On the surface, not much had changed. Reporters used the same straight-news formula to cover both the 1972 and 1948 presidential campaigns — that’s how their editors wanted it. That fact becomes overwhelmingly apparent in a comparison of Zachary Karabell’s The Last Campaign: How Harry Truman Won the 1948 Election to Timothy Crouses’ Boys on the Bus.
What had changed from 1948 to 1972, were the attitudes of the president, politicians and political candidates. They were much more aware of the media’s influence, particularly radio and television, on the electorate. Some candidates more than others, paid closer attention to how the media worked and strategically designed their campaigns to circumvent the potential pitfalls of mass media coverage.
(The Last Campaign, pp. 212-213).
By 1972, press access to candidates was glaringly incongruent, and White House press corps including newspaper, television and radio reporters were stymied by the increasing lack of “inside” access. Reporters less likely to “rock the boat” were cherry-picked for presidential press conferences and reporters found that it required extra confidence to overcome the intimidation of asking tough questions on live television. It also became clear to many reporters that a good campaign story went beyond the surface of what reporters saw and heard and provided context for the reader.
However, “news analysis” was frowned upon by many newspaper and TV editors in 1972. Only a handful of reporters stepped up to buck the trend including Jules Witcover, Hayes Johnson, David Broder, Bill Grieder, Cassie Mackin, and Dan Rather.
“The straight reporters, who worked for news organizations with vast audiences, had been taught since their cub days that their first duty was to protect their own credibility and the credibility of their employers. It was just for this purpose that the rules of objectivity had been created. If a reporter wished to retain the trust of his readers, then he had to write about politics from a totally impartial point of view. Most of the reporters covering the [1972] campaign hewed closely to the rules of objectivity not only for the sake of advancing themselves in the profession, but also out of a genuine belief that the objective approach produced fair and honest coverage. As the fall campaign progressed, however, it began to dawn on many of the McGovern reporters that the rules of objectivity were no longer doing the job. (Boys on the Bus, pp. 318-319)
Campaign trail reporters were expected to report what they saw, no more, no less. No one story could different from the others’ on the bus. The wire reporters provided the lead and all reports followed his story with no deviation. Anything more or less was considered by editors to be unverifiable and would not be printed. But that style paled in comparison to coverage by TV reporters like CBS’s Dan Rather, described by Crouse (Boys on the Bus, pp.308-309) as “one of the few reporters in 1972 able to finesse the formula.”
Dan Rather, Crouse said, “often adhered to the ‘informed sources’ or ‘the White House announced today’ formulas, but he was famous in the trade for the times when he by-passed these formulas and “winged it” on a story. Rather would go on with an item even if he didn’t have it completely nailed down with verifiable facts. If a rumor sounded solid to him, if he believed it in his gut or had gotten it from a man who struck him as honest, he would let it rip. The other White House reporters hated Rather for this.”
Rolling Stone’s Hunter Thompson, too, emerged as a trend-bucking reporter in Crouse’s account of those tumultuous times for newspaper reporters. Hunter’s style of reporting in 1972 was considered to be the grandest form of editorializing by his comrades who’d resigned themselves to straight news coverage their editors mandated.
“It was a dream that Rolling Stone would muster the gigantic, newly enfranchised youth vote and throw it to the best man. Things didn’t exactly shape up that way but the editor had the wit to hire Hunter Thompson as political correspondent.”
(Boys on the Bus, p. 311)
The differences in print, radio and television coverage of campaigns became more glaring as television technically advanced, which changed public perception. The cameras were strategically placed and the public could see everything as it unfolded as opposed to reading it or hearing only a narrative from the perspective of the journalist. Television was so new in 1948 that its impact was less profound. Although some spot interviews were done, candidates were hard pressed to buy airtime. Radio was expensive enough and TV was even more costly.
“As a novelty, the 1948 conventions were an interesting TV show, but they were still a sideshow, watched by approximately 10 million people in the country of more than the 125 million. The conventions went on as they had before, with a handful of fixed cameras stationed in the hall. With minimal commentary, rudimentary production, and a few choice interviews, TV didn’t shape the way politics was conducted. The cameras were merely a mirror, recording routines and rituals that had developed before television and went on with precious little regard for it. After 1948, the political process changed to meet the demands of television. But initially, it was TV that tried to mold itself to fit politics.” (The Last Campaign)
