Secrets of Victory: The Office of Censorship and the American Press and Radio in World War II
288
Secrets of Victory: The Office of Censorship and the American Press and Radio in World War II
288eBook
Available on Compatible NOOK devices, the free NOOK App and in My Digital Library.
Related collections and offers
Overview
Secrets of Victory examines the World War II censorship program and analyzes the reasons for its success. Using archival sources, including the Office of Censorship's own records, Michael Sweeney traces the development of news media censorship from a pressing necessity after the attack on Pearl Harbor to the centralized yet efficient bureaucracy that persuaded thousands of journalists to censor themselves for the sake of national security. At the heart of this often dramatic story is the Office of Censorship's director Byron Price. A former reporter himself, Price relied on cooperation with--rather than coercion of--American journalists in his fight to safeguard the nation's secrets.
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9780807875605 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | The University of North Carolina Press |
| Publication date: | 01/14/2003 |
| Sold by: | Barnes & Noble |
| Format: | eBook |
| Pages: | 288 |
| Lexile: | 1600L (what's this?) |
| File size: | 2 MB |
About the Author
Read an Excerpt
Introduction
A young Frenchman who came from a royalist family but hoped to shape his country along more democratic lines spent nine months observing life in the United States in 1831 and 1832. His original intention was to focus on the prison system, but as he traveled and talked and observed the young republic, his mind wandered much further. He sought the reasons for the vitality and deficiencies of America's public sphere, and among his interests was an issue he considered crucial to the future of France: the balance between liberty and equality. When Alexis de Tocqueville returned home and wrote his insightful Democracy in America, he described Jacksonian democracy in terms that still ring true. He noted that although political liberty occasionally gives citizens great pleasure, equality "every day confers a number of small enjoyments on every man." As much as democratic communities crave and cherish freedom, he said, they harbor an equally ardent passion for sharing life's conditions. These communities "call for equality in freedom; and if they cannot obtain that, they still call for equality in slavery. They will endure poverty, servitude, barbarism, but they will not endure aristocracy."[1]
If de Tocqueville had been able to observe the mature republic a little more than a century later, he would have seen his words still fitting America like a well-tailored suit. The nation's citizen army and navy, under the direction of a citizen government, fought World War II with dual motivations. Foremost, expressed in government-approved Hollywood films, armed forces training lectures and movies, and publicity from the White House and the Office of War Information, was the belief in the need to halt fascism and preserve democracy. But underneath was an equally powerful reason that ordinary Americans chose to put themselves at risk. Once they were in combat, they were not fighting for their country and its ideals as much as they were fighting for a team. They felt strong bonds of comradeship, and it was hard to let down the rest of the team's members. Each person was expected to shoulder a portion of the load, and as long as soldiers and sailors were willing to recognize such a sharing of responsibility, they were willing to make the necessary sacrifices of war.[2]
On the home front, Americans made sacrifices, too—willingly, as long as the burdens appeared to be shared. Most ordinary Americans accepted rationing as necessary. Homemakers adjusted to cutbacks in the availability of sugar, meat, and butter in order to do their part for the war. Unfair advantages in obtaining scarce items were met with howls of outrage by the have-nots, especially during mid-1942, when thousands of drivers fraudulently obtained rationing cards entitling them to extra gasoline. Those who willingly had sacrificed their automotive freedom protested that others had placed their own selfishness above the needs of the country, prompting renewed federal efforts to foster cooperation and restore the feeling of equality.[3]
And in the news media that covered the war both overseas and domestically, journalists also were willing to cooperate and do their part. The public did not see journalists (and journalists did not see themselves) as being against the team. Journalists were part of the team. Some, such as roving correspondent Ernie Pyle, repeatedly visited combat zones even though they did not have to do so, and they paid with their lives. Others, such as Wisconsin State Journal publisher Don Anderson, were too old to fight or cover the war in person but nevertheless felt compelled to volunteer for war-related duty. In Anderson's case, he monitored the newspapers of his home state for compliance with the domestic censorship code and tried to educate the rule breakers to work harder to comply.[4] In the case of Associated Press (AP) executive editor Byron Price, wartime service called him to abandon the business he loved and direct the nation's censorship system.
Voluntary domestic censorship was one of the shared sacrifices of war for American journalists. On one hand, World War II was perhaps the most newsworthy event of the century, offering opportunities for lucrative and significant "scoops." On the other hand, no nation can fight a modern war by refusing to exercise some control of information. Journalists who wrote or broadcast stories about wartime secrets would, in effect, be handing the enemy a weapon. To prevent the disclosure of sensitive information during wartime requires a restraint that is distasteful to democracies; but if successful, such censorship can become what one memoir of World War II describes as a "weapon of silence." The dynamic question of the war for American journalists was whether they would agree to restrain themselves or report some of the biggest stories of their careers.
This question embodies the same tension between liberty and equality that Tocqueville documented more than a century earlier. Under the rules of voluntary, domestic censorship in the United States during World War II (as opposed to the army's and navy's mandatory censorship in the combat zones), each journalist had the freedom to report an especially sensitive news story, resulting in a short-term gain at the expense of others who suppressed the story or were ignorant of it. However, to violate the voluntary censorship code would have conflicted not only with the needs of the military and government—which ostensibly were fighting in defense of liberties such as free press and free speech—but also with the value of equality. Journalists claimed the rights of the First Amendment, and they demanded that censorship give no one an advantage in exercising those rights. At least, they demanded that their competitors enjoy no advantage over them. If they must sacrifice, they reasoned, all must sacrifice to be members of the team.
Table of Contents
AcknowledgmentsIntroduction
Chapter 1. Squarely in the Lap of the Director of Censorship: The Origins and Scope of World War II Censorship
Chapter 2. The Censor Has Written Me a Very Stern Letter: Establishing Voluntary Censorship
Chapter 3. A Miscellany of Volunteer Firemen: Censorship and the Army, the Navy, and the White House
Chapter 4. Umpires Have Called the Game for Reasons I Cannot Speak Of: Radio Censorship
Chapter 5. Pearson Said He Was Going to Tell Things He Could Not Write: Drew Pearson and His Secrets
Chapter 6. The President Is Making a Trip: The Press and the President's Travels
Chapter 7. The Highest Considerations of National Security: Military Secrets and the End of Censorship
Conclusion
Notes
Bibliography
Index
What People are Saying About This
Will gladden the hearts of anyone interested in communication history during critical periods in the 20th century. . . . A balanced, well-written account of how governments can handle the difficult task of preserving press freedom in wartime without jeopardizing national security.—Political Communication
A smart and necessary book. . . . Sweeney has managed an impressive balancing act, pouring exhaustively researched detail into a clean and engaging narrative; the result is one of those books you wish you could make people read.—Washington Post Book World
An even-paced, exhaustively researched . . . text on a paradoxical period for American media.—Publishers Weekly
This timely and important book about journalism, the media, and government control of information during wartime is highly recommended for academic and large public libraries.—Library Journal
Adds deeper understanding about the way the world's leading democracy dealt with press censorship when it was brought into the war by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. . . . A solid book that should be read by all students of press freedom and media history.—Journalism History
A well-researched study of the U.S. office of censorship. . . . A well-written history of a rarely examined government agency that could have, but never did threaten, U.S. press freedom.—International Journal of History
The most comprehensive history of the Office of Censorship and its director, Byron Price, to date. . . . Sweeney tells this story conscientiously and thoroughly.—Journal of American History
Sweeney makes a useful contribution to the growing literature of the U.S. government's modern relationship with mass media.—American Historical Review
This is a first-rate book by an outstanding historian who has poured mountains of research into his topic. It will be of interest not only to scholars but also to anyone teaching courses on the press or on the America of World War II.—Journal of Military History
American censorship policy during WWII has been extraordinarily neglected. . . . Sweeney's solid book . . . is therefore both a welcome and important addition to the literature.—Choice