you learn that you think you might remember five years from now?

12 comments:

  1. The most noteworthy piece of information I gleaned from these readings came from the reading on the "Cronkite Moment." It is remarkable to think just how powerful and influential journalism can be in terms of domestic and foreign policy, and this moment just exemplifies that. To think that Walter Cronkite's reference to the US' involvement in Vietnam as more or less a failure (at least in terms of the country's stated goals to defend democracy overseas) had such a profound effect on Lyndon Johnson's policies is something I am sure to remember down the road.
    Also, I found President Johnson's comments that losing Cronkite was akin to losing Middle America as very impressive in terms of one man's ability to make change in society. Again, it is also a testament to the power and nature of what sound, quality journalism and a free press can accomplish.

    ReplyDelete
  2. While it’s clear the impact "See It Now" had on viewers during the McCarthy era in terms of history, the journalistic influence, however, is beyond anything imaginable. In present times, journalism, especially when regarding politics, is divided by parties and moral obligations that deem a news station as being conservative, liberal, etc. Murrow’s journalistic work, exposing the truth of McCarthy was basically the foundation for all political broadcast news. He more or less attacked the “junior” senator, with the intention that his story can bring an end to McCarthy’s madness. I don’t believe for a second that Murrow did not like being called “courageous” or a “hero.” Since everyone was so silent about speaking against McCarthy, Murrow had to have known that his report, on live television, was inevitably going to stir up some kind of controversy. His popular stature in the United States was far too large for that kind of report to go unnoticed.

    The foundation he laid down still remains as the focal point for news stations like FOX, MSNBC, etc. These stations constantly attack senators, the president, and whoever else they can blame to demand change (and also stir up the ratings). This is essentially what Murrow had planned in his McCarthy report. He needed something to bring his show out of the rating drought while at the same time changing the nation’s political spectrum. It’s tough to think about another journalist who even had a similar idea, or even enough guts, to bravely execute a plan like Murrow did.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I already knew a fair bit about "The Cronkite Moment" and the battle between Murrow and McCarthy from previous journalism classes, but it was interesting to read about them in further detail. The fact that Murrow's role has been mythicized somewhat, making him seem like more of a pioneer than he was, is interesting to me, but also problematic in its own way. Yes, there were others who spoke out about McCarthy before - but none with the power of Murrow and none in the way Murrow did. History has mistreated the moment - it was not the first instance of protest - but it was certainly memorable for a reason.

    On the other hand, the hard statistical proof that debunks the Cronkite moment is something I will remember for years. The fact that it did not sway public opinion is utterly shocking to me.

    ReplyDelete
  4. These readings mainly confirmed what I had learned in Jour200 about journalism myths. There are always those stories that seem beyond reproach but closer inspection proves otherwise. The Cronkite and Murrow stories were similar to the Bell story we read about earlier in the semester. Americans like the single lone hero in a story because that makes it more memorable. It wasn't until reading "Murrow vs. McCarthy: Timing Makes the Myth" that I realized all that was shut out from the story. There were plenty of reporters who were willing to stand up to McCarthy, even when it was risky to do so. However, they never get the credit for their courage. The power of myths is most evident in how Murrow actually denied the influence of the See It Now special on McCarthy on the senator's downfall yet the myth continued. McCarthy's main downfall (after already deteriorating support) came after he took on the Army.

    Cronkite's story reminded me of that telephone game where one person says a phrase only once and it goes down a chain. The point is to see how distorted that phrase is by the end. The author made it a point to show the varying ways the Cronkite story has been told because it lowered its legitimacy. While reading about this media myth I kept wondering why President Johnson never came out and said that it wasn't Cronkite's news cast that changed his mind. The myth was already forming right after the broadcast so he could have said that his decision was mainly based on the Wise Men's advice.

    What struck me as interesting was how each celebrity figure handled the myth. Murrow always held that his broadcast didn't have the influence people say it did. Cronkite, on the other hand, used to downplay the myth but gradually embraced it. I think the readings reinforced what I had learned in jour200 which is that there are alternative histories to most of the events we've read/heard about. I kind of forget to question it sometimes but these readings remind me why its important to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Cronkite Moment and Murrow vs. Cronkite both demonstrate the power of broadcasting. By declaring the country's involvement in the Vietnam War pretty much a failure, Cronkite helped to sway a small amount of the population to believe the United States' involvement was unnecessary. President Johnson even took Cronkite's statement as a hit and likened losing his support to losing the support of Middle America because of all of his power.
    Murrow wasn't the first to speak out again McCarthy, but it was his position that helped to persuade people that McCarthy's hunt was nothing more than a witch hunt. These two moments demonstrated that as journalists and broadcasters we can change the course of history for what we think is the better and help keep the government in check by challenging their decisions.

    ReplyDelete
  6. As much as I appreciated the historical and narrative context in the readings, what particularly stood out to me and what I think I’ll remember is the description of Murrow as a “great troubled soul” in “The Murrow Doctrine: Why the life and times of the broadcast pioneer still matter”. Everything I’ve read about Murrow chronicled his career, his significance, his character, his great courage and heroism, but I’ve never read an analysis of the “darker side” of his personality before. For example, “Goodnight, and Good Luck” doesn’t exactly portray Murrow as someone who “regularly worked himself into a state of exhausted collapse” or who was “moody to the point of clinical depression.” I think it’s important to remember that media and celebrity culture can greatly idolize commentators, but in the end, they’re just people like us who share similar complexities.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Although we touched on it in class last week, the insight into Murrow's case on McCarthy is interesting to me because it's a classic case of history denoting the "first" to something simply to have it notarized. Clearly as the text says, Murrow was not the first but actually one of the last to hop on the anti-McCarthy bandwagon. I was impressed with the footage of his assault on McCarthy as anyone but knowing the context of it historically definitely changes my perspective on it and taints my perception of Murrow a tad. It certainly should stand out in history as a defining moment in broadcasting for the intense impact it had on the American perception of McCarthy. We often look at the JFK debate over Nixon as a defining moment, but I think this should stand out as much because the reign of terror McCarthy had over the country came crumbling down after the broadcast. The cause for debunking Murrow as the main culprit in taking him down is mislead in my opinion because no one had been on that platform with as much influence as Murrow in criticizing McCarthy. Sure they had been speaking out here and there, but when American saw their most trusted newsman report McCarthy was a fraud that was a changing point in an entire nation's attitude, which should not be forgotten throughout history.

    ReplyDelete
  8. An image in my mind that will stick for a while is the vision I created when I read that “a crowd of fans and reporters met [Murrow’s] ship at the dock.” I can’t imagine a journalist being treated like a famous celebrity, although journalists sometimes like to think they are. But Murrow’s duties in Europe were heroic. William Shirer and Edward R. Murrow were the only CBS staff in Europe and had to scramble to get all the help for coverage they could get. They were pioneering broadcast journalism.
    I was also struck by the idea that CBS didn’t think of itself as a news business, but rather solely an entertainment one. This was evident in the fact that they sent Murrow overseas without realizing just how “eager” the people were for broadcast journalism. Nicholas Lemann added that CBS thought they were getting an educator out of Murrow, not a journalist. It goes to show that sometimes a lot of things don’t go as planned, yet turn out for the better.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I found it interesting how celebrated Edward R. Murrow was according to Nicholas Leeman’s “The Murrow Doctrine.” Parades were supposed to be for soldiers coming home from the war. I knew that Murrow was celebrated for his WWII work but I had no idea to this extent, especially when people questioned why he was even sent overseas in the first place. I think his fame rose with the love affair the American people had with the radio. They loved the immediacy with which the little box spit out news and they loved that man giving it too them. I can’t imagine this happening for a journalist now or really any other time then during WWII and the radio age.

    Before reading these articles I knew very little about Murrow but had a much better grasp on the more recent (relative wording) Walter Cronkite. I had heard Cronkite’s quotes about the Vietnam War before and had read about the criticism he took. What I will remember from “Debunking the ‘Cronkite Moment’” is that the power of Cronkite’s words had effected the president but had not effectively ended the war. The article mentions that it took five more years for all the troops to leave Vietnam, it was not as if Cronkite proclaimed the war lost, Johnson submitted to the anchor man, and Vietnam was free of occupation.

    ReplyDelete
  10. One thing I found interesting in this week's readings was the notion that broadcast follows the lead of print media. While I don't know that this is always true today, Murrow's expose of Sen. McCarthy fits the bill. I knew previously that Murrow piggybacked off of some print reports on McCarthy, but had no idea how deeply rooted print investigations surrounding McCarthy were prior to the Murrow investigation. The New York Post's 17 part series on McCarthy published three years before Murrow's program seems far riskier and more deserving of attention.

    Murrow's efforts were commendable and widespread. Nevertheless, I still wonder if credit would have gone to the actual forerunners had their story been more exciting. Good Night and Good Luck immortalizes Murrow's broadcast, but falsely credits him with being the first. History remembers the victors and filmmakers seek out inspirational stories. Still Murrow's story would have been non-existent had print journalists not successfully paved the way.

    ReplyDelete
  11. One thing I found interesting about “The Murrow Doctrine” was how CBS did not consider itself to be a news organization, but an entertainment company. This is funny because in today’s day and age, CBS is a leading news organization and the news is what it’s known for. I also found it interesting how the author references the “historical indifference of Americans to news from overseas.” This is something else that, I believe, has changed significantly. Maybe some people are still indifferent but not America as a whole.
    I also found it very interesting what the text said about the Radio Act of 1927 and how the government was completely in control of the airwaves. I was very surprised to see the conditions of the Communications Act, when two senators wanted one quarter of the spectrum to be given to educational stations. That made me wonder what the world of radio today would be like if one-quarter of all stations were educational. It would be a totally different ballgame. I agree with Sally Smith who said that would have been devastating to commercial broadcasters. The right move was made in squashing that proposal.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Out of all the readings, I was by far most surprised and shocked by the supposed debunking of the Murrow-McCarthy myth. I have heard in so many classes and from so many people that Murrow led to McCarthy’s decline, that it’s a little hard to accept that this wasn’t the true chain of events. I couldn’t believe how many people central to the McCarthy program said themselves that the show came late. Murrow called his own accomplishments modest and a mere reinforcement of other journalists’ long-standing criticisms of McCarthy. Friendly said, “To say that the Murrow broadcast of March 9, 1954, was the decisive blow against Senator McCarthy's power is as inaccurate as it is to say that Joseph R. McCarthy… single handedly gave birth to McCarthyism.” These quotes contrast so sharply with the history I’ve come to know that casts such a bright light on Murrow and made him one of my heroes. I was always under the impression that Murrow attacked McCarthy at his height of power, or at least while he was still greatly influential. The fact that the Senator’s approval ratings had fallen so far that 47 percent of Americans had an unfavorable view of him was very eye-opening for me. Even Truman joked if McCarthy died there wouldn’t be any entertainment left. I find it especially ironic that such a myth was propagated about a man known for his conviction, in a field that values nothing higher than the truth. However, regardless of whatever historical context in which the McCarthy program, it is impossible to doubt the incredible eloquence and power of Murrow’s words. They ring just as true now as they would have in 1954, and I doubt they could ever be tarnished.

    ReplyDelete