Teaching Our Journal
A “Moral Challenge”: Journalists, Joe McCarthy, and the Struggle for Truth, 1950-1955
Vol. 38, No. 2, 2021
By Glen Feighery, University of Utah
US Senator Joseph McCarthy looms large in the history of twenty-first century America. At the height of the Cold War, he dominated headlines for five years by claiming there was pervasive communist influence throughout the federal government. His campaign began in early 1950, and his influence grew as he led investigations of public officials and institutions for allegedly being subverted by the Soviet Union. However, a series of events prompted the US Senate to investigate McCarthy, and it censured him in late 1954.
Throughout this time, McCarthy gained enormous media attention. He fought communism, which was perceived as the most significant threat of the time. But as they covered McCarthy, many journalists felt that he exploited deadlines, competition, and newsworthiness to attract undue attention to his charges, many of which were baseless. Although numerous newspapers and other media supported McCarthy, others were alarmed. People’s reputations and careers were ruined by McCarthy’s allegations. For decades after his death, historians and scholars found it important to address McCarthy because of a perception that he confronted journalists with their own shortcomings. Most of these accounts have implied that McCarthy prompted re-evaluations of journalism standards, specifically the practice of objectivity. This article examined how journalists talked among themselves about the challenges of covering the senator and how their practices changed as a result.
McCarthy was challenging to reporters. He was evasive, manipulative, dishonest, and hostile. He was fuzzy on details, claiming, for example, that there were 205, 57, 81, or 100 security risks in the government. McCarthy manipulated journalists by piling up charge after charge, or by spinning what an observer called “the multiple untruth,” serial falsehoods designed to confuse or mislead. McCarthy also could be aggressive toward the press. McCarthy’s antagonism struck some journalists as a general assault that threatened their freedom and ability to do their jobs, especially when he called for boycotts against those he perceived as his enemies. Overall, McCarthy’s attacks and the reactions to them were significant because they sparked conversations among journalists about professional standards.
Many journalists identified objectivity as a problem. The primary critique was that it claimed to convey the truth without bias, but it could mislead. McCarthy’s stream of accusations outpaced reporters’ ability to report them fairly because new allegations overwhelmed rebuttals to earlier charges. Reporters scrutinized objectivity and found it inaccurate because it led to incomplete reporting that did not provide background information or assess the credibility of sources. Journalists were worried that they contributed to the reputational and personal harms suffered by McCarthy’s targets.
Even as some journalists searched their souls, they saw the McCarthy story as an opportunity to do better work. It prompted them to reconsider objectivity and expand the idea of fairness beyond stenographic balance and toward a fuller truth. Perspective, completeness, and context were frequently mentioned in professional conversations about McCarthy. Journalists focused on the idea of adding context, which was typically referred to as “interpretive reporting.” By adding background and explanation, journalists could highlight some of the tactics that they were keenly aware of: the rapid-fire charges, the lack of evidence, and the attacks on the press that undermined their coverage. Given the disparity in prominence between allegations and denials, many journalists felt a duty to redress that imbalance in the interest of fairness and accuracy. That meant adding more information than emerged from McCarthy’s latest hearings or news conferences.
Today, the challenges are similar. Journalists debate whether to call false statements lies. They face hostility from politicians and the public, and fact-based reporting is sometimes swamped by misinformation circulating on social media. To counter that, reporters can go beyond individual newsmakers to portray the social movements and insecurities that underlie them. If journalists help the public understand the reasons behind the popularity of particular political styles or conspiracy theories, they can go a long way to guide people toward solutions.
Exercise: Putting McCarthy into Context
During the Cold War, many Americans were afraid. To understand why, look up the following:
The House Un-American Activities Committee;
The communist takeover of China;
Development of the atomic bomb by the Soviet Union; and
The Ethel and Julius Rosenberg espionage case.
1. For each, briefly describe what happened and when.
2. What was the reaction in the United States? What were the concerns?
3. How do you think these entities and events influenced journalists? As you read in the article, some historians felt that the Cold War reinforced objectivity because it enabled journalists to prove that they were independent, unlike those in totalitarian countries. Does that argument make sense? Why or why not?
4. How do you think the Cold War influenced coverage of McCarthy? Can you give an example?
5. Consider national and world events today. Are there things happening now that can explain the popularity of particular political viewpoints, especially views that are considered extreme? Give an example.
Exercise: When the Media Become Part of the Story
One historian observed that reporters “who criticized McCarthy could expect him to retaliate.” More recently, a Washington Post writer noted that “McCarthy delivered his attacks on the press in the hope of undermining their credibility.” In 2021, the public opinion website Five Thirty Eight described former President Donald Trump in similar terms. “During both his campaign for the presidency and his four years in office, Trump openly attacked the media, calling journalists or news organizations critical of him or his administration ‘fake news,’” political scientist Meredith Conroy wrote.
1. How do you think attacks on the media affect reporters who are trying to be fair and impartial?
2. How do you think such attacks affect media that support the former president?
3. Should journalists report verbal attacks on them? Is it something the public needs to know? Make an argument for and against reporting on this.
Exercise: Media Coverage Then and Now
1. Journalists were criticized, and criticized themselves, for coverage of McCarthy that amplified sensational allegations. As you read in the article, one McCarthy biographer concluded that he was “a ‘dream story,’” because he was “always newsworthy.” Recently, US Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene has been scrutinized for her support of conspiracy theories, including those claiming that school shootings were staged. What similarities do you see between coverage of McCarthy and coverage of Greene? Do you think journalists might be tempted to report on a politician because they know their extreme opinions will attract an audience? What dangers might that cause? On the other hand, is it important to cover such public figures? If so, why?
2. McCarthy biographer David Oshinsky wrote that objectivity meant “quite often … the reporter becomes a conveyor belt for material he knows to be false.” During his campaigns and his presidency, Donald Trump was routinely accused of lying. Do journalists have a duty to say when a statement is a lie? Are they taking sides when they do? Are they taking sides if they don’t?
3. You read about the Denver editor’s memo asking journalists to reconsider traditional objectivity. He urged journalists to actively counterbalance McCarthy’s false and misleading statements. In 2016, media-studies scholar David Mindich wrote, “If a politician’s rhetoric is dangerous … all of us, including journalists, are complicit if we don’t stand up and oppose it.” Do you believe journalists have a duty to be impartial, or are there times when they should abandon their detachment? Can you give an example?
4. There are many places you can watch Edward R. Murrow’s 1954 See It Now broadcast, including here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8ljil075AY
At the end of his program, Murrow went beyond reporting and added a few minutes of commentary, which you can watch here: https://www.cjr.org/analysis/trump_inspires_murrow_moment_for_journalism.php
After watching all or part of the broadcast, read W. Joseph Campbell’s Getting It Wrong chapter about Murrow. In light of current politicians who espouse extreme views, consider: Is such a “media moment,” or supposed moment, possible today? Why or why not?
5. Consider high-profile issues today, such as climate change or vaccine skepticism. These have been the subject of controversial claims or conspiracy theories. Is there a way for modern journalists to do what some 1950s journalists did: to blend “just the facts” objectivity with analysis and interpretation? Can you imagine what this might look like? Can you find an example of news coverage that combines these approaches?
Suggested Readings
Edwin R. Bayley, Joe McCarthy and the Press (New York: Pantheon, 1981).
W. Joseph Campbell, Getting It Wrong: Debunking the Greatest Myths in American Journalism 2nd ed. (Oakland: University of California Press, 2017), Chapter 3, “Murrow vs. McCarthy.”
The Commission on Freedom of the Press, A Free and Responsible Press: A General Report on Mass Communication: Newspapers, Radio, Motion Pictures, Magazines and Books (Chicago: University of Chicago Press) 1947 (Midway Reprint).
David T.Z. Mindich, Just the Facts: How “Objectivity” Came to Define American Journalism (New York: New York University Press, 1998).
Richard H. Rovere, Senator Joe McCarthy (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1959).
Elizabeth Skewes, “Time Delays Are Not Enough; Media Must Call Out Lies,” Journal of Media Ethics 33, no. 2 (2018): 97-99.