Category Archives: journalism history

A news blog evolves

By Chris Daly 

In my recent book, Covering America, I ended my 300+ year narrative of journalism in America on an optimistic note. One reason for that optimism is the success of Josh Marshall and his Talking Points Memo.

 

I admire Marshall, and I wish him well. So I was pleased to see this item in the Nieman

Josh Marshall (I would credit this photo, but I can’t find the source.)

Journalism Lab website, which suggests that Marshall is trying to figure out what a blog looks like when it grows up. After 12 years in business, TPM has expanded in several stages, reaching 28 full-time employees recently. That makes it a medium-sized newsroom, based entirely on the Web. TPM has no legacy in traditional media; it was born on-line and grew up there.

 

Now, the growing seems to mean branching out into all kinds of media, especially video, as well as mobile apps. Here’s the take-away, from Marshall himself:

“If someone were to ask me a year ago, I would have said, ‘Well, yeah, we’re not just a website — it’s this, and we have that, and the other.’ But I think it was when I saw mobile growing as fast as it was that it just sort of hit me at a different level,” Marshall told me. “Inevitably, as long as mobile was something like five percent of traffic, it was just something you made available on the side. But you start to see,this is going to be half of our audience. We can’t be approaching it in a way that the website is the thing, and we’re making imitations of it — because this thing is losing its primacy. In a lot of ways, it wasn’t until late last year that it hit me at a different level. It hit me as more than a concept. It was really true.”

 Keep up the good work. (But I must say I don’t care for pre-roll ads and usually bail out when I encounter one.)

Leave a comment

Filed under blogging, Journalism, journalism history

Horst Faas, great news photographer, dies at 79

By Chris Daly

One of the most important photographers and photo editors of the last century has died. Horst Faas, a two-time Pulitzer Prize-winner during his long career at The Associated Press, was 79.

Obits are here and here and here.

Horst Faas in a heroic pose / AP Photo

Faas really made his mark in Vietnam, where he was stationed from 1962 through 1973. There, he planned the coverage, trained new photographers and photo stringers, edited many of the most memorable images of the war, and shot photos himself. From the tiny darkroom in the bathroom of the AP’s Saigon bureau, he was responsible for much of the “look” of the war.

Two photos are always associated with Faas and his constant efforts to disseminate photos that would show the reality of war:

–in 1968, during the Tet Offensive, the AP photographer Eddie Adams snapped a photo of a South Vietnamese officer executing a Vietcong prisoner. The photo caught the very moment when the bullet entered the prisoner’s head and captured something about the offhand violence of the war.

Eddie Adams / AP Photo

–in 1972, he fought to transmit the unforgettable image of a young girl fleeing naked and screaming from a napalm attack. The picture was shot by Nick Ut, a Vietnamese photographer trained by Faas, and the decision to send it out was one that Faas fought hard for. I remember seeing it on the front page of the Boston Globe on the day it was published in 1972 and never could forget it.

Nick Ut / AP Photo

As I discovered in researching my new book on the history of journalism, Covering America, Faas was also responsible for another of the most emblematic photos of the Vietnam War, the photo from 1962 of a monk burning himself to death in protest against the government of South Vietnam. The photo was taken by AP correspondent Malcolm Browne. But Browne was a reporter/writer, not a photographer. The only reason he was carrying a camera that day was that Faas insisted that all AP correspondents learn to take photos and carry cameras with them. Back at home, union rules forbade AP correspondents from shooting photos, but in Vietnam, those rules didn’t apply, and Faas wisely turned everyone into a photographer.

Recently, while researching the photos for my book, I came across Faas photo. This is a photo that I knew I wanted for my book, but I had a devil of a time figuring out who owned the rights to it. I had seen it variously credited to TIME and the New York Times (both wrong) and to the AP (not quite right either). It is a photo that shows three of the key U.S. correspondents stationed in Saigon during the early years of the war: David Halberstam of the Times, Mal Browne of the AP, and Neil Sheehan of UPI (later of the Times). They are standing around in front of a helicopter. Browne is smoking and Sheehan holds a big map.


According to Faas, he took the photo himself. And he told me that he took it with his own personal camera and that it never belonged to AP. But rather than rile the AP and its lawyers, he sent me the image directly via email and said to go ahead and use it with his blessing. Here’s what he wrote late last year:

I took the photo at the time as a personal picture and should have it in my personal computer files. I will look for it beginning next week: No time now – I am off for a quick trip (without my computer). Since all my material at the time was officially AP material I don”t want to get in conflict with AP and would give you the photo “courtesy of..” i.e. free of charge, In return I would be interested in a copy of your book once it is published. OK?

Best regards, Horst Faas

Thanks again, Horst.

I also want to share another photo that Faas sent me (“courtesy of” the photographer). It shows the press corps in Saigon in 1963:

2 Comments

Filed under Journalism, journalism history

AP Apologizes for WWII Blunder

By Chris Daly

I was very pleased to see that my old employer, The Associated Press, finally did the right thing and apologized to a great correspondent who was wronged in 1945 as he broke the news about the end of the fighting in Europe. The apology came earlier this week on the 67th anniversary of the surrender of Germany.

Settle in: There’s quite a story behind the story of the end of the fighting in World War II in Europe. The date of the official celebrations was May 8, 1945, known as V-E Day, for victory in Europe. Much fighting remained to be done in the Pacific, where Japan was still refusing to recognize the now-inevitable Allied victory.

Back to Europe.

In early May, 1945, the Supreme Headquarters of the Allied Expeditionary Forces (SHAEF) command selected 17 correspondents from the world’s press and flew them to Riems, France to witness the surrender on behalf of the rest of the press and the people of the world.

There were very few Americans in the group. The ones who were there represented the big wire services and syndicates. In fact, not a single reporter representing a U.S. newspaper was present.

According to the allied military commanders, the news was to be embargoed: that is, you had to accept a deal. In exchange for access to the event, you had to agree to hold the news until the Army said you could release it. The SHAEF press officer said: “I pledge each one of you on his honour as a correspondent and as an assimilated officer of the United States Army not to communicate [the news] until it is released on the order of hte Public Relations Director of SHAEF.”

It remains unclear what constitutes an “agreement” under such conditions (what were the correspondents supposed to do — get up and walk out of an airplane?), but they proceeded to witness the ceremony.

The surrender by the German high command came in the early hours of May 7. Ordinarily, you might expect that the surrender would touch off immediate celebrations.

Not so fast.

The press officer announced that orders had come “from a high political level” to impose a news blackout until 8 p.m. the next day, when the news would be announced simultaneously in Paris, London, Moscow and Washington. (Turned out, Stalin was insisting on the delay so he could make a show in Berlin.) In other words, all the correspondents who had been eyewitnesses would lose their scoops. Instead, some desk-bound rewrite man or editor would get all the glory. The reporters protested tothe SHAEF press officer, but to no avail. The political leaders had decided.

Ed Kennedy, the Paris bureau chief for the AP and a veteran of coverage of the North Africa and Italian campaigns.

Among the press corps, one of the most upset was Edward Kennedy — not the late Democratic senator from Massachusetts but a man by the same name who was the chief correspondent in Europe for the AP. Bear in mind, Kennedy was in a special position. He had been burned earlier in the war when he cooperated with military brass. In 1943, Kennedy had agreed to suppress a story about Gen. George Patton and had gotten scooped by someone else. (See my book, Covering America, pgs 269-70.) Kennedy also knew that his account of the German surrender could probably reach more people on the planet than any other. He knew, too, that the AP thrives on being first and that throughout the ages, AP men (and a tiny but growing number or women) had gone to great lengths to be first to deliver the news.

Besides, he figured, no embargo on such a momentous story could hold for that long. (Nor, perhaps should it.) He was still fuming when the correspondents were marched back onto the military plane. They were flown from Reims back to Paris. Still, the world knew nothing of the surrender. Still, soldiers in Europe kept shooting at each other.

When they landed, Boyd Lewis of United Press got the first jeep from the airport to the Hotel Scribe in Paris, which had been serving as the outpost for most of the press corps. When Lewis got to the press center, he tried to tid up all the available telegraph outlets. Next in line was James Kilgallen of INS, who had beaten Kennedy to the spot by throwing his typewriter at Kennedy’s legs, slowing him down.

Kennedy was beside himself. Then he heard that SHAEF had ordered German radio to announce the surrender.

Kennedy went to the censors and announced that he was breaking the embargo. Using a telephone, he called the AP bureau in London and dictated the following lead:

REIMS, France, May 7_Germany surrendered unconditionally to the Western Allies and the Soviet Union at 2:41 a.m. French time today.

The surrender took place at a little red schoolhouse that is the headquaters of Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower…..

Within minutes, the news was flashed to the world, and wild celebrations began.

SHAEF was furious and suspended AP filing facilities throughout Europe. The rest of the press corps was furious, too. More than 50 correspondents signed a protest to SHAEF Supreme Commander Dwight Eisenhower, calling Kennedy’s action “the most disgraceful, deliberate and unethical double cross in the history of journalism.”AP’s president apologized to the nation. AP brass told Kennedy he could keep his job if he admitted he had done wrong. He wouldn’t and was fired.

What might seem amazing today — aside from the lack of cell phones and other forms of instant global communication — is how unanimously the correspondents fell in line with the military. Today, I dare say, U.S. reporters would be at least split about the ethics of something that they new to be both true and life-saving.

Two weeks later, writing in The New Yorker, A.J. Liebling, the great World War II reporter and press critic, took up the issue of Kennedy’s firing in his column “The Wayward Press.” (May 19, 1945) Liebling’s take:

The great row over Edward Kennedy’s Associated Press story of the signing of the German surrender at Reims served to point up the truth that if you are smart enough you can kick yourself in the pants, grab yourself by the back of the collar, and throw yourself out on the sidewalk. This is an axiom that I hope will be taught to future students of journalism as Liebling’s Law.

I certainly teach it that way. His piece continued:

I do not think that Kennedy imperiled the lives of any Allied soldiers by sending the story, as some of his critics have charged. He probably saved a few, because by withholding the announcement of an armistice you prolong the shooting, and, conversely, by announcing it promptly you make the shooting stop. Moreover, the Germans had broadcast the news of the armistice several hours before Kennedy’s story appeared on the streets of New York. . . The thing that has caused the most hard feeling is that Kennedy broke a “combination,” which means that he sent out a story after all the correspondents on the assignment had agreed not to. But the old-fashioned “combination” was an agreement freely reached among reporters and not a pledge imposed upon the whole group by somebody outside it.

There’s a lot more to learn from Liebling’s piece, but that’s the nub.

I wonder how Liebling would greet the news this week that the AP has finally apologized to Kennedy. I wonder how Kennedy, who died in 1963, would have greeted the news. (For more on Kennedy, see the newly published memoir Ed Kennedy’s War: V-E Day, Censorship, and the Associated Press.

As for me, I say the AP was late — 67 years late.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under history, Journalism, journalism history, Uncategorized

New Bradlee biography

By Chris Daly 

Disclaimer: I have not read the new biography of Ben Bradlee by Jeff Himmelman, called Yours in Truth. I am merely passing on a review, by Jack Shafer.

Shafer, who is hardly a sentimentalist, makes an important point midway through the review about the Woodward&Bernstein’s book All The President’s Men, which is their version of their Watergate reporting.

Here is the take-away from Shafer’s recent piece for Reuters:

Say what you will about Woodward and his reportorial techniques—and many journalists and scholars have weighed in—All the President’s Men has withstood rigorous scrutiny over the past four decades. Entire books have been dedicated to its examination. While its treatment of Watergate is not complete or perfect, the book is a powerful document of the investigation.

One of the more appealing aspects of All the President’s Men is the authors’ willingness to portray themselves in a less-than-flattering light. Bernstein is shown trampling ethics and possibly breaking the law by asking an employee at a credit card company, and another at a telephone company, to lift records. Woodward repeatedly expands his agreement with Deep Throat, phoning him after promising to stay away from the phone and quoting him anonymously in the paper after vowing never to do so. And by quoting Deep Throat at length, All the President’s Men violates the sourcing arrangement completely.

It needs to be said: after more than three decades, no jealous journalist (or bitter conservative) has poked any serious holes in ATPM or done anything like a knock-down. The story stands.

Leave a comment

Filed under Journalism, journalism history

Another view of Murdoch

By Chris Daly

Don’t say this blog is one-sided, even on the subject of Rupert Murdoch. The British writer William Shawcross recently stuck up for Murdoch in this piece in the Guardian.

Shawcross, who wrote a 1992 biography of Murdoch, is in a position to comment. I just disagree.

Here’s the take-away from Shawcross:

Rupert Murdoch has been the bravest and most radical media owner in Britain in the last 40 years.

There are caveats. It is insupportable for any tabloid, whether the Sun, the NoW, the Mirror or the Mail to “monster” individuals. But tabloids are an essential part of a vibrant market and the Sun is an excellent paper, catering well to its audience.

Without Murdoch there could never have been such a varied newspaper market in Britain during the last 25 years. Newspapers were dying until he confronted and defeated the greedy print unions. Only after his victory at Wapping did newspapers – on the left as well as on the right – have the chance to flourish. Murdoch’s purchase of Times Newspapers saved that company. It’s hard to think of any other proprietor who would have sustained its huge losses year after year.

Leave a comment

Filed under broadcasting, Journalism, journalism history, publishing

CNN: the “E.R.” of TV news?

By Chris Daly

Insightful piece today by Brian Stelter in the Times. It raises the question: Is CNN like the emergency room of a hospital that cannot fill its inpatient beds? CNN is very busy during crises, but it becomes a lonely place during periods of routine news. That certainly rings true in my experience: on an election night, I’m a visitor of CNN for sure. If I hear a snatch of something startling on the radio and want to hear/see more right away, I will snap on CNN. If all hell is breaking loose somewhere, it’s usually my top choice (certainly far ahead of cable-news leader Fox News, which has so few correspondents who can jump on breaking news).

Fundamentally, this problem has been with CNN almost from the get-go. Here’s an excerpt from my book, Covering America, about the founding of CNN and its basic business problem. 

. . .By approaching cable news this way, [CNN founder Ted] Turner was coincidentally creating a new business model for TV journalism. Unlike the networks, CNN did not plan to build a huge entertainment division that would have to create or bid for programs. And unlike public television, CNN was not dependent on public subsidies, foundation grants, or donations from the audience. Instead, Turner was adapting an older business model from newspapers. In the CNN approach, TV news would be paid for through a “dual revenue stream.” Just as newspapers made money from two sources—advertising and subscriptions—so would CNN. The company would sell ads, and it would also have a steady stream of revenue coming in from the cable operators, who had to pay CNN a few pennies per customer per month, reflecting CNN’s share of the monthly cable TV bills that Americans were getting used to paying. With low costs and two fairly reliable streams of revenue, news on cable just might work.

Ready or not, on June 1, 1980, CNN made its debut. There were the inevitable mishaps (the cleaning lady who walked across the set behind the anchor while the cameras were rolling), but the impressive thing was that it worked. CNN started covering the news that day and has done so continuously ever since—days, nights, weekends, holidays. Only the AP could make a similar claim, (though it supplies news to the industry rather than directly to the public). Soon, Turner was showing the skeptics that it was in fact possible to put news on television round the clock. Yes, it was sometimes raggedy. And yes, there was a lot still to accomplish—including hammering out reciprocal video-sharing agreements with affiliates, hiring more and more staff, opening bureaus around the world. But it worked.

By the end of 1981, CNN was getting established. It was reaching 10 million households and was clawing its way to journalistic parity with the network news divisions.18 One key issue was what is known as “pool coverage.” This occurs in many settings when there is not enough room to accommodate all the media people who wish to cover some location or event, such as a courtroom, a presidential appearance with limited access, or the like. In those cases, the answer is a pool, in which all the journalists in each medium agree to cooperate. Typically, each medium gets to put one representative at the scene. In return for that access, the chosen journalist agrees to share the results with all the other members of the pool in the same medium. In addition, each member of the pool agrees to take a turn in providing the feed. This arrangement assumes, of course, that anyone participating in the pool will produce work of high enough quality to satisfy all the others. CNN was originally scorned by the networks, which refused to let CNN crews participate in the White House television pool coverage. It took a lawsuit (which cost Turner another $1 million), but eventually CNN was allowed in.

One of the early tests of CNN as a news organization came on March 30, 1981. President Reagan gave a speech that day to the AFL-CIO at the Washington Hilton. CNN covered the speech live and then, when it was over, switched to some filler material, about sewing in China. While that was airing, the police scanner in CNN’s Washington bureau barked: “Shots fired . . . Hilton Hotel.” Almost immediately, the veteran newscaster Bernard Shaw sat down in the anchor chair in the CNN Washington bureau and began reporting that shots had been fired at the president—a full four minutes before the networks. Shaw stayed in the chair for more than seven hours, and, with help from Dan Schorr, proved that the fledgling news service could keep up with the established networks. Through the evening, CNN kept breaking in with new details: a picture of the shooter’s home, a report on his motive, pictures of the vice president in Texas heading to Washington. According to one account of that day: “Such details were hitting the air in no particular sequence. CNN’s viewers got the story in the jumbled way a journalist receives fragments of information before transforming them into an orderly, polished report. The ‘process’ of gathering news determined the form in which that news was delivered.” Before CNN, viewers had received their news in measured doses at fixed times; now they were drinking straight from the fire hose.

For years, CNN cost more to produce than it brought in through the combined revenues of cable subscriptions and advertising. The network was burning through Ted Turner’s personal wealth at an unsustainable rate. The early years were a desperate race to get CNN included in enough viewers’ basic cable packages to pay for itself. Most of the costs of gathering and disseminating the news by cable were fixed; the great variable was the size of the audience. Beginning in 1978, from the pre-launch investments in people, property, satellite time, and equipment, CNN lost an estimated $77 million through 1984.20 But then in 1985, CNN began posting profits: $20 million that year and more in the coming years. In the grow-or-die spirit of modern capitalism, Turner soon started thinking about acquiring other businesses. At the same time, a profitable CNN was looking more attractive to other investors, who might try to take it over. By the end of the decade, CNN was earning almost $90 million a year and had an estimated value of $1.5 billion. At the decade mark, on June 1, 1990, it could be seen in 53 million homes in the United States and in eighty-four countries worldwide. CNN had nine U.S. bureaus and another eighteen overseas, with a global total of some 1,800 employees. CNN had arrived. . .

 

Leave a comment

Filed under broadcasting, CNN, Fox News, Journalism, journalism history, media

“Not a Fit Person”

By Chris Daly 

Well, now it’s official. Something that many people have thought for a long time is now part of the findings of a British parliamentary report: Rupert Murdoch is “not a fit person” to run a globe-straddling, influence-buying, phone-hacking, official-bribing media conglomerate.

Actually, the report released Tuesday may not be Murdoch’s biggest problem. He is already under investigation in the United States as well. Murdoch became a U.S. citizen in the mid-1980s, a move that facilitated his move into American broadcasting (since U.S. law requires that broadcasting remain in the hands of U.S. citizens). Perhaps more serious for Murdoch is the fact that his News Corp. (parent company of the British unit that is in trouble in Parliament) is a U.S. corporation, registered on the New York Stock Exchange. That means that News Corp. is subject to all the laws and regulations of the United States — including the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. That law, dating to the 1970s, forbids U.S. companies from using their assets to pay bribes to officials in other countries. On the face of it, that would appear to make it a crime in the U.S. for News Corp. employees to do what they have already admitted under oath in Parliament: for years, they paid British police police officials for tips about their investigations.

If I were Murdoch (or even a shareholder in News Corp., which operates Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, among many others), that’s what I would be really worried about.

Recent stories are here, here and here.

News Corp. world headquarters in Manhattan / Kathy Willens (AP)

Leave a comment

Filed under broadcasting, Fox News, Journalism, journalism history

New review of “Covering America”

This recently appeared in the Midwest Book Review:

The Journalism Shelf

Covering America
Christopher B. Daly
University of Massachusetts Press
PO Box 429
Amherst, MA 01004
9781558499119 $49.95 http://www.umass.edu/umpress

Award-winning author Christopher B. Daly, a veteran journalist as well as an instructor of history and journalism at Boston University, presents Covering America: A Narrative History of a Nation’s Journalism. Covering America lives up to its title with an exhaustively researched, scholarly, and in-depth chronicle of the art and craft of journalism in America, from 1705 to the present day. Chapters discuss the foundations of the American Press including Ben Franklin and his contemporaries, the rise of newspapers; how journalism covered slavery and the Civil War, the Great Depression, World War II, and other monumental historical events; the twentieth century rise of major media conglomerates; and much more. “Whether for-profit or not, the institutions that engage in mass communication have been almost entirely in private hands, separate form the government… From a small-scale shop to a factory-sized corporation to a global conglomerate, the news business as a business has kept pace with broader trends. That process has in turn created a recurring set of crises in which the values of journalism have come into conflict with the values of business.” A handful of vintage black-and-white photographs illustrate this meticulous, methodical, and absolutely invaluable contribution to history and journalism shelves, worthy of the highest recommendation especially for public and college library collections.

Leave a comment

Filed under Journalism, journalism history

Review of “The Columnist”

By Chris Daly 

A new play about to open on Broadway takes us back, not only to a different era but to a different America. The play is “The Columnist,” by playwright David Auburn, who also wrote the marvelous drama “Proof” in 2000.

The Columnist, by David Auburn

His latest play tells a version of the story of Joe Alsop, who was one of the mandarins of the Washington pundit class during its heyday. Indeed, one of the remarkable things about “The Columnist” is how deftly it reminds us of what a different media world it was in the 1950s and 1960s from today. It’s not just the period details — Alsop’s smoking or his typing (on a real typewriter!~). What is most telling is the way Alsop thinks of his role and the way he is treated by other powerful figures.

Alsop, who teamed up for periods with his brother, Stewart, knew everyone in Washington, of course. But his most strategic alliance was probably with John F. Kennedy, who, on the night of his inaugural in 1961, said good night to Mrs. Kennedy, then headed over to Joe Alsop’s for a nightcap. This was all very pre-Watergate, in an era when journalists and politicians actually knew each other, spoke off the record, and even drank together.

To his credit, Auburn wastes no time on nostalgia. Yes, his play acknowledges, something has been lost in the distance that now separates journalists from political leaders, but “The Columnist” also makes the point in several ways that something has been gained too.

At the same time, the play makes the point that the Democratic Party was a militaristic, center-right party not much different from the Republican Party of that era. Without saying so, the play hints at how much effort it would take in the 1960s and 1970s to turn the Democratic Party into more of a progressive, inclusive, anti-war party.

As played by the marvelous John Lithgow, this portrayal of Alsop pulls no punches. Yes, he could be witty, perceptive,  and disarmingly charming. At the same time, Alsop was a martinet, a bully, and a war hawk. Lithgow deserves high praise for a smashing portrayal in a role that has him on stage for every scene and that requires him to age about 2o years in two hours. Witty, mannered, polished — Lithgow is the perfect embodiment of Alsop.

In the play, Alsop has several shouting matches (via telephone; Lithgow does all the shouting) with Scotty Reston, the Washington bureau chief and lead political columnist for the New York Times for much of the Cold War. Many of them help to advance the play because they involve Alsop’s fury at Reston’s protege, David Halberstam. So, it is quite natural and historically accurate that Alsop is portrayed teeing off on Reston.

But from the standpoint of the history of journalism, a better foil for Joe Alsop would  have been Walter Lippmann. After all, Lippmann was, like Alsop, a syndicated columnist whose beat was The Big Picture. Like Alsop, Lippmann was a pillar of the American Establishment. In the post-War years, there was no office-holder or opinion-shaper who would not drop everything to take a phone call from Walter Lippmann. Yet unlike Alsop, Lippmann was a critic of Kennedy’s involvement in Vietnam and warned the president repeatedly (and publicly) to get out.

When I was writing my book on the history of journalism, Covering America, I considered including Joe Alsop, and I very nearly did. But in the end, I decided that he did not make the cut because he was not enough of an innovator. I wanted to focus on those men and women who changed the field of journalism or who used journalism to make some kind of broader change. Joe Alsop struck me as one of those who dedicated his life to holding off change. More’s the pity.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Journalism, journalism history

Titanic’s role in journalism

By Chris Daly 

On the eve of the centennial of the sinking of the Titanic, I am posting an excerpt from my new book, Covering America, about the impact of the Titanic on the emerging field of “wireless telegraphy.”

First, here is an image of a wireless distress signal sent that night from the Titanic to the Marconi company.

Telegram from the Titanic: "require assistance. . . struck iceberg"
(Courtesy: Museum of the History of Science, Oxford)

From Covering America: A Narrative History of Nation’s Journalism, chap 7:

In the decades following its invention, the telegraph became a fact of life and an indispensable tool in business, in the military, and in journalism. Still, it had some drawbacks: it could carry a message, but the contents had to be sent in code; messages could be sent only from one point to another, and those two points had to be connected by a copper wire. For these reasons among others, the telegraph was not a popular means of communication but remained a special tool used mainly by businesses.42 In the late nineteenth century, a flurry of scientific and engineering breakthroughs started to overcome those limitations. In 1876 a Boston University professor named Alexander Graham Bell invented a machine, the telephone, which allowed the human voice to be carried over a wire. Nikola Tesla, a Serbian immigrant to America and the inventor of the alternating-current electric motor, contributed the idea that electromagnetic waves could carry messages. Soon it was proven that such waves could pass through walls. They could scale mountains, even cross the ocean. This created the promise of an amazing possibility: a telegraph without wires! A young Italian, Guglielmo Marconi, became a pioneer in the new field, devoting himself to working on a way to use radio waves to transmit signals carrying Morse code.43 Marconi had the resources to tinker with the idea; his mother was an heir to the Jameson family Irish whisky fortune. Rebuffed at home, Marconi went to England, where he formed the Wireless Telegraph Signal Company in 1897, to be followed by an American division of British Marconi a few years later. In 1901, Marconi even managed to send a wireless signal across the Atlantic Ocean, but he struggled to find a business model for his invention. The early applications of the new technology were in the military and in the shipping business, where the ability to send messages without wires had an obvious appeal. At first the technology was referred to as wireless telegraphy, or simply “wireless,” but a new term—radio—first popularized in the U.S. Navy, soon won out. In 1906 an American inventor named Reginald Fessenden demonstrated that radio signals could transmit more than just long and short pulses. They could carry music and even the human voice. In the end, that discovery proved indispensable for making radio a truly popular medium. One of the first big tests of radio, one that made a lasting impact on the public imagination, came in 1912, when the world’s greatest luxury ocean liner, the state-of-the-art Titanic, made its initial voyage from England to New York.44 As the great ship crossed the North Atlantic on April 14, it struck an iceberg, and the crew immediately used the ship’s wireless equipment to call for help. Some of the other ships in the vicinity had wireless equipment that was turned on and monitored at all times; others had turned their sets off for the night. As a result, Copyright 2012 NOT FOR SALE [ 204 ] CHAPTER 7 the closest ship, the Californian, which could have saved all of the Titanic’s 1,522 passengers, lay at anchor just nineteen miles away and never responded. The Carpathia, which was fifty-eight miles away when the Titanic started sinking, took two hours to arrive, and by then, many passengers had drowned in the frigid waters of the North Atlantic. Rescue efforts were also hampered by the many amateur radio operators who filled the airwaves that night with rumors, questions, and interference from their overlapping signals. In the aftermath of the Titanic disaster, the U.S. Congress quickly adopted legislation requiring that all American oceangoing ships and all those entering U.S. ports be equipped with radios, and that the radios be kept on and staffed at all times. Congress also required radio operators to get a license from the U.S. Department of Commerce, and it relegated amateur operators to the bottom of the radio spectrum (the shortwave end) while giving priority to the navy and to commercial companies like Marconi’s.45 Significantly, Congress chose not to follow the European model, in which new technologies including telegraph, telephone, and radio were successively grafted onto a government monopoly such as the postal service, resulting in public communication monopolies like the BBC. In the United States, Congress operated on the principle that radio would be a private enterprise—regulated, to be sure, but private nonetheless. In retrospect, this was one of the constitutive moments shaping the eventual architecture of broadcasting in America, combining elements of technology, law, and economics into a new model.46 On the night of the Titanic disaster, one of the radio operators in New York handling reports of the sinking was a young man named David Sarnoff. (He was not the only one, as he often claimed.) A Russian immigrant who never made it past the eighth grade, Sarnoff would become one of the titans of broadcasting in the twentieth century as president of RCA, the Radio Corporation of America.47 While working for Marconi, Sarnoff demonstrated great foresight. In 1915, when he was just twenty-four years old, Sarnoff wrote a memo to his boss, giving his thoughts on the business. He envisioned a future for radio that went far beyond transmitting coded messages from point to point. “I have in mind,” he wrote, “a plan of development which would make radio a ‘household utility’ in the same sense as the piano or the phonograph. The idea is to bring music into the home by wireless. . . . The same principle can be extended to numerous other fields as, for example, receiving lectures at home which can be made perfectly audible; also, events of national importance can be simultaneously announced and received.”48 Sarnoff projected a market of 15 million American families. The Marconi company did not think much of Sarnoff’s scheme, but Sarnoff clung to the idea that radios could be a popular mass commodity, provided they became easier to use. Never much of engineer, Sarnoff was already showing his true talent: marketing. He switched to management. While Sarnoff and others were pondering the future of radio, most Americans Copyright 2012 NOT FOR SALE Jazz Age Journa lism, 1920–1929 [ 205 ] still had never heard a radio broadcast. A few license-holders were beginning to transmit signals through the airwaves (or into “the ether,” as it was called), where they could be heard by anyone with a receiving set. But hardly anyone had one yet. A few corporations, such as United Fruit, were using radio to coordinate their shipping fleets. And of course the army and navy remained deeply involved in radio. But before about 1920, radio remained largely in the hands of the amateurs— most of them young men who were inclined to tinker. Those early adapters usually built their own radio sets. They set up friendly competitions to see who could pull in the faintest or most distant signal (which they called “DXing”). They often traded information and parts in a wave of enthusiasm that had nothing to do with patents, profits, or licenses. Participants in the new movement sometimes referred to what they were doing as “citizen radio.”49 An editorial in one of the first radio journals put it this way: “Do you realize that our radio provides about the only way by which an individual can communicate intelligence to another beyond the sound of his own voice without paying tribute to a government or a commercial interest?”50 Soon others joined in—women as well as men, universities, stores, even the famous Dr. Brinkley of Kansas, who used radio to promote his theory that implanting goat glands would cure “male trouble.” Radio was wide open— diverse, local, nonprofit, and utterly unpredictable. But not for long. World War I transformed radio, as it did so many other institutions.

Leave a comment

Filed under broadcasting, Journalism, journalism history