The First Amendment; Swanberg Biographies

The eastern Public Radio Network in cooperation with the Institute for democratic communication at Boston University now presents the First Amendment and a free people a weekly examination of civil liberties in the media. In the 1970s the host of the program is the institute's director Dr. Bernard Reuben. One of the most eminent biographers in today's world of letters is doubly way Swanberg who's won an international reputation as a historian of American subjects particularly well known for his citizen Hearst and for his study of Joseph Pulitzer. He's also the author of drys or Jim Fisk and a book called First Blood the story of Fort Sumter. I think the first thing I ever read by him was Sickles the incredible about an incredible civil war character. His latest book is Norman Thomas Lest you think that I am introducing Mr.

Swanberg I am not but this is a program of people who are very appreciative of the work of the Swanberg and his contribution to our understanding of certain of the more lively points about the First Amendment and freedom of expression. My guest to discuss the the efforts the contributions of this rather extraordinary man are William E. Henry the third who was the radio and television editor the critic of The Boston Globe who's a political journalist well published many times in Washington Post New Republic in many other journals. And also joining me is my colleague Robert Rutherford Smith the chairman of the broadcasting film department at Boston University. Gentleman perhaps Bill I'll throw this out to you first. What is there about this work. Let's say we start with citizen Hearst. What is there about the work of William the biography of William Randolph Hearst that makes Swanberg rise above so

many of his contemporaries in the business of writing about people. I think for one thing there's an extraordinary attention to detail and objectivity about it is the only writer I've ever read. Talking about how William Randolph Hearst virtually singlehanded started the Spanish-American War. Who does not either endorse the war or fulminate against the war. He simply Chronicles for you precisely how her set about doing it. And I think it's an enormous contribution to judging whether or not we have to free a press to be able to look at this case study with a sense that we really have the full picture. And there are very very few writers about the media who don't begin with a bias so strong that it really narrows the information they provide. BOB SMITH Well I think Swanberg has a very wide range of sympathies because in his biographies of of Pulitzer and Hearst he writes about two quite

different men and writes about each of them quite sympathetically. Pulitzer was was young was not a pretty or was poor when he was young was not a particularly stable person he assaulted one person with a gun and got in trouble in the Army for getting in fights. Was he calls names Wahlberg calls him a manic depressive and I think he made that judgment carefully after talking with psycho analysts about Pulitzer on the other hand Hearst was really quite different and much more stable person from an affluent background Harvard educated wrote well enjoyed I think society in a much different way than in Pulitzer and Swanberg has a wide enough range of sympathies to write about most of both men quite well. Well our vision of her just was really colored by Austin wells for a whole two or three generations and rose bud. And and that that approach one of the interesting things about Swanberg work is that as you said Bill Henry he reveals the the real man and the real man was was a journalist politics a long whose

standards were different then most of today's journalists with one or two exceptions or anybody like Hearst that you might think of not so much in terms of spending lots of money but who in the modern world is like Hearst is there anybody. I think the television networks are closer because it seems to me that the essence of what made her different was that he recognized that journalism was first and foremost a business. He was interested in interesting people he wanted to inform them. But he worked in the days of the mass audience before demographics. You weren't trying to sell just to an affluent elite. You were trying to sell to everybody and you made money by selling lots and lots of newspapers. He therefore wanted to appeal to the broadest base of people. And he quite calculatedly chose features and stories to do that. And unlike his contemporaries was pretty good at manufacturing the news to some extent as well he certainly

has. Swanberg details manufactured scandals and wickedness to provoke the Spanish-American War. And it was not only a political triumph for him and part of what helped launched him into Congress and very nearly made him there very nearly made him governor. It made him a conceivable presidential candidate. It was also a triumph of business acumen. It it was a significant factor in solidifying his business hold the television networks subscribe to the conventional pieties these days of saying. That they want to treat news is a thing apart. But in point of fact they are more candid both in word and in practice in recognizing that you don't reach people. I simply by being virtuous you must pull them in and they have this private sector sense. I suppose part of it is that they are not as strongly protected by the First Amendment and

until the latter part of this century I don't think that the First Amendment for newspapers has been taken quite as seriously in the same way I was in his day. I think he was about the first one conglomerate from from one coast of the nation to the next. Well his style was typical of the time though he happened to succeed much more widely. But I don't think it was less than a riot. I don't think he was aware of his power in fact he wrote his first outline of what he thought a newspaper ought to be and how it ought to handle its public responsibilities after the Spanish-American War I think he was surprised at his own power. And it was after the war that he became aware of it. Before that I think he had found his way of making a fortune and something that he was interested in and good at. As have Pulitzer but I think the war was pivotal for both of them. That may be an oversimplification they develop their interest in politics after becoming long before the war though he was.

He was expressing the interests of the West. He was expressing opposition to certain kinds of Eastern interests that were hated by the West. He was he was able to carve out a wild kind of journalism that was immensely popular. I think my question to both of you is did the First Amendment really bother her just in the course of his working life very much. Or was he the exponent of the individualistic entrepreneur the original American businessman. I think he had an old fashioned view of the First Amendment that I that is that he believed as I think our founding fathers did that the First Amendment that the right of a private individual to make a living disseminating information freely. And there was certainly a theoretical matrix for people like Thomas Jefferson people who also to some extent spoke up for censorship as well as against it. Everybody quotes Jefferson saying that are

free press than a free legislature. But he was the same man who said that certain kinds of sedition and defaming of people and so on rather more broadly defined than we now define liable ought to be suppressed. I think more in the 19th century one saw the development of the idea that the First Amendment meant the freedom to make a living doing this and that it oughtn't be the government's business and this is a peculiarly American phenomenon and we're the only country where the government is and to some extent running the broadcasting industry for example. Because we have a strong feeling that should be privatised. In the latter part of this century I think the First Amendment has come to mean that you have a sort of secular priesthood of journalists who are supposed to be motivated by the same kind of ideals that we used to ascribe to religious people and that they in turn are not to be meddled with by the government. I don't think Hearst was thinking in those terms and I don't think anybody else was that either.

Right it's not an issue of the First Amendment those free speech issues are only issues worth considering if they're under attack from someone. And at that time I think he was operating in an environment in which the absolute capitalist practices of the days allowed him considerably a considerable range. And essentially the newspaper was an extension of his own personal freedom which it was political power and it precursors to a lot of his work precursors to the yellow journalism which was ascribed to later in the period he participated in yellow journalism. But it was more than that to him it was the the idea of shaping California. It was the idea I think of shaping the American West. Also time to to become dominant in that Prince he want to be a national figure one of the first to rise in that movie. But even more that the very first important national figure to come from the west to the east and to conquer the corporate world of the east from the west. All of us on the northeaster are now a little anxious about

the Cowboys. Kirkpatrick Sale referred to them and anxious about the Californians and Hearst did this almost 100 years ago in quite as effective fashion as is happening now. And certainly his career is in part a triumph of our national similarities over our regional differences. Well I think part of part of his career though is he is based upon the uses of that power the interest in Hirst is only partly in Hirst as a journalist and in fact I think Swanberg in the biography spends nearly as much time talking about Hirst as a politician. As someone who wanted to be a maker of presidents if he wasn't going to become ONE him self and as someone who wanted to dominate Hollywood and then ultimately as an antiquary in the media evilest at the end of his life and those things I think those aspects of her story as interesting as his life as a journalist perhaps not as interesting to us professionally. But the reason we read biographies I think may relate to those other aspects as well.

How seriously do you gentlemen take his efforts for the presidency. I have the impression that. He nearly made it that it was only his character flaws that deprived him. He really didn't understand another theme in American history and that is what people expect of public officials. How seriously do you think he wanted to assume power or was he just interested in the title in the prestige. Well I suppose I don't know is the only honest answer but considering the sorts of people who happened into the presidency after the Civil War it's entirely conceivable that he would have had realistic ambitions as a player. He also seems to have had a sense of his own virtue. I think there was something if not precisely of the crusader in him certainly of the reformer that the kind of man well I. Look at the governor of Massachusetts Michael Dukakis doesn't go out and lead great movements but he believes very strongly and has persuaded a lot of other people that he believes very strongly in

doing things the right way and that if you give him power. That was the theme of his campaign Mike Dukakis should be governor that he will do moral things with it. And Swanberg certainly portrays Hurst as very much the same sort of man and from what other reading I've been able to do Mr. has died at about the time I was born. And yet his empire managed to last. And that's rather remarkable because newspaper empires on that scale certainly tend to come and go rather more eloquent sers really has as substantially although the Courier-Journal is Tilly or rather the Post-Dispatch is still a dominant newspaper Pulitzers Cheney no longer amounts to the kind of influence you know I think it's true several of Swanberg subjects that they have those characters that you mention Bill. I think Henry Luce and Pulitzer as well as first had a mixture of reform or elements of the personality together with the salesman and sometimes these were in conflict I think and quite often the salesman won.

But at other times I think there was a belief in your own reformist element in much of the kind of Christianity that you see in fiction in Elmer Gantry. Christian capitalism. There are latter day exponents of it I just had God and man at Yale and Bill Buckley is one and he's another man who got out of college and proceeded to start a publication much in the pattern of Lucinda Hearst. The scale was smaller because they're suggesting that Norman Vincent Peale Probably Mrs. Hearst I would say that they certainly have something in common. The thing is that Hearst represented much more sort of mainstream traits of his time. Yes. And Buckley and Norman Vincent Peale no longer do they are in that sense I don't want to say throwbacks but they are certainly holdovers from a culture that is no longer dominant. And their theme becomes more aggressive because they insist this is the way things ought to be. The

basic change in the press has been from personal to corporatist. So the basic change in the society when you know when Bernard raised the question why don't we have people like Hearst today and I think you have to look in Australia or in England I think to find comparable people in journalism but one reason is that we have very few corporations of any size of that haven't gone public and that means they have a board of directors looking out for the interest of the stockholders. In the early Pulitzer and Hearst days that wasn't true. And so they had a good deal more liberty than any corporation is likely to give picking up on that as well. Bill Henry from what Bob just said. In another one of his biographies about Henry Luce you see a transition there you see these two college boys getting together and starting time was later became Time-Life textural for him etc. etc. etc.. Their idea was to at first just plagiarize all newspapers and magazines quite quite openly and publish the news of the week that way. Later that became an influence

but it was a different influence. It reflective journalism usually years of the corporate structure of the time well a loosehead that moralizing quality that Bill was talking about in the Hearst I think Lucy had a pretty clear set of values and there were enemies in China who were Christian missionaries. Yes. Yeah exactly but his his goals were much more definite. First were personal ambitions were national in a wide sense he wanted to influence politics not just to plummet himself ahead or to be affective in one or two elections. He wanted time to be the national by word when it said something. Remember that. That's one Burke says when time wanted to get it was a new kind of journalism. If you were testifying before a congressional committee and they didn't like you they described you as the sleazy virtually comment towse Stubby or whatever individual spoke to. And if they like you it was the elegant dignified

wise person who advised the committee. Time became a national force would Hearst have approved of it would Hearst have said I if I had been coming through college at that time I would have been another loose. I think Hearst was much more inclined to go after scandals. And much more inclined to report public malfeasance. I've just been reading David for his book conflict of interest in the Eisenhower administration and one of the recurrent themes is that for the first six months of the Sherman Adams case you couldn't find a word about it in Time magazine. And that was when everybody in the country had access to other sources of information that would presumably make them notice the absence. I would think that even without that kind of pressure Hearst would have been the sort of journalist who would have said it is there and it must be published. And in fact he made a great deal of his reputation

going after Standard Oil payoffs to members of Congress. Loose I think by and large except on defense issues and reds under the bed took a much more passive approach to public malfeasance would he have picked up junk. Talk about her snow the way Lucy picked him up and made him into the favorite of the American people through this tremendous publicity of his publication. I think it's quite similar to what he did with the particular people that he wanted to promote in Cuba and what he wanted to do to get the Spanish out. I think that's one of the points of real confluence that both of them saw the world much more simplistically I think this is true of Americans and perhaps if human beings once they got outside of their national boundaries. Well there is one other aspect though and that is both Lewis and Hearst I think might have picked up a person such as Chang and stayed with him and they were willing to lose money. That was quite different from Pulitzer who if there was any indication that circulation was

declining or any any indication of unpopularity would back off very easily. And Pulitzer was much more flexible and those were his first port a great deal of money into losing causes throughout his life it was one of literally as I recall a verse with a line or just some of my death. Oldman in the blind in the New York office headquarters railing out ordering attacks on people who ended in a very undignified manner as I recall from Swanberg ce. Yes there is some bizarre that the principal awards in print journalism are the Pulitzer Prizes. I've read more than one nasty crack about the fact that is the only time that the man is associated with the drive for quality. From the date of his birth certainly Hurst and Luce both were prepared to give a lot of money to gifted people both of them developed I think more important journalists founded and nurtured and promoted better

people. They their reflects or the better aspect of of old fashioned capitalism I think. And one of the the real problems with the kind of corporate journalism that we have now I work for. I think the biggest family run newspaper in the country and it is no longer family owned it too is gone public. Is that less and less Can somebody of strength of character in the a lot of people a strength of character imprint his personality the extent of developing this kind of talent and and giving a particular. Personality to the public a trooper to our dark in there he is you know people yes he is right and but again that's based outside the United States he's Australian and uses England it's kind of. Well from what I've read about him those one book has been written about him but what I what I have read he's not interested in politics per se as much is in selling newspapers that

this is an early stage in Murdoch's career he's a middle aged man who presumably if he were to realise the kind of financial stability and power that Hearst or Pulitzer had then he would have time and the energy to move into other areas and that might become policy. Obviously a figure of ambition or he wouldn't have come into New York which is after all the capital of the world. And even though it is not technically the cow the payoff here is really how or if he wanted money he could have moved into a dozen other markets. Let me ask you a question that about Swanberg now I have a theory but let's take a look at what he has written this man that we are appreciating to this great biographer citizen Hearst. Jim Fisk Sickles the incredible Norman Thomas Pulitzer Hearst loose is he trying to. If one talks about a body of work in a life time is he trying to create a body of wood. That is a fundamental contribution fundamental. Praise be our system of

free expression ranging from bizarre types like sequels and Fisk to two great dissenters like Thomas to great press lords. I think the celebrating Americans I think he enjoys the particular American jenius that has occurred in some of the other prominent people and he's the enjoyment of them it seems to me comes through he doesn't write the biographies that are neutral he doesn't write biographies that are scathing he writes biographies that help you to understand and appreciate the people he's a very positive biographer and sometimes I think this leads to inconsistency. You know in his biography of Hearst he describes Hearst as having led the newspaper. Let the newspaper pro Cuban movement which led to the Spanish-American War in Pulitzer he says whereas other people those who have sided with Hearst say Hearst was the leader and the Pulitzer was only swayed when it looked as though circulation depended on moving that way. In fact

Pulitzer was in very early. Well you can put those two passages alongside and they can't both be accurate. And yet if you say Swanberg is sympathetic to both men and what he's writing about Pulitzer he sees Pulitzers view on it when he's writing about Hearst. He sees Hearst I think that's really part of it he likes Americans the American leader you know as Bill Henry How do you see this one in toto. One of the things I think he is trying to to do is revive the Great Man theory of history. I think he genuinely believes that. Personalities are in part yes artifacts of their times but particular personalities Hearst's is a prime example and have enormous influence and managed to shape their times. They have significant impact not only emotionally but materially. The course of history that used to be the way we thought of history in the Times of kings and do X and in most of this century particularly I think beginning with the Fabian

Socialists in England but more and more in this country too. History is written about the lot of the common man and about how many pounds of potatoes were produced per acre and emphasizes it's not always from a Marxist perspective but it is a Marxist value system. And. Swanberg approach is infinitely more romantic. I think in many ways more satisfying it is much. You can't really get a handle on history that is history in its entirety and that presumes that every life is more or less of equal significance because they are all more moved by forces than shaping them. This is a kind of history that it's much easier to follow it's aesthetically satisfying. There's some part of me that wants to believe that it is so as well. I certainly think when you're dealing with means of acquiring information as several of the people he is written

about were. There is a real personal influence. If you are told that the Spanish in Cuba are doing these wicked things over and over you will go on believing it for the rest of your life. You're not going to go to Cuba and if you do you're not going to go with an open enough mind to find out. Ten years after the fact whether this is so or not and that kind of belief which media can engender really does shape the course of history. It was from his point of view I think Swanberg this show is there is there any link here with Swanberg work have been possible of course it would be possible easy influenced by Theodore Dreiser. Is he influenced by Sinclair Lewis. In other words. Is he in this in this in this stream of American writing where one takes the novel and does it the biographer takes the men whose lives are

essentially great novels great great adventure stories and picks those to glorify the American life. But he's setting off to say something different I think. I don't know that the others have been quite critical of American life and I've pointed to a vacuum in the valuers whereas I think Swanberg points to these and even when his message say writing about Pulitzer as the Pulitzer was very depressed. Nevertheless he says it in such a way he puts this depressed man in a castle in the England with famous people coming to visit him and you can't help feeling that if you have to be depressed this is the way you do it in the other you know you have clay the shoes of sand of Hearst and loose do come out more strongly in her city is quite clear about the weakness the beauty of the men in for example his attack upon Smitty shows how clearly wrong that was. Yes but I mean first of all this biography is a much more lovable likable much more generous person that than we popularly think of them I think Orson Welles's influenced us and Swanberg

as a kind of corrective to that. And he mentions another rather secondary influence all this talk of this book after many a summer dies the Swan Which is in many ways an even more evil and demented Hearst. So one brick has I think some affection for people who are willing to take power. We live in particular in this moment and an age when anybody who is willing to take a position of authority is subject to abiding mistrust. And I I think Swanberg begins with the presumption that there must be great then there must be men of power and presumes that they are going to be flawed and that one of their flaws is their willingness to assume this. I think that's a rather more sophisticated view. I think he's different from drys or in Lewis in that he has a much more polished writer and one who is

placing greater emphasis on the continuity of the story and the cleanest of a story drys or Lewis both chose to portray life as complex and without a center morally. I think that's very well put and I want to thank you both for appreciating Swanberg the great biographer with me and thanking William a Henry the third the writer of The Boston Globe and Robert Roth of it Smith of Boston University for this day this is Bernard Reuben. The eastern Public Radio Network and cooperation with the Institute for democratic communication at Boston University has presented the First Amendment as a free people a weekly examination of civil liberties in the media. In the 1970s the program was produced in the studios of WGBH Boston. This is the eastern Public Radio Network.