Category Archives: journalism history

JFK shooting: TV news grows up fast

By Christopher B. Daly 

With the approach of the 50th anniversary of that fateful day in Dallas, I thought it might be worth re-visiting my account of the assassination. Here is an excerpt from Covering America that looks at the media response to the shooting:

During the Kennedy presidency, television news became more powerful than ever. In the years since the quiz show scandals of the 1950s, television executives had been atoning by lavishing resources on their news divisions. Television sets were in the vast majority of homes by 1960, and the audience for the TV networks dwarfed that of any newspaper and even the readership of the entire Time-Life empire. The media president, Jack Kennedy, also introduced live television coverage of presidential news conferences and proceeded to thrive in the new forum. Television carried more news than ever, to more people.

On November 22, 1963, television was the medium by which many Americans first got the news about the shooting. There it was, right on TV. The president and his wife were in a motorcade with Governor John Connally and his wife. Shots rang out, and the president was rushed to the hospital. No word on the shooter’s identity. It may not have been apparent to viewers, but television executives were scrambling to keep up. The networks did not have the equipment and staff needed to “go live” and put news on the air as it was unfolding. Just off camera it was pandemonium, as executives met to decide how to cover a presidential shooting in the new medium. Eventually they reached a consensus: they would stay with the story, without interruptions and without ads, for the duration. So it was that for three or four days the American people did something they had never done before: they stayed home and attended a funeral via television. If they were watching CBS, they saw Walter Cronkite dab at his eye when he announced the bulletin confirming Kennedy’s death. No matter what network they watched, viewers saw Jack Ruby shoot Lee Harvey Oswald; they saw the flag-draped caisson and the riderless horse; and they saw the salute given by the president’s young son. For the first time (and almost the last, as it happened), nearly the entire country had nearly the same experience at the same time.

CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite struggles to keep his composure on-camera as he announces the news of the death of President John F. Kennedy live on the air on November 22, 1963.     —Getty Images.

CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite struggles to keep his composure on-camera as he announces the news of the death of President
John F. Kennedy live on the air on November 22, 1963.
—Getty Images.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the New York Times, on Monday, November 25, 1963, the front page featured a banner headline across the entire page, stacked three decks deep:

PRESIDENT’S ASSASSIN SHOT TO DEATH

IN JAIL CORRIDOR BY A DALLAS CITIZEN;

GRIEVING THRONGS VIEW KENNEDY BIER

The funeral was planned for later that day. Below the big headline was a photo (from the AP) of Jackie Kennedy and Caroline kneeling next to the president’s flag-draped casket. Underneath was a little single-column story headlined:

JOHNSON AFFIRMS

AIMS IN VIETNAM

Then, this ominous subhead:

Retains Kennedy’s Policy

of Aiding War on Reds

 

[To read my book, order Covering America from Amazon.]

 

Leave a comment

Filed under broadcasting, history, Journalism, journalism history, media, New York Times

Long live the obit!

By Christopher B. Daly 

An often under-appreciated journalistic form is the humble obituary, known as the obit. The best kind of obit, when well done, is a kind of snap profile. The subject of the ideal profile is a person you did not know when alive but should have — or whom you now wish you had known before it was too late.

These are not to be confused with paid death notices, which are horribly formulaic. (I know, obits can be formulaic too, but I am not talking about those here.)  A true obituary, by definition, is a story about a dead person written by a journalist. The best ones convey the news about the timing and manner of death, then go on to tell a story about an interesting life.

I wish to celebrate two obits that appear by coincidence today.

In the Boston Globe, Bryan Marquard salutes the late Sam McCracken — a obit-big“character” of the first order. I did not know McCracken despite his many years at Boston University, but now I wish I had.

 

In the New York Times, the redoubtable Robert D. McFadden opens a world — that of the favored few who not only lived in the apartments at Carnegie Hall SHERMAN1-obit-articleLargebut paid almost no rent for the privilege. The occasion is the recent death of another “character,” Editta (cq) Sherman, who made it to age 101.

 

Either of these obits could have stood on its own as a feature story in either paper. These sorts of efforts renew my faith in the obit, which is under pressure from the hollowing out of newspaper staffs and from the relentless pressure of the Internet. They remind me why we continue to teach our students in journalism schools how to write obits — and why they should want to.

Leave a comment

Filed under Journalism, journalism history, media, New York Times, Uncategorized

Keller v. Greenwald debate: Reporting v. Advocacy

By Christopher B. Daly

Bill Keller, former executive editor of The New York Times and keeper of the flame of traditional reporting, has squared off with Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who disclosed the Snowden leaks and an avatar of advocacy, in a debate over the meaning and future of journalism. Their debate is well worth reading and contemplating. 

Here’s my take: they are actually talking past each other. Each participant represents a different definition of journalism and cannot fathom the other’s values. As I argue in my book, Covering America, they come from competing visions of the essence of journalism, each of which has a long record.

Keller stands squarely for the tradition of responsible, dispassionate, nonpartisan, factual reporting. This was articulated forcefully by Adolph Ochs, the great-grandfather of the current Times publisher, when he bought the Times in 1896. Keller seems to believe that this tradition is the only legitimate one and that all others represent a deformation or corruption of “real” journalism.

Greenwald stands squarely for the tradition of journalism that prizes journalism for its ability to change the world. This is the polemical, analytical, interpretive form of journalism that considers advocacy the essence of journalism. Practitioners like Greenwald often look down on the reporting tradition as a weak, hypocritical, trouble-avoiding compromise.

It may come as a surprise that the advocacy tradition is actually older (much older) than the reporting tradition. In America, the first newspaper launched in 1704, and for more than a century after that, most journalism in America was a fact-free zone of argument and advocacy carried out by the likes of Sam Adams and Tom Paine.

The first full-time reporter in America (the obscure figure George Wisner of the New York Sun– pgs 61-62 in Covering America) wasn’t hired until 1833, and it took decades to establish the idea that the proper contents of a newspaper were value-free “facts” gathered by non-partisan professionals.

Personally, I don’t think one tradition is inherently more virtuous or more valuable than the other. I admire the best in both worlds.

 

 

2 Comments

Filed under blogging, history, Journalism, journalism history, media, New York Times, Politics

Norman Mailer on JFK

In the next month, much will be said and written about John F. Kennedy on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of his assassination. To prepare for this season of remembrance, here is a good place to start: the landmark essay/profile that ran in Esquire magazine in November 1960. Written by the novelist/playwright/journalist Norman Mailer, it was titled “Superman Comes to the Supermarket” and it remains must-reading.

A hat tip to Esquire for posting the whole thing on its site.

[Hint: if you hit the “print” button on the Esquire page, you can get the whole piece in one big file, minus most of the ads. But then again, if you are not being bombarded about sex and whiskey, are you really getting the full Esquire experience?]

superman-supermart-1060-lg

Leave a comment

Filed under Journalism, journalism history, Politics

Who owns the Boston Globe? John Henry does.

By Christopher B. Daly 

No surprise: the deal announced last summer has finally closed. The NYT Co. has sold the Boston Globe (and a bundle of other New England news properties) to the wealthy investor John Henry. The price was $70 million, or 6.3% of the $1.1 billion that the New York Times paid for the Globe 20 years ago.

Henry, who made a fortune in commodity trading, already owns several important sports ventures —

imgresnotably the hometown MLB franchise, the Boston Red Sox. (How the Globe sports department will cover the Sox remains a touchy, unresolved issue that will not go away.)

Henry also owns the Liverpool Football Club, which is ranked third in the English Premier League of the sport we commonly call soccer. Here’s a page of links to Henry-related stories from the British newspaperGooglepluscrest The Guardian. Here’s the comparable page from the Liverpool Echo, consisting mainly of sports stories that say little about Henry.

The reason that I am searching British media for information about Henry is that he is rarely written about here. Although he has been one of the principal owners of the Boston Red Sox for years now, he is still pretty much of an enigma. He shows up in photos at the occasional charity or celebrity event, and his courtship and marriage of Linda Pizzutti (who hails from my hometown — Medford, Mass.) in 2009 produced a portfolio of rather icky photos.

Boston magazine has attempted to cover Henry, and I hope they continue to do so.

The question that awaits an answer is: how will the Globe cover its new owner? This is an inherently awkward (and possibly impossible) assignment for any news organization, since readers will always have to wonder whether any punches were pulled. To report fully and write honestly about the person who signs your paycheck is hard enough; to convince people that you are really telling the whole story means somehow overcoming the apparent conflict of interest involved. It will be a test of the Globe’s independence and its credibility as a journalistic enterprise if it even attempts to cover the new owner.

As for Henry, much remains to be seen. Here are some questions I have:

Will he be an engaged owner?

Will he keep the valuable Brian McGrory as top editor?

Will he endorse political candidates?

Will he stand by the paper’s metered pay system for online access?

Will he order up expanded coverage of English soccer?

Will he tolerate critical coverage of the Red Sox?

Will he sell the land and buildings at Morrissey Boulevard?

Will he sell the printing presses and trucks and take the Globe into a post-print future?

In this photo, what time is it? After sundown, or pre-dawn?

In this photo, what time is it? After sundown, or pre-dawn?

Leave a comment

Filed under business, Journalism, journalism history, New York Times, Red Sox, Uncategorized

A history of journalism in two minutes?

By Christopher B. Daly

That’s what the new film “The Fifth Estate” promises in its opening sequence. According to a story in the NYTimes, a specialty production company in Venice, Calif., known as Prologue, has done just that. Since it takes me 15 weeks, lecturing twice a week for 80 minutes at a pop (or, about 2,400 minutes a semester) and I don’t get through all my material, I guess my hat’s off to them.

Can’t wait to see “The Fifth Estate,” which is a dramatization of the story of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. I better not be at the popcorn stand or in the bathroom when the movie starts, or I could miss the whole history of journalism.

A still from the opening sequence of "The Fifth Estate"

A still from the opening sequence of “The Fifth Estate”

If you’ve seen it, please leave a comment and let us all know what you thought.

Leave a comment

Filed under Journalism, journalism history, Wikileaks

Should the Internet be regulated?

By Christopher B. Daly 

And, if so, for whose benefit?

Those were some of the issues swirling in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington as lawyers argued over a case that could have far-reaching impacts on the future of Internet access and the Web.

On one side is the FCC, which is asserting that it has the power to regulate the Internet just as it regulates over forms of electronic communication like radio, TV, and telephone.

On the other side is Verizon, a major internet service provider (ISP), which says the FCC has never been granted that power by Congress and cannot just assert it because it wants to.

A major point of conflict: can ISPs be forced to treat all their customers the same when it comes to upload/download speeds, pricing, and the like? Or, are they free to devise their own pricing structures that penalize heavy users of bandwidth?

If the ISPs have that right, how would they use that power? Would they impose high rates on start-ups like Zipcar and end up thwarting innovation?

Here’s today’s version in the Times.

The takeaway:

Consumers could experience a significant change in the Internet if the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit strikes down the F.C.C.’s requirement, called the Open Internet Order.

Currently, companies that offer goods or services online do not have to pay anything to get their content to consumers. If Internet service providers started charging fees to reach customers more quickly, large, wealthy companies like Google and Facebook would have an edge, the F.C.C. says. The government argued that such a tiered service could cause small, start-up companies with little money to pay for their access — the next Google orFacebook, perhaps — to wither on the vine.

In any case, the added costs would be likely to be passed on to consumers.

The case, which is expected to be decided late this year or early next year, has attracted enormous interest. On Monday, telecommunications lawyers began lining up to get into the courtroom two and a half hours before the session was scheduled to start. The session was standing room only, with many others left to listen in an adjacent overflow room.

To be continued. . .

Leave a comment

Filed under blogging, Journalism, journalism history, media

Bezos to Post: “Don’t be boring!”

By Christopher B. Daly 

This seems like good news: Jeff Bezos, the new owner of The Washington Post, went into the lions’ den to greet the news staff and came out a hero. By the Post’s own account, Bezos made a hit during his day of meetings.

Among his thoughts:

–“Don’t be boring.” (Good advice for a newspaper, but too often honored in the breach.)

–“What has been happening over the last several years can’t continue to happen,” he said. “If every year we cut the newsroom a little more and a little more and a little more, we know where that ends.”

— “All businesses need to be forever young.. . ”

The Bezos visit caused an explosion on Twitter, including many posts by Posties. See #bezospalooza

Is this man ready for the Style section?  Post photo

Is this man ready for the Style section?
Post photo

Leave a comment

Filed under Journalism, journalism history, publishing, Uncategorized

Historic journalism: 1852 edition

By Christopher B. Daly

Don’t miss: a lovely piece of journalism history in today’s NYTimes, above coverage of an earlier heat wave — in 1852.

x1xThe Streets in Midsummer.jpg

Today’s piece captures the novel sense that New Yorkers were feeling that summer heat in the city was somehow worse and harder to bear than summer heat in the country. The build environment was beginning to capture and radiate heat. The unnatural concentration of horses and other animals added to the stink and pestilence. The physical crowding of people in the streets and in the tenements. The air pollution caused by the aerosolization of manure and other waste — all these things were creating a new kind of misery. And, through the mediation of the newspaper, perhaps a new solidarity among city-dwellers as fellow survirors of this new challenge of living.

Thank you, NYT.

First offices of the New York Times, starting in 1851. 113 Nassau St.

First offices of the New York Times, starting in 1851.
113 Nassau St.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Journalism, journalism history, New York Times

What China really needs: press freedom

By Christopher B. Daly 

What ails the Chinese economy? According to a recent story and column in the NYTimes, it’s a lack of confidence among Chinese consumers in the safety of the products — from baby formula to cars to pork — made in their own country. They lack confidence for good reasons, but they lack the means to do much about it other than smuggle in substitutes.

I would submit that one missing ingredient is a free press that could reveal the abuses, shortcuts, and shoddy practices that undermine Chinese products. In his column, Joe Nocera gave this idea a quick nod.

In the United States, of course, it has become religion among conservatives to denounce regulation, saying it stifles business and hinders economic growth. But consider: At the turn of the last century, America was as riddled with scam artists as China is today. Snake oil salesmen — literally — abounded. Food safety was a huge issue. In 1906, however, Upton Sinclair published “The Jungle,” his exposé-novel about the meatpacking industry. That book, pointed out Stanley Lubman, a longtime expert in Chinese law, in a recent blog post in The Wall Street Journal, is what propelled Theodore Roosevelt to propose the Food and Drug Administration. Which, in turn, reformed meat-processing — among many other things — and gave consumers confidence in the food they ate and the products they bought.

That is fine as far as it goes, but it’s a bit reductionist. The fact is, it took a sustained campaign by a lot of muckraking journalists to build public support for reform, and it took a political system that could (with sufficient effort) bring about change, and it took a political movement (Progressivism) that was poised to mobilize that public sentiment into electoral and legislative results.

Ironically, the same issue of the NYTimes has a roundabout confirmation of the virtue of regulation: the red-state folks who raise catfish are worried that Washington will fail to fund the federal office that oversees inspections of catfish. No inspectors, no public confidence, no sales.

CATFISH-articleInline

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Journalism, journalism history