So which anecdote about their profession are American journalists most likely to embrace, recall, retell?
Is it the one about Watergate, and how two young, intrepid, and tireless reporters for the Washington Post brought down Richard Nixon's corrupt presidency?
Or is it about the "Cronkite Moment" of 1968, when Walter Cronkite's dire, on-air assessment about Vietnam forced Lyndon Johnson to alter course on the war?
Or is it the tale about newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst and his vow--supposedly cabled to the artist Frederic Remington in Cuba in 1897--to "furnish the war" with Spain?
They're all contenders. They're all well-known, often taught in schools, colleges, and universities. They're all delicious tales about the power of the news media to bring about change, for good or ill.
They're all media-driven myths, too.
By that I mean they are prominent, even cherished stories about the news media that are often retold and widely believed; but under scrutiny, they dissolve as apocryphal, dubious, or wildly exaggerated.
The anecdotes about Watergate, Cronkite, and Hearst are three media-driven myths that I address, and debunk, in my forthcoming book, Getting It Wrong: Ten of the Greatest Misreported Stories in American Journalism.
So what makes these stories myths?
The Washington Post was peripheral to the outcome of Watergate--as even Post officials will acknowledge. Among them was Katharine Graham, the publisher during the Watergate period. At a program in 1997 marking the 25th anniversary of the break-in that set in motion the Watergate scandal, Graham declared, "Sometimes people accuse us of bringing down a president, which of course we didn't do. The processes that caused [Nixon's] resignation were constitutional."
Indeed, the forces that brought Nixon down were many and typically subpoena-wielding. They included federal investigators, congressional panels, and special prosecutors, not to mention the U.S. Supreme Court. Even then, Nixon may have served out his second term if not for the secret tape-recordings that captured his criminal conduct.
Lyndon Johnson, as I write in Getting It Wrong, did not see the Cronkite program when it aired on CBS on February 27, 1968. Johnson at the time was in Austin, Texas, making light-hearted comments at a birthday party for Gov. John Connally, who turned 51.
Even if the president later saw the Cronkite show, on videotape (and there's no evidence he did), it represented no epiphany. Just a few days after the "Cronkite Moment," Johnson delivered a rousing speech, asserting that the United States would "not cut and run" from Vietnam. Later in March 1968, Johnson gave lectern-pounding speech, in which he urged "a total national effort to win the war" in Vietnam.
The anecdote about Hearst's vow to "furnish the war" has been around for more than 100 years and has been repeated by no small number of journalists, scholars, and critics, including Ben Bagdikian, Helen Thomas, and the late David Halberstam. The vow turned up most recently in Evan Thomas' new book, The War Lovers.
And yet, no evidence has ever emerged to document the anecdote. Hearst denied ever having made such a remark. And Remington, the artist Hearst sent to Cuba on assignment, apparently never discussed the anecdote.
It lives on despite an irreconcilable internal inconsistency: It would have been absurd for Hearst to have vowed to "furnish the war" because war--specifically, Cuba's island-wide rebellion Spanish colonial rule--was the very reason he sent Remington to Cuba in the first place. Remington went there to sketch images of the Cuban rebellion that had been started in 1895. By 1898, it spilled over into what we know as the Spanish-American War.
Moreover, Spanish authorities controlled telegraph lines into and out of Cuba. They surely would have intercepted Hearst's "furnish the war" cable--and have called attention to it as an example of Yankee meddling.
What, then, explains the allure and tenacity of these and other media-driven myths?
Several reasons offer themselves.
They are, first of all, deliciously good stories--too good, almost, to be disbelieved.
They also are appealingly reductive, in that they minimize complexity of historical events and offer simplistic and misleading interpretations instead. The Washington Post no more brought down Nixon than Walter Cronkite swayed Johnson's views about the war in Vietnam. Yet those and other media myths endure because they present unambiguous, easy-to-remember explanations for complex historic events.
Some media-driven myths can be self-flattering, offering up heroes in a profession more accustomed to scorn and criticism than applause.
More important, though, is that media-driven myths often emerge from an eagerness to find influence and significance in what journalists do. These myths affirm the centrality of the news media in public life and ratify the notion the media are powerful, even decisive actors.
To identify these tales as media-driven myths is to confront the reality that the news media are not the powerful agents they, and so many others, assume them to be.
Rita Cosby: In 'Quiet Hero' Rita Cosby Uncovers Her Father's WWII Secrets
Getting It Wrong : W. Joseph Campbell - University of California Press
Political Bookworm - Three of history's biggest media myths
Professor Tackles Media Myths in New Book | American University ...
The job of the newsboys on the beat was not effecting the subpoenas or the indictments, but through exposure creating a context by which justice might actually evolve. The claim that Woodstein were not Judge Sirica or even Bernstein seems particularly specious, and it's common for media sources to deny they were responsible for whatever follows their bulletins. (On this site, Adrianna is always assuring the news business she isn't responsible for their demise.)
Good luck with the book, the selling of which seems to be the grit and gristle of this little offering.
Every reputable scholar who has studied this such as Stanley Kuttler, who wrote the wars of Watergate, and particupants ranging from John Dean to Daniel Elsburg has said it is balderdash.
Even, as the author/poster above notes, people like Katharine Graham and others have attempted to walk it back.
The one person or force who worked hardest to keep the myth alive is Bob Woodward. The reason is without the myth, the book sales would decline and he would not have the imprateur for his reporting that he does. And that is about his personal integrity at that point.
The Watergate myth Woodward has espoused and defended is what has made him the force that he is.
But the false telling of Watergate is also about his personal charachter. And we sure found out more about that from his conduct in the Valerie Plame affair.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501857.html
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/did_cheney_deceive_fbi_on_instructions_to_libby.php
http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2006/04/09/waas_now.html
The ongoing reporting of Woodward-Bernstein supported the interest, and the interests, of the American people, who kept pressure on Congress to investigate and charge Nixon. Without public pressure, there's usually not much will in Congress to do what is difficult--and investigating Nixon was politically and personally dangerous.
The Cronkite imprimatur on the failures of the Vietnam war emboldened negative reporting on the war and caught the attention of an older generation of listeners who hadn't been all that pleased that their children were in the streets demonstrating against the war.
Were they pivotal? Possibly not, but Woodward-Bernstein and Cronkite at the very least legitimized the questions and kept the stories alive. They were not the only ones doing important reporting in those years, but because of their coverage people like me and people like my parents watched and read critically and obsessively. Cronkite had credibility and Woodward-Bernstein obviously had the goods. No one, pro or con, could turn away from their stories.
The Cronkite verdict on the war did not bring about it's end, but from personal experiece I can tell you the devastating effect it had on war support from an older voting generation who respected and admired him.
#1 Watergate. "brought down Richard Nixon's corrupt presidency?"
No one except Teabaggers normally speak in such disingenuous absolutes as you are defining the issue.
I think it is fair/safe to say that Woodward and Bernstein PRECIPITATED the downfall of Nixon. They were part of, they were the catalyst. That is all that is commonly said of the reportage of the reporters.
@2 Johnson. "... Johnson ... did not see the Cronkite program when it aired."
Is it necessary for Johnson to have seen the broadcast? No of course not. You are missing the point of the tale. It is not that the Cronkite musings went into Johnson ear ... and directly influenced the Presidents thinking. Rather that the Cronkite broadcast was a moment of telling the Emperor that he had no clothes. Saying that the writing is on the wall for the involvement in Vietnam. Something that was hitherto been unspeakable. And THAT was the mechanism that sounded the death knell for the effort.
#3 Cuba/Hearst ... "And yet, no evidence has ever emerged to document the anecdote."
Lack of evidence of a crime is not proof of innocence. The best you can say is that you do not know for sure. There is no DOCUMENT with Hitler's signature on it authorizing the Holocaust. But you would not suggest that he did not approve would you?
If somebody has any significance since a couple of years meantime it is vanishing readers,
audience and advertisers.
Look at what happens in the newspaper industry for instance:
http://newspaperdeathwatch.com/
And then one should not forget the fallout for the ad and PR industry in the wake of
oil spill and BP's corporate policy, which included all kinds of deceiving PR and advertising.
It's really amazing that nobody has taken this as a theme, taken a look at that.
It is probably consumers, fed up with certain kinds of PR and ads anyhow, are now
more likely than ever to notice such PR and ads - and simply kill the messengers
altogether. Watch out for that.
nature of humanity.There is little that is noble or educational in modern "journalism"..
We are afflicted by communication majors people such as the half-harpy erstwhile governor of Alaska.ignorance abounds in the "profession" of journalism.We use to be in
peril from the military industrial complex;now it is the corporate complex that imperils us.
One out of three isn't bad in baseball or writing about professional journalism.
As for the Hearst and WaPo items, those were well known ideas. In fact, SNL even did a sketch about Hearst where they had the man shooting passersby on the street in order to generate more headlines and thus sales for his papers.