INTRODUCTION

THE IDEAL OF OBJECTIVITY

A:. MERICAN JOURNALISM has been regularly criti-cized for failing to be "objective." Whether it was Democratsin 1952 complaining of a one-party press biased against AdlaiStevenson or the Nixon-Agnew administration attackingnewspapers and television networks for being too liberal, thepress has repeatedly been taken to task for not presenting theday's news "objectively."

But whyjlo critics take it for granted that the press shouldbe_objective? Objectivity is a peculiar demand jo^make ofinstitutions which, as business corporations, are dedicatedfirst of all to economic survival. It is a peculiar demand tomake of institutions which often, by tradition or explicitcredo, are political organs. It is a peculiar demand to make ofeditors and reporters who have none of the professionalapparatus which, for doctors or lawyers or scientists, issupposed to guarantee objectivity.

And yet, journalists, as well as their critics, hold newspa-pers to a standard of objectivity. Not all journalists believethey should be objective in their work, but the belief iswidespread,1 and all journalists today must in some mannerconfront it. But why? What kind of a world is ours and whatkind of an institution is journalism that they sustain thisparticular ideal, objectivity? That is the problem this bookaddresses. I shall not ask here the familiar question: are

D I S C O V E R I N G THE NEWS

newspapers objective? I shall ask, instead, why that questionis so familiar.

The question assumes special interest when one learns that,before the 1830s, objectivity was not an issue. Americannewspapers were expected to present a partisan viewpoint,not a neutral one. Indeed, they were not expectejjp report the"news" of the day at all in the way we conceive it — thejdeji.pj'"news" itself was invented in the Jacksonian era. If we are tounderstand the idea of objectivity in journalism, the transfpr-mation of the press in the Jacksonian period must be exam-ined. That is the task of the first chapter, which will interpretthe origins of "news" in its relationship to the democratiza-tion of rjolitics, the expansion of a market economy, and_the_growing authority of an entrepreneurial, urban middle class.

There is an obvious explanation of why the idea of news,once established, should have turned into nonpartisan, strictlyfactual news later in the century. This has to do with the riseof the first American wire service, the Associated Press. Thetelegraph was invented in the 1840s, and, to take advantage ofits speed injransmitting news, a group of New York newspa-pers organized the Associated Press in 1848. Since the Associ-ated Press gathered news for publication in a variety ofpapers with widely different political allegiances, it could onlysucceed by making its reporting "objective" enough to J?eacceptablc_to all of its members and clients. By the latenineteenth century, the AP dispatches were markedly moreC[£g j£°Jn_£dJtorJfd comment than mostj-ppnrting JoF-smgie

Itjias been argued, then, that the practice of theAssociated Press became the ideal of journalism in general.3

While this argumenTTs plausIbTeTlitTTfst blush, there isremarkably little evidence for it and two good reasons todoubt it. First, it begs a key question: why should a practice,obviously important_tp the survival of the institution ofjhewire service, become a guiding ideal in institutions not subject

THE IDEAL OF OBJECTIVITY

,to_the same constraints ? It would be just as ]likely, that newspapers would take the avail;service news as license to concentrate on diffreporting. If the AP style became a model for daone would still have to account for its affininterests and needs. But this brings us to the secserious problem:objective reporting did not be«norm or practice in journalism in the late nine!when the Associated Press was growing. As I w:second and third chapters, at the turn of the cen)as much emphasis in leading papers on telling aon getting fheTaHsTSensationalism in its variothe chief development in newspapeFcontent. Re;as often to write "literature" as to gather news.in the bawdiest days of yellow journalism, thTimes began to climb to its premier position _bj

^'inform^oy'lmolBeTTratnjrjhan a "story" modJng^ Where the Associated Press was factual tcpolitically diverse clientele, the Times was infoattract a relatively select, socially homogeneous ithe well to do. As in the Jacksonian era, so iichanges in the ideals of journalism did not tranlogical changes into occupational norms so minewspaper ideals and practices consonant with tldominant social classes.

But into the first decades of the twentieth cen(the New York Times, it was uncommon for journzsharp divide between facts and values.4 Yet tlobjectivity is jugtjthjsrjthe belief that one canseparate facts from values. Facts, in this view, aiabout the world open to independent validation,beyond the distorting influences of any individuapreferences. Valuesji this view, are an individual

jM^unconscious preferences for what the world shoare seen as ultimately subjective and so withou

THE IDEAL OF OBJECTIVITY

Jp_the same constraints? It would be just as likely, or morelikely, that newspapers would take the availability of wireservice news as license to concentrate on different kinds ofreporting. If the AP style became a model for daily journalists,one would still have to account for its affinity with theirinterests and needs. But this brings us to the second, still moreserious problem: objective reporting did not become the chiefriorm or practice in journajism in the late nineteenth centurywhen the Associated Press was growing. As I will show in thesecond and third chapters, atjthe turn of the century there wasas much emphasis in leading papers on telling a good story ason getting thelartsT^elisationaTism in its various forms wasthedu^rf^ewdojgmait^in newspaper content. Rcporters^oughtas often to write "literature" as to gather news. Still, in 1896,in the bawdiest days of yellow journalism, the Neiu_YorkTimes began to climb to its premier position by stressing an^^nTormatiOTT'lnioHel, rather than a "story" model, of report-^ym -̂" ..-.-"•"— - • nil n ..I. .,_.. m .. ......-.-. ... -1. -. i. .11. m. ..„,., ~.»... i.,. I •••• '••'— •-•••" 11 I- I * 1111 —•••I i. ii.,—. , *™

jng^ Where the Associated Press was factual to appeal to apolitically diverse clientele, the Times was informational toattract a relatively select, socially homogeneous readership ofthe well to do. As in the Jacksonian era, so in the 1890s,changes in the ideals of journalism did not translate techno-logical changes into occupational norms so much as makenewspaper ideals and practices consonant with the culture ofdominant social classes.

But into the first decades of the twentieth century, even atthe New York Times, it was uncommon for journalists to see asharp divide between facts and values.4 Yet the belief inobjectivity is JujstJthisMjie belief that one can and shouldseparate facts from values. Facts, in this view, are assertionsabout the world open to independent validation. They standbeyond the distorting influences of any individual's personalpreferences. Values^in this view,^e an individual's conscious^unconscious preferences for what the world should be; theyare seen as ultimately subjective and so~wFthout legitimate

DISCOVERING THE NEWS

claim on other people. The belief in objectivity is a faith in"jacts," a distrust of "values," and a commitment to theirsegregation^

Journalists before World War I did not subscribe to thisview. They were, to the extent that they were interested infacts, naive empiricists; they believed that facts are not humanstatements about the world but aspects of the world itself.This view was insensitive to the ways in which the "world" issomething people construct by the active play of their mindsand by their acceptance of conventional—not necessarily"true"—ways of seeing and talking. Philosophy, the history ofscience, psychoanalysis, and the social sciences have takengreat pains to demonstrate that human beings are culturalanimals who know and see and hear the world throughsocially constructed filters. From the 1920s on, the idea thathuman beings individually and collectively construct the reali-ty they deal with has held a central position in social thought.6

Before the 1920s, journalists did not think much about thesubjectivity of perception. They had relatively little incentiveto doubt the firmness of the "reality" by which they lived.American society, despite serious problems, remained buoyantwith hope and promise. Democracy was a value unquestionedin politics; free enterprise was still widely worshipped ineconomic life; the novels of Horatio Alger sold well. Fewpeople doubted the inevitability of progress. After World WarI, however, this changed. Journalists, like others, lost faith inverities a democratic market society had taken for granted.Their experience of propaganda during the war and publicrelations thereafter convinced them that the world they re-ported was one that interested parties had constructed forthem to report. In such a world, naive empiricism could notlast.

This turning point is the topic of my fourth chapter. In thetwenties and thirties, many journalists observed with growing

THE IDEAL OF OBJECTIVITY

anxiety that facts themselves, or what they hadfacts, could not be trusted. One response to this (view was the institutionalization in the daily pagenres of subjective reporting, like the politicAnother response turned the journalists' anxietyand encouraged journalists to replace a simple fawith an allegiance to rules and procedures createdin which even facts were in question. This was "oObjectivity, in this sense, means that a person'sabout the world can be trusted if they are suestablished rules deemed legitimate by a professionnity. Facts here are not aspects of the world, but covalidated statements about it.6 While naive empiricidisappeared in journalism and survives, to some exof us, after World War I it was subordinated tosophisticated ideal of "objectivity."

Discussion of objectivity as an ideal (or ideology)medicine, law, the social sciences, journalism, ;pursuits tends to two poles: either it seeks to urprofession in question or to glorify it. It is either debself-serving. Debunkers show that the claims of prcabout being objective or expert or scientific are rattempts to legitimate power by defining politicaltechnical terms. This is often true. But, first, why isity" the legitimation they choose, and, second, whoften convincing to others? When professionals makto authoritative knowledge, why do they base thetheir objectivity rather than on, say, divine reveielectoral mandate? Debunking by itself does not pranswer.

The opposite stance is to Whiggishly identify objejournalism or in law or other professions with "where science is understood as the right or true or besknowledge. This is the point at which science, £

THE IDEAL OF OBJECTIVITY

anxiety that facts themselves, or what they had taken to befacts, could not be trusted. One response to this discomfitingview was the institutionalization in the daily paper of newgenres of subjective reporting, like the political column.Another response turned the journalists' anxiety on its headand encouraged journalists to replace a simple faith in factswith an allegiance to rules and procedures created for a worldin which even facts were in question. This was "objectivity."Objectivity, in this sense, means that a person's statementsabout the world can be trusted if they are submitted toestablished rules deemed legitimate by a professional commu-nity. Facts here are not aspects of the world, but consensuallyvalidated statements about it.6 While naive empiricism has notdisappeared in journalism and survives, to some extent, in allof us, after World War I it was subordinated to the moresophisticated ideal of "objectivity."

Discussion of objectivity as an ideal (or ideology) in science,medicine, law, the social sciences, journalism, and otherpursuits tends to two poles: either it seeks to unmask theprofession in question or to glorify it. It is either debunking orself-serving. Debunkers show that the claims of professionalsabout being objective or expert or scientific are really justattempts to legitimate power by defining political issues intechnical terms. This is often true. But, first, why is "objectiv-ity" the legitimation they choose, and, second, why is it sooften convincing to others? When professionals make a claimto authoritative knowledge, why do they base the claim ontheir objectivity rather than on, say, divine revelation orelectoral mandate? Debunking by itself does not provide ananswer.

The opposite stance is to Whiggishly identify objectivity injournalism or in law or other professions with "science,"where science is understood as the right or true or best path toknowledge. This is the point at which science, generally

DISCOVERING THE NEWS

understood as opposed to ideology, threatens to become ide-ology itself. But that, in a sense, is just what interests mehere—not the internal development of science as an institu-tion or a body of knowledge and practices, but the reasons theidea of science and the ideal of objectivity are so resonant inour culture. Even if science, as we know it today, is in somesense getting us nearer to truth than past systems of knowl-edge, we can still inquire why twentieth-century Westernculture should be so wise as to recognize this. And that is aquestion that glorifications of science and objectivity do not

answer.

It should be apparent that the belief in objectivity in journal-ism, as in other professions, is not just a claim about whatkind of knowledge is reliable. It is also a moral philosophy, adeclaration of what kind of thinking one should engage in, inmaking moral decisions. It is, moreover, a political commit-ment, for it provides a guide to what groups one shouldacknowledge as relevant audiences for judging one's ownthoughts and acts. The relevant audiences are defined byinstitutional mechanisms. Two mechanisms of social controlare frequently said to underwrite objectivity in differentfields. First, there is advanced education and training. This issupposed to provide trainees with scientific knowledge and anobjective attitude which helps them set aside personal prefer-ences and passions. Thus the training of physicians enablesthem to sustain detached attitudes at times when personswithout such training would submit to panic or despair at thehuman agony they face. Law students are taught to distin-guish "legal" questions (generally understood to be technical)from "moral" issues (generally understood to be outside theproper domain of legal education and legal practice).

A second basic form of social control is insulation from thepublic. Technical language or jargon is one such insulating

8

THE IDEAL OF OBJECTIVITY

mechanism. Others may be institutional. For instascholars argue that courts are able to be more obje<legislatures because judges are institutionally furtherfrom the pressures of electoral politics than are leObjectivity in the professions is guaranteed, thenautonomy of professional groups—the collective indejof professions from the market and from popular willpersonal independence of professionals, assured Itraining, from their own values.

In this context, the notion of objectivity in jovappears anomalous. Nothing in the training of joigives them license to shape others' views of the world.journalists have esoteric techniques or language. Nev\e directly dependent on market forces. They appeal

to popular opinion. Journalism is an uninsulated pnTo criticize a lawyer, we say, "I'm not a lawyer, but-to question a doctor, we say, "I'm no expert on mbut—." We feel no such compunction to qualify critithe morning paper or the television news. I do not substhe view that journalism is thereby inferior to othersional groups; I simply mean to identify the probobjectivity in the case of journalism. How is it thatoccupation without the social organization of self-rqauthority there is still passionate controversy about olity? Of course, one answer is that the less a professionto be self-evidently objective, the more passionate the (versy will be. But this is not answer enough. Wjournalism, where none of the features that guaranteetivity in law or medicine exist or are likely to exist, !objectivity still be a serious issue? Why hasn't it been gi'altogether?

By the 1960s, both critics of the press and defenderobjectivity to be the emblem of American journalisiimprovement over a past of "sensationalism" and a conti

THE IDEAL OF OBJECTIVITY

mechanism. Others may be institutional. For instance, legalscholars argue that courts are able to be more objective thanlegislatures because judges are institutionally further removedfrom the pressures of electoral politics than are legislators.Objectivity in the professions is guaranteed, then, by theautonomy of professional groups—the collective independenceof professions from the market and from popular will, and thepersonal independence of professionals, assured by theirtraining, from their own values.

In this context, the notion of objectivity in journalismappears anomalous. Nothing in the training of journalistsgives them license to shape others' views of the world. Nor dojournalists have esoteric techniques or language. Newspapersare directly dependent on market forces. They appeal directlyto popular opinion. Journalism is an uninsulated profession.To criticize a lawyer, we say, "I'm not a lawyer, but—" andto question a doctor, we say, "I'm no expert on medicine,but—." We feel no such compunction to qualify criticism ofthe morning paper or the television news. I do not subscribe tothe view that journalism is thereby inferior to other profes-sional groups; I simply mean to identify the problem ofobjectivity in the case of journalism. How is it that in anoccupation without the social organization of self-regulatedauthority there is still passionate controversy about objectiv-ity? Of course, one answer is that the less a profession is seento be self-evidently objective, the more passionate the contro-versy will be. But this is not answer enough. Why, injournalism, where none of the features that guarantee objec-tivity in law or medicine exist or are likely to exist, shouldobjectivity still be a serious issue? Why hasn't it been given upaltogether?

By the 1960s, both critics of the press and defenders tookobjectivity to be the emblem of American journalism, animprovement over a past of "sensationalism" and a contrast to

DISCOVERING THE NEWS THE IDEAL OF OBJECTIVITY

the party papers of Europe. Whether regarded as the fatalflaw or the supreme virtue of the American press, all agreedthat the idea of objectivity was at the heart of what journalismhas meant in this country. At the same time, the ideal ofobjectivity was more completely and divisively debated in thepast decade than ever before. In the final chapter, I willexamine how changing subject matter, sources of news, andaudience for the news precipitated this debate in journalism.Government management of the news, which began to con-cern journalists after World War I, became an increasinglydisturbing problem with the rise of a national security estab-lishment and an "imperial" presidency after World War II.In the Vietnam war, government news management collidedwith a growing "adversary culture" in the universities, injournalism, in the government itself, and in the population atlarge. The conflagration that followed produced a radicalquestioning of objectivity which will not soon be forgotten andrevitalized traditions of reporting that the objective style hadlong overshadowed. The ideal of objectivity has by no meansbeen displaced, but, more than ever, it holds its authority onsufferance.

I originally conceived this work as a case study in thehistory of professions and in the genesis of professionalideology. I saw objectivity as the dominant ideal that legiti-mates knowledge and authority in all contemporary profes-sions. If I could excavate its foundations in one field, I couldhope to expose its structure in all. While this book has notentirely outgrown that ambition, it came to be moved equallyby another. I grew fascinated by journalism itself and con-vinced there were important questions, not only unansweredbut unasked, about the relationship of journalism to thedevelopment of American society as a whole. Where standardhistories of the American press consider the social context ofjournalism only in passing, this work takes as its main subjectthe relationship between the institutionalization of modern

10

journalism and general currents in economic, politiand cultural life.

With two such ambitions, I know my reach hamy grasp. If I have not achieved as much here as 11I hope nonetheless to have engaged the reader's int<quest and the questions.

THE IDEAL OF OBJECTIVITY

journalism and general currents in economic, political, social,and cultural life.

With two such ambitions, I know my reach has exceededmy grasp. If I have not achieved as much here as I would like,I hope nonetheless to have engaged the reader's interest in thequest and the questions.

11

CHAPTER 5

OBJECTIVITY,

NEWS MANAGEMENT, AND

THE CRITICAL CULTURE

A N THE 1960s "objectivity" became a term of abuse. In thethirties, critics who had attacked objectivity favored interpre-tive reporting as a way of maintaining professional standingin a world which had outgrown the blunt approach of "justgetting the facts." But, in the sixties, the goal of professional-ism itself had become suspect. Critics claimed that urbanplanning created slums, that schools made people stupid, thatmedicine caused disease, that psychiatry invented mentalillness, and that the courts promoted injustice. Intellectuals,no longer seen as the source of dispassionate counsel, weredubbed the "new mandarins," while government policy mak-ers were called "the best and the brightest" in a tone of mostuntender irony. And objectivity in journalism, regarded as anantidote to bias, came to be looked upon as the most insidiousbias of all. For "objective" reporting reproduced a vision ofsocial reality which refused to examine the basic structures ofpower and privilege. It was not just incomplete, as critics ofthe thirties had contended, it was distorted. It representedcollusion with institutions whose legitimacy was in dispute.And there was an intense moral urgency in this view. By the

160

OBJECTIVITY, NEWS MANAGEMENT, THE CRITICAL Cl

late sixties, many found Walter Cronkite's nightly asthat "that's the way it is" too smug and prefer]challenge to "tell it like it is"—as if the reality to be rwas too wild to be tamed by grammar.

"Objectivity is a myth," announced reporter Kerry iof the Raleigh Observer, and many young journalistsher view. Sydney Gruson, her father and the assistanipublisher at the New York Times, claimed, in cc"Maybe I'm old-fashioned but I feel very strongly afopurity of the news columns. Pure objectivity might nobut you have to strive for it anyway." The remarksGrusons were brought together by Stanford SesserWall Street Journal in the fall of 1969. Sesser was rejon antiwar activism among journalists. Sydney Grus<turned down the request of 308 employees at the Timesthe company's auditorium for discussion during the C15 moratorium against the war in Vietnam. Kerry Cbelieved her father's decision was wrong. She herself iblack armband while covering stories on October 15.1

The Journal article was a set piece for the confgenerations as it was seen in American journalism in tlsixties—a conflict between the old defending objectivitthe young attacking it, between those who had foufWorld War II and those born to the affluence and anxithe cold war, between those reluctant to abandon suppAmerican policy in Vietnam and those angry at it, bethe institutional responsibilities of powerful newspaperthe individual bravado of young reporters. Not leasJournal story was itself a part of the set: in the sixtinever before, news writing was itself a topic forcoverage.

We have seen a conflict of generations in journalism foEditors in the 1890s trained reporters to keep their opiout of their stories, and young reporters rebelled atdiscipline. Editors and reporters perennially have diff

OBJECTIVITY, NEWS MANAGEMENT, THE CRITICAL CULTURE

late sixties, many found Walter Cronkite's nightly assurancethat "that's the way it is" too smug and preferred thechallenge to "tell it like it is"—as if the reality to be reportedwas too wild to be tamed by grammar.

"Objectivity is a myth," announced reporter Kerry Grusonof the Raleigh Observer, and many young journalists sharedher view. Sydney Gruson, her father and the assistant to thepublisher at the New York Times, claimed, in contrast:"Maybe I'm old-fashioned but I feel very strongly about thepurity of the news columns. Pure objectivity might not exist,but you have to strive for it anyway." The remarks of theGrusons were brought together by Stanford Sesser in theWall Street Journal in the fall of 1969. Sesser was reportingon antiwar activism among journalists. Sydney Gruson hadturned down the request of 308 employees at the Times to usethe company's auditorium for discussion during the October15 moratorium against the war in Vietnam. Kerry Grusonbelieved her father's decision was wrong. She herself wore ablack armband while covering stories on October 15.1

The Journal article was a set piece for the conflict ofgenerations as it was seen in American journalism in the latesixties—a conflict between the old defending objectivity andthe young attacking it, between those who had fought inWorld War II and those born to the affluence and anxiety ofthe cold war, between those reluctant to abandon support ofAmerican policy in Vietnam and those angry at it, betweenthe institutional responsibilities of powerful newspapers andthe individual bravado of young reporters. Not least, theJournal story was itself a part of the set: in the sixties, asnever before, news writing was itself a topic for newscoverage.

We have seen a conflict of generations in journalism before.Editors in the 1890s trained reporters to keep their opinionsout of their stories, and young reporters rebelled at thisdiscipline. Editors and reporters perennially have different

161

i

I

I

DISCOVERING THE NEWS

tasks at hand, different interests to protect, and differentambitions to serve; younger journalists and older journalistsare at different points in their careers and have differentconcerns. That these differences should yield correspondinglydifferent attitudes toward reporting the news is not

surprising.But in the past, the resentment of young reporters against

editors was occasioned only by a conflict of interests on thejob. It was not connected to broader political currents, and itdid not express itself in a political idiom. In the sixties,however, the generational rebellion was part of a generalcultural crisis. Young reporters still wanted to express theirpassion and personal style in print, but the rebellion at theconventions of "straight news" emerged more as a seriouspolitical challenge than as an adolescent stage in the passageto professionalism. Young reporters not only called for a moreactive journalism, a "participant" journalism skeptical ofofficial accounts of public affairs; they also claimed pointedlythat journalism had long been too participant. "Straightnews" was not only drab and constricting—it was in itself aform of participation, a complicity with official sources whosemost alarming feature was that it so self-righteously claimedto be above partisan or political considerations.

In the sixties, one might still criticize a newspaper forfollowing the bent of its publisher or the intentional biases ofits editorial staff. And much of this criticism was deserved.But the most original critics of the past decade have stressed,instead, that journalists were "political" unwittingly or evenunwillingly. Their political impact lay not in what theyopenly advocated but in the unexamined assumptions onwhich they based their professional practice and, most of all,in their conformity to the conventions of objective reporting.In this view, objectivity was not an ideal but a mystification.The slant of journalism lay not in explicit bias but in the

162

OBJECTIVITY, NEWS MANAGEMENT, THE CRITICAL (

social structure of news gathering which reinforceviewpoints of social reality. Correspondingly, newsjthe past decade—especially those most prestigious, irerful, and with most resources to devote to news gathave sought autonomy from official views and promoMax Frankel of the New York Times called "an <concept of what is news."2 There is more interpretsing or "news analysis," more investigative or "enljournalism, and more tolerance for new varieties olwriting. But why at this time should criticism of convnews gathering have been so pointed, and why shoideas and new institutions in journalism have found ;support as they have?

I will suggest in this chapter that two conditionsnew criticism of journalism possible and popular andchanges in newspaper content seem desirable. First, tliincreasing government management of the news anding awareness of it. It has been said too often and tothat all governments lie and that all presidents back toWashington have tried to mislead the press and ipublic.3 The modicum of truth in such assertions obscifact that management of information has been an orgfunded, and staffed function of government for jusyears. Indeed, only since World War II has the impand relative isolation of a national security establishmian "imperial presidency" made government newsespecially on matters of foreign policy, the symbolic cethe relationship between the government and the pres:

The second basis for new developments in journalisthe emergence, in the 1960s, of an "adversary cultureadversary, or critical, culture denied to government a 1trust it had come to expect and provided an audienamore aggressive and more skeptical journalism. The ain the late sixties between news management and the

OBJECTIVITY, NEWS MANAGEMENT, THE CRITICAL CULTURE

social structure of news gathering which reinforced officialviewpoints of social reality. Correspondingly, newspapers inthe past decade—especially those most prestigious, most pow-erful, and with most resources to devote to news gathering—have sought autonomy from official views and promoted whatMax Frankel of the New York Times called "an explodedconcept of what is news."2 There is more interpretive report-ing or "news analysis," more investigative or "enterprise"journalism, and more tolerance for new varieties of featurewriting. But why at this time should criticism of conventionalnews gathering have been so pointed, and why should newideas and new institutions in journalism have found as muchsupport as they have?

I will suggest in this chapter that two conditions made anew criticism of journalism possible and popular and so madechanges in newspaper content seem desirable. First, there wasincreasing government management of the news and a grow-ing awareness of it. It has been said too often and too gliblythat all governments lie and that all presidents back to GeorgeWashington have tried to mislead the press and con thepublic.3 The modicum of truth in such assertions obscures thefact that management of information has been an organized,funded, and staffed function of government for just sixtyyears. Indeed, only since World War II has the importanceand relative isolation of a national security establishment andan "imperial presidency" made government news policy,especially on matters of foreign policy, the symbolic center ofthe relationship between the government and the press.

The second basis for new developments in journalism wasthe emergence, in the 1960s, of an "adversary culture." Theadversary, or critical, culture denied to government a level oftrust it had come to expect and provided an audience for amore aggressive and more skeptical journalism. The collisionin the late sixties between news management and the adver-

163

DISCOVERING THE NEWS

sary culture over the Vietnam war changed journalism insignificant and, I think, lasting ways, which the final section

of this chapter will consider.

Government and the Press: "News Management"

The Paris Peace Conference of 1919 symbolized the modernrelationship between government and the press. It undercutthe self-image of the press as a key actor in decision making atexactly the moment the press was most enchanted with itsown powers. Wars are good for journalists as for generals.After the war, however, editors and reporters found them-selves not partners to government, but instruments of govern-ment. They were valued—and feared—not for their capacityto represent public opinion, but for their power to control it.

Ray Stannard Baker, onetime muckraker who was Presi-dent Woodrow Wilson's aide in Paris running the AmericanPress Bureau, expressed the high hopes of the fourth estate:

One fact stands out at the Paris Peace Conference as distinctive anddetermining: the fact that the people of the world, publics, werethere represented and organised as never before at any peaceconference. At the older congresses, the diplomats occupied theentire stage, bargained, arranged, and secretly agreed; but at Parisdemocracy, like the blind god in Dunsany's play, itself comeslumbering roughly, powerfully, out upon the stage.4

When Baker said "publics" and "democracy," he meantreporters from the newspapers and wire services. It wastypical of liberal thought of the 1920s that the press was takento be the very incarnation of democratic government. Presscoverage of the Peace Conference, in Baker's view, was toopen a new epoch in world diplomacy. From that moment on,national policy would have to be formulated in the presence of

164

OBJECTIVITY, NEWS MANAGEMENT, THE CRITICAL CU

public opinion and with the need for public assent inBaker himself was disappointed, then, that the negol

at Paris turned out to be shrouded in secrecy. He kneWilson's promise of "open covenants of peace openly ;at" meant only, as Wilson explained, "that no secretments should be entered into" and not that "there sheno private discussions of delicate matters."5 Baker dobject to governments keeping some of their meetingsdential from the news-reading public, but he did ciWilson for keeping them secret from the press. "It haproved over and over again," he asserted, "that no grmen can be more fully trusted to keep a confidence orwisely than a group of experienced newspaper corrdents—if they are honestly informed and trusted in trplace."6

Paris did not mark a new era in open diplomadecisively as Baker had hoped, but it did announcerelationship between the press and the government inhe had not anticipated, for it made publicity itselfpolitical issue. For the first time in the history of Amforeign policy, political debate at home concerned not orsubstance of decisions the government made but also th<in which the government made decisions. Foreignbegan to be domesticated; the legitimacy of procedure, aas the effectiveness of outcome, became an issue. In thweek of the Peace Conference, American correspoiwrote in protest to Wilson regarding rules of secrecy thecommissioners had adopted, and Joseph Tumulty in ^ington warned the President of the distrust his adheresecrecy would engender. Five months later there was cover public release of the treaty draft, and the Senate paresolution calling on Wilson to transmit the draft iSenate. From beginning to end, publicity was a politicaof the first importance.7

This peacetime resort to managing the news was a