University Microfilms
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
INFORMATION TO USERS This dissertation was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or “target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 A Xerox Education Company 72-27,058 LUNSFORD, Paul C., 1916- A STUDY OF GOVERNMENTAL INQUIRIES INTO ALLEGED STAGED NEWS PRACTICES OF TWO TELEVISION NEWS DOCUMENTARIES. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1972 Journalism University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan © Copyright by Paul C. Lunsford 1972 THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN'MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED A STUDY OF GOVERNMENTAL INQUIRIES INTO ALLEGED STAGED NEWS PRACTICES OF TWO TELEVISION NEWS DOCUMENTARIES DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Paul C. Lunsford, B.S., Ml.Ed. ***** The Ohio State University 1972 Approved by Adviser Department of Speech PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. University Microfilms, A Xerox Education Company ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to acknowledge with deepest gratitude the kindness, personal counsel and scholarly advice extended him by members of his committee, particularly Professors Walter B. Emery, chairman, James L. Golden, G. Robert Holsinger and Galen Rarick. A large debt also is owed to scores of professional media workers, both colleagues and friends, who have made substantial contri butions directly or indirectly to this study. ii VITA December 10, 1916 Born - Hillsboro, Ohio 1965 B.S. (Psychology), Xavier University Cincinnati, Ohio 1966-1969 Lecturer in Conmunication Arts, Xavier University, Cincinnati, Ohio 1969 M.Ed. (Counseling Psychology), Xavier University, Cincinnati, Ohio PUBLICATIONS Twenty-three non-academic articles in national magazines, including Hearst Magazines, Fawcett Publications, MacFadden Publications, Hillman, Inc., Buse Publications. FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Mass Communications Studies in Broadcasting Systems. Professor Halter B. Emery Studies in Mass Communication. Professor Galen Rarick Studies in Broadcast Journalism. Professor G. Robert Holsinger Studies in Rhetoric. Professor James Golden iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS......................................... it VITA.................................................... ill Chapter I. INTRODUCTION................................... 1 General Statement of the Purpose Significance of Study Methodology Definition of Terms Research Background Review of the Literature Limitations of the Study Summary II. THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND...................... 39 Introduction Problems of Filmic Reality The Early Newsreels The March of Time The Non-News Documentaries The Television News Documentary The Richards Case The Climate of Ethical Decay The Violent Sixties Summary III. THE CONCEPT OF OBJECTIVITY..................... 74 Introduction The Meanings of Objectivity Perception and Objectivity The Origins of the Concept Sensationalism The Era of Yellow Journalism jazz Journalism and the Tabloids Summary iv IV. THE RISE OF INTERPRETATIVE REPORTING 117 Introduction The Problem of News Objectivity The Nature of Interpretation The New Subjective Journalism Summary V. JOURNALISTIC ETHICS: THE CODES AND REGULATIONS.. 150 Introduction The American Society of Newspaper Editors Code of Ethics of the ASNB Problems of the ASNB Code The American Newspaper Guild Lasswell's Standards The Radio Code of the National Association of Broadcasters Television Code of the National Association of Broadcasters Code of Ethics of the Radio-Television News Directors Association Summary VI. POT PARTY AT A UNIVERSITY...................... 178 Introduction The Principals Involved Chronological Synopsis Findings and Recommendations of the Subcommittee The FCC Findings and Recommendations Summary VII. PROJECT NASSAU................................. 228 Introduction Participants in Project Nassau Chronological Synopsis Events Allegedly Staged Subcommittee Conclusions Recommendat ions Addendum Summary VIII. CONCLUSION..................................... 281 Specific Conclusions: Pot Party Specific Conclusions: Project Nassau General Conclusions and Social Implications Recommendations for Further Research v APPENDIX A. ................................................. 309 B ................................................... 311 C ................................................... 313 D ................................................... 324 E................................................... 331 BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................ 348 vl CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The controversial subject of staged news has obtained an in ordinate amount of governmental, professional and audience attention during the latter half of the 1960's and the first two years of the 1970's— a relatively short span of seven years. Indeed, it has be come the figurative eye of a storm of controversy surrounding an in creasing alienation among mass media, government and audiences, an accretive process often described in overused and much abused ster eotypical terms as the "credibility gap." Yet despite the furor, staged news (the act rather than the term) is neither new nor unique. Its origin can be traced back into the misty antiquities of early civilizations, through early English journalism, and the American colonial press. Virtually no era of journallan has been completely free from the taint of staged news. This recent focus of attention on the problem has taken many critical forms— the reasons for which are at once obvious and obscure, immediate and historical, self-serving and public serving. It is not coincidental, however, that this critical attention should fruit in the rapid and often traunatic change in political, social and moral values of American society during the 60's and 70's. 2 Staunch defenders and strict interpreters of the First Amen dment see governmental inquiry into broadcast news practices as overt assaults upon the traditional freedom of the press, an in vasion of the sanctity of their editorial judgment. Probably the leading figure in this position is Dr. Frank Stanton, formerly president and now vice-chairman of the Columbia Broadcasting System, whose network has been a consistent target of governmental inquiry, especially by the House Subcommittee on Investigations, Stanton's persistent and sometimes perennial foe is the Sub. committee's chairman. Rep. Harley 0. Staggers of West Virginia, whose current mission appears to be the preservation of the integrity of broadcast journalism through Subcommittee surveillance. Stanton seems to view Staggers* efforts as a personal vendetta against him self and the CBS network. He staunchly defends the basic integrity of his network news. Staggers lost an unprecedented fight with CBS* then president in the summer of 1971 when the House of Representatives refused to cite CBS and Stanton for contempt for refusing to cooperate fully with an investigation into the controversial documentary The Selling of the Pentagon. Staggers subpoenaed Stanton and CBS personnel to produce the out-takes of the film shot for the docuaentary, Stanton refused, and Staggers' colleagues, in an unprecedented action, re fused to uphold a contempt citation. The Selling of the Pentagon issue mainly concerned the editing of film interviews out of con text. "It is Impossible for me to psychoanalyze him,” said Stan ton, whose early training was in psychology at The Ohio State Univer sity, where he was awarded a Ph.D. degree. "He is a very intense 1 and bitter man." Staggers has retorted that he is not bitter at all, and that the Subcommittee's efforts to get the networks to police themselves 2 "has been a good thing for the American people.” Staggers has not concentrated his scrutiny entirely