INTRODUCTION

THE PULITZER PRIZES FOR INTERNATIONAL REPORTING IN THE THIRD PHASE OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT, 1963-1977

Heinz-Dietrich Fischer

The rivalry between the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. having shifted, in part, to predomi- nance in the fields of space-travel and satellites in the upcoming space age, thus opening a new dimension in the Cold War,1 there were still existing other controversial issues in policy and journalism. "While the colorful space competition held the forefront of public atten- tion," Hohenberg remarks, "the trained diplomatic correspondents of the major newspa- pers and wire services in the West carried on almost alone the difficult and unpopular East- West negotiations to achieve atomic control and regulation and reduction of armaments. The public seemed to want to ignore the hard fact that rockets capable of boosting people into orbit for prolonged periods could also deliver atomic warheads to any part of the earth. It continued, therefore, to be the task of the responsible press to assign competent and highly trained correspondents to this forbidding subject. They did not have the glamor of TV or the excitement of a space shot to focus public attention on their work. Theirs was the responsibility of obliging editors to publish material that was complicated and not at all easy for an indifferent public to grasp. It had to be done by abandoning the familiar cliches of journalism in favor of the care and the art of the superior historian .. . On such an assignment, no correspondent was a 'foreign' correspondent. The term was outdated. Those who wrote about the painfully long, detailed, and gloomy conferences on which the fate of civilization rested could not escape the feeling that they addressed the whole world. They had to live with their problems and do the best they could. No electronic device such as Telstar would bring their stories to them, neatly tailored in minute-long packages between patent drug commercials, and no world statesman would be able to exert his magic to bring about a sudden, easy, and simple solution."2 It can hardly be ascertained how many representatives of this additional type of correspondent operated among the total number of American foreign correspondents. In

1 Cf. UNESCO (Ed.): Communication in the Space Age. The Use of Satellites by the Mass Media, Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 1968, pp. 25 f., 155 ff. 2 John Hohenberg: Foreign Correspondence. The Great Reporters and Their Times, New York - London: Columbia University Press, 1964, pp. 428 ff. XX Introduction

any case, a study of the publishing house McGraw-Hill concerning 84 countries in the world and published in 1963, shows a clear tendency for a numerical increase in the U.S. foreign press corps. "Over the last thirteen years," the report runs - in consideration of a former study "the number of American correspondents has increased ... Our 1963 census shows that there are now 515 American foreign correspondents (of U.S. citizenship) overseas reporting for American media of all kinds. This is an increase of 222 correspondents over 1950, or roughly a 75% jump ... The total of 515 does not include the foreign national personnel who supplement our American foreign correspondent population, and our census thus went ahead to count them, too. We found there were 718 foreign nationals reporting for American media ... These foreign nationals are crack newsmen in many cases, and many of them are making lifetime careers serving as reporters and deskmen in the big wire service bureaus abroad, as number two or three staffers in bureaus of various publications, and as the sole link with many foreign countries in their capacity as string correspondents - usually for a group of American publications or services. Above all, a rough total does not tell how our foreign correspondents are deployed about the surface of the earth, so we have broken them down by areas, and cities within countries. In all, there are 1,233 correspondents (both U.S. and foreign nationals) representing U.S. media. This will show that while we have, indeed, had an increase in the number of correspondents, perhaps too many still are concentrated in major metropolises - particularly London and Paris - while important smaller countries go uncovered."3 Using the figures, the UPI had qualified 291 staffers as foreign correspondents, the AP had 268, while Time-Life had 63, the New York Times 45, McGraw-Hill 28, Newsweek 14, U.S. News and World Report 13, Christian Science Monitor 12, Fairchild 12, Chicago Tribune 12, New York Herald-Tribune 9, Baltimore Sun 8, Chicago Daily News 7, Washing- ton Post!Los Angeles Times 7, and NBC 21, CBS 19, ABC 8.4 Regarding the geographical distribution of the total of 1,233 overseas correspondents for U.S. media, no fewer than 626 were located in Europe, 255 in Asia and Australia, 229 in Latin America, 64 in the Middle East and 59 in Africa.5 "Our census shows," the report deplores, "only 20 foreign correspondents of U.S. citizenship on the entire continent of Africa, and of these two are in the far northern shore, at Morocco, and four are on the southern tip, in Johannisburg, leaving really only 14 to cover the interior of this immense land. In addition, we found 39 locals of foreign nationals working for U.S. media, which gave a total manpower in African news coverage of 59. Still, this is not much compared to the 626 correspondents for U.S. media in Europe. The problem of covering Africa is frightening. There is no hub of the wheel such as Paris or Geneva might be for Europe. If you take a spot with the most datelines during the past year, probably Leopoldville, and decide to put a permanent staffer there, you commit a man (and probably his family) to a difficult life in a tropically hot city with innumerable hardships with every chance that he may go months without another breaking news story. If you go the other way, and pick out a pleasant place for him to live, say Nairobi in Kenia, you have no greater chance of news stories, and when they do occur

3 John Wilhelm: The Re-appearing Foreign Correspondent. A World Survey, in: Journalism Quar- terly (Minneapolis, Minn.), Vol.40/No.2, Spring 1963, pp. 147f. 4 Ibid., p. 150. 5 Ibid., p. 151. Heinz-Dietrich Fischer xxi somewhere else in Africa, he will be the last man there inasmuch as air flights to other points are not conveniently scheduled and visas are nearly impossible."6 The increase of the American foreign media corps between 1950 and 1963 presumably was mainly due to the increase of the number of radio and TV correspondents, which was growing all over the world, and not so much to the small group of diplomatic corre- spondents. Indeed, their specific functions7 differed in part from those of regular corre- spondents. In 1963, Cohen tried a differentiated reconsideration of these functions, using as an example the national and foreign press corps accredited in Washington, the communica- tive ability of which had been examined in the mid-thirties for the first time.8 "The foreign affairs reporter in Washington," he explains, is "a man of long experience in the field of international affairs ... Almost all of these reporters have been foreign correspondents at some point of their careers, or have significant foreign reporting experience while stationed in this country, or have lived or worked abroad extensively before they took up foreign affairs reporting ... A reporter of public affairs lives a bifurcated professional existence: he is a reporter of a passing scence, in ways that he does not always understand or accept. This duality is evident in almost every phase of his work. He holds two sets of conceptions of the role that the press plays, or should play, in the foreign policy-making process - one set involving him only as a neutral reporter, providing information that enables others to play a part in the fashioning of policy; and another set that defines his active participation in the policy-making process. The first set of role conceptions relates the reporter chiefly toward the public participants in the process; while the second set relates him toward the official policy-making level."9 It is not known if the jurors bore in mind this differentiation when they evaluated the press materials which had been produced under various conditions, and which were submitted under the common label "International Reporting." In view of the international political constellations of 1963 there was no need for the Pulitzer Prize committees to worry about an interesting theoretical discussion like the one of Cohen. For it was in the very year of publication of his book that grave political events occurred, requiring not so much the diplomatic background reporter but the old type, the prototype even, of a foreign corre- spondent, that is the war correspondent who suddenly was in demand again when things escalated in Vietnam. "Unhappily," Hohenberg describes the surprise effect of this develop- ment, "the American public paid no attention to the [press] warning and the American government, from 1961 on, began to increase its support for the South Vietnamese regime of Ngo Dinh Diem with funds, arms, and troops disguised as 'advisers.' When the handful of American correspondents in Saigon tried to write about American involvement, however, they were harassed and maligned and told brusquely by the American military to 'get on the team.' The showdown came when Diem's regime hailed its building of strategic armed hamlets against the Vietcong as a great success and orchestrated a series of victory

6 Ibid. 7 Cf. W. Phillips Davison: Diplomatic Reporting - Rules of the Game, in: Journal of Communication (Philadelphia, Pa.), Vol.25/No.4, Fall 1975, pp. 138ff. 8 Cf. Leo C. Rosten: The Washington Correspondents, New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1937, pp. 219ff. 9 Bernard C. Cohen: The Press and Foreign Policy, Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1963, pp. 18 ff. World-Wide Representation of American Fore

Census of Foreign Correspondents, 1963: Summary Overseas Correspondents for V. S. Media Locator U. S. Other Country City Citizens Nationals Total Number EUROPE AUSTRIA Vienna 12 13 25 BELGIUM Brussels 6 9 15 BULGARIA Sofia — — CZECHOSLOVAKIA Prague — — DENMARK Copenhagen — 29 29 ENGLAND London 73 110 183 FINLAND Helsinki 2 23 25 FRANCE Paris 48 18 66 GERMANY Bonn West Berlin Frankfurt Hamburg Munich 42 21 63 GREECE Athens 5 4 9 HUNGARY Budapest — 4 4 IRELAND Dublin — 5 5 ITALY Rome Milan 51 13 64 LUXEMBOURG Luxembourg 1 — 1 NETHERLANDS Amsterdam — 24 24 NORWAY Oslo — 23 23 POLAND Warsaw 6 3 9 PORTUGAL Lisbon 1 9 10 RUMANIA Bucharest — — SPAIN Madrid 13 1 14 SWLDEN Stockholm 6 16 22 SWITZERLAND Geneva Zurich 3 12 15 U.S.S R. Moscow 15 1 16 YUGOSLAVIA Belgrade 1 5 6 TOTALS for EUROPE 285 341 626 MIDDLE EAST EGYPT Cairo 5 6 11 IRAN Teheran 1 3 4 IRAQ Baghdad — 2 2 ISRAEL Tel Aviv 2 4 6 JORDAN Amman — 2 2 LEBANON Beirut 3 8 11 SAUDI ARABIA Riyadh — — SYRIA Damascus — 2 TURKEY Ankara Istanbul 6 20 26 TOTALS for MIDDLE EAST 17 47 64 AFRICA ALGERIA Algiers — 2 2 CONGO Leopoldville 5 10 15 ETHIOPIA Addis Ababa — 2 2 GHANA Accra — 4 7 KENYA Nairobi 5 3 MOROCCO Rabat Casablanca Tangier 2 4

[Source: John Wilhelm: The Re-appearing Foreign Correspondent - A World Survey, in: Jour can Foreign Correspondents in 1963

Overseas Correspondents tor VS. Medic Local or V. 5. Other Country City Citizens Nationals Total Number AFRICA (Continued) NIGERIA Lagos Enugu 1 4 5 SOUTH AFRICA Johannesburg 4 5 9 SOUTHERN RHODESIA Salisbury — 2 2 SUDAN Khartoum — — — TANGANYIKA Dar-es-Salaam — 3 3 TOTALS for AFRICA 20 39 59 ARGENTINA Buenos Aires 11 41 52 BOLIVIA La Paz — 4 4 BRAZIL Rio de Janeiro Sao Paulo 20 6 26 CHILE Santiago 1 11 12 COLOMBIA Bogota 3 13 16 COSTA RICA San Jose — 3 3 CUBA Hayana — 2 2 DOMINICAN REPUBLICS auto Domingo — 2 2 ECUADOR Quito — 4 4 EL SALVADOR San Salvador 1 1 2 GUATEMALA Guatemala City 1 4 5 HAITI Port-au-Prince — 2 2 HONDURAS Tegucigalpa 1 — 1 JAMAICA Kingston 1 2 3 MEXICO Mexico City 19 5 24 NICARAGUA Managua 1 7 8 PANAMA Panama City 6 5 11 PARAGUAY Asuncion — 2 2 PERU Lima 2 10 12 PUERTO RICO San Juan 8 — 8 •TRINIDAD Port of Spain — 4 4 URUGUAY Montevideo — 14 14 VENEZUELA Caracas 7 3 10 VIRGIN ISLANDS St Thomas 4 — 4 TOTALS for LATIN AMERICA 84 145 229 AUSTRALIA Sydney 3 15 18 BURMA Rangoon — 2 2 CEYLON Colombo — 5 5 CHINA Peking — — — FORMOSA Taipei 8 6 14 HONGKONG Hongkong 17 3 20 INDIA New Delhi Bombay 8 10 18 INDONESIA Djakarta 1 4 5 JAPAN Tokyo 47 48 95 KOREA Seoul — 7 7 MALAYA Kuala Lumpur Singapore 3 8 11 NEW ZEALAND Invercaigill Auckland Wellington 1 6 7 PAKISTAN Karachi 1 14 15 PHILIPPINES Manila 11 3 14 SOUTH VIETNAM Saigon 7 3 10 THAILAND Bangkok 2 12 14 TOTALS for ASIA & AUSTRALIA 109 146 255

in: Journalism Quarterly' (Minneapolis, Minn.), Vol.40/No.2, Spring 1963, pp. 152f.] xxiv Introduction

predictions in both Saigon and Washington. The correspondents, for the most part, said it simply wasn't so and proved their point. In the tight struggle that developed between press and government, Diem lost out and was discredited in the eyes of the Kennedy administra- tion. On November 1, 1963, he was overthrown by a military uprising in Saigon that had at least the tacit approval of the United States. In the aftermath, both Diem and his brother, Ngo Dinh Nhu, were killed by the rebels, ushering in a period of fear and uncertainty in Saigon."10 Just before the 1963 revolt in Vietnam, the columnist Joseph Alsop, the former Pulitzer Prize-winner Marguerite Higgins, and Time magazine also had "bitterly accused a few resident American correspondents in Saigon of being unfair to the regime of Ngo Dinh Diem. The defendants replied in kind. It was the most violent argument over journalistic practice since the McCarthy era," Hohenberg states and goes on: "Yet, despite the charges of the Alsop-Higgins-Time alliance, most of the correspondents familiar with Saigon tended to support the chief defendants - Malcolm Brown of the AP, Neil Sheehan of UPI, and David Halberstam of the New York Times ... Nobody accused the correspondents of lying except, of course, the embattled Diem government. Alsop conceded that what they had written was 'true or part true.' What he objected to was what he termed a 'high-minded crusade' against President Diem. Miss Higgins, on her part, took offense at the repeated stories out of Saigon that the United States and the Diem forces were losing the war against the Viet Cong, the Communist guerillas. 'Reporters here,' she wrote angrily, 'would like to see us lose the war to prove they're right' ... Brown, Sheehan, and Halberstam were credited with having helped change the policies of the U.S. government in Vietnam by their accurate reporting that the war was being lost at a time when all officials on the spot were proclaiming victory. 'We maintained an independent position,' Halberstam said. 'While we were sympathetic to the aims of the U.S. government, we had to be critical of the representatives of our government who created a policy of optimism about the war that simply was not justified. There was no choice for us. We had our duty to our newspapers, the public that read them, and that was to tell the truth.'"11 Despite several critical and even hostile voices which especially Brown and Halberstam were exposed to for their factual reporting from Saigon, the essential articles of both journalists were submitted to the Pulitzer Prize Advisory Board for the 1964 competition. With regard to those conditions under which he had to work the entry for Halberstam read: "In the shifting and confusing political and military tides in South Vietnam, some foreign correspondents and even United States officials lost their bearings. Some reporters were content to report spot events like a local police story, ignoring the significance of these events and their bearing on American commitments in that country. It took a crew of young men, among whom was David Halberstam, to dig into a situation that was obscure to American readers. By his forthright and penetrating dispatches, Mr. Halberstam stirred up political criticism and denials, but subsequent developments have proved he was near the

10 John Hohenberg: The Pulitzer Prizes. A History of the Awards in Books, Drama, Music, and Journalism, Based on the Private Files Over Six Decades, New York - London: Columbia University Press, 1974, pp. 249 f. 11 Nomination of David Halberstam for his coverage of South Vietnam, entry in the Pulitzer Prize Office (PPO). Heinz-Dietrich Fischer xxv

mark. At any rate, his reporting swayed the policies of the United States government. The ten examples of the work submitted here reflect the diligence and the intelligence with which he executed his assignment in South Vietnam during 1963."12 Among the 34 entries submitted to the Pulitzer Prize jurors in the International Reporting category in 1964 no fewer than nine treated an aspect of the Vietnam theme. "The story of the decline and fall of the Diem government of Vietnam," the jury report points out, "was covered under extreme and complex difficulties. Faced with censorship that was at times menacing; criticized as conscious instruments of United States foreign policy in conflict with their first duty as reporters, newspapermen in Vietnam faced heavy odds. Subsequent to Diem's fall and even recently, the reporters of the Vietnam crisis have been accused of prejudical reporting and charged with misleading the American people."13 "We feel," the jury continues in its 1964 report, "that the work of Malcolm W. Brown of the Associated Press and David Halberstam of the New York Times was brilliant and, most importantly, complementary. Both overcame common handicaps and each contributed factual illumination and understanding to a tangled mass of events in Southeast Asia .. ,"14 The Advisory Board agreed with this opinion and pronounced in the beginning of May, 1964, that the Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting "was awarded to Malcolm W. Brown of the Associated Press and David Halberstam of the New York Times for their individual reporting of the Vietnam war and the overthrow of the Diem regime (each receives a certificate and one-half the monetary award)."15 Thus, the prize was shared between Brown and Halberstam, while Sheehan of the United Press International, as Hohenberg explains, "despite his excellent work, was unfortunate enough to have missed the reporting of the revolt, having been recalled to Tokyo for two weeks at the time."16 Neil Sheehan of United Press International, "would almost certainly have shared Pulitzer honors that year if he had not been in Japan at the time of the coup against Diem. It was a circumstance," Hohenberg reports, "to which the jurors repeatedly referred in studying his otherwise impressive exhibit submitted by UPI. This first prize for war correspondence in Vietnam was matched in the following year by the first award for combat photography in the conflict, which went to Horst Faas of the Associated Press ... From that time on, for the next eight years of American participation in the struggle, there wasn't an announcement of the Pulitzer Prizes that did not contain at least one prize for outstanding journalistic performance that dealt with Vietnam."17 This trend toward Pulitzer Prize honors for journalistic coverage of the Vietnam conflict was observable, indeed, in various prize categories in the following years, but it did not make itself conspicuous so soon and so clearly in the International Reporting category. For in the 1965 term the International Reporting jury decided "by unanimous vote" to "nominate the work of J. A. Livingston of the Philadelphia Bulletin as the best example of

12 Miles H. Wolff/John R. Herbert/Jack B. Krueger/Robert W. Lucas: Report of the Committee on International Reporting, New York, March 6, 1964, pp. If. (PPO). 13 John Hohenberg: Foreign Correspondence, op. cit., pp. 446f. 14 Ibid., p. 2. 15 Columbia University (Ed.): Announcement of the 48th Annual Pulitzer Prize Awards, New York, May 4, 1964, p. 2 (mimeographed press release). 16 John Hohenberg: Foreign Correspondence, op. cit., p. 447. 17 John Hohenberg: The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 250. March 6, 1964

This is the Report of the Conrri ttee on International Reporting

The Cocraittee on International Reporting considered 34 entries in this category. It was found that 9 of the entries covered the crisis

In Tiet Ham; 10 discussed Russia and its satellites; and 7 dealt «1th the

Latin American area. Others covered news in various areas of the world.

Perhaps because the solid day to day news was more dynamic and spectacular, the southeast Asian exhibits were, in our judgement, "a outstanding of all material submitted.

The story of the decline and fall of the Diem government of men

Vietnam was covered under extreme and complex difficulties. F«ced with was censorship that was at times menacing; struggling to remain free of political Her and diplomatic entrapment; criticised as conscious instruments of United <&n<

States foreign policy in conflict with their first duty as reporters, newspapermen in Vietnam faced heavy odds. Subsequent to Diss's fall

and even recently, the reporters of the Vietnam crisis have been accused

of prejudicial reporting and with misleading the American people.

He feel that the work of Malcolm W. Browne of the Associated

Press and David Halberstan of the New York Times was brilliant and, most

importantly, complementary. Both overcame cocxnon handicaps and each

contributed factual illumination and understanding to a tangled mass of

events in Southeast Asia.

Report of the 1964 Inter Page Two—International

Mr. Browne, corresponding for a news service that mist be

conscious of deadlines around the clock, provided outstanding spot n. news coverage of dramatic events. Mr. Halberstam, while performing well with

his deadUnes in mind, concentrated on explanation and background which

were indfcpensible to a full comprehension of the story. The total efforts

of the two men produced an extraordinary account of the crisis.

We recocmend, therefore, that both men receive the «ward for

"a distinguished example of reporting on international affairs."

We found several solid pieces of international reporting worth

mentioning but probably not good enough for top place. The first of the««

was • substantial background series on Cuba by Sanche de Gramont of the

1 Herald Tribune. Another was a series of articles on South Africa by

Snith Hempstone of the Chicago Daily News—although these suffered froa lack

of spot news. We were impressed, too, by the Alliance for Progress series

by George Sherman of the Washington Star, but again the material was bJ^Efcro,

rather than spot news.

>64 International Reporting Jury xxviii Introduction

1964 international reporting. This nomination," the jury report continued, "is based on his series of seven articles describing the economic defection of Russia's Eastern European satellites and their evolution towards capitalist methods and trade with the West. Mr. Livingston's series brings into focus a picture of East-West-trade and commercial possibilities that were virtually destroyed by the Cold War but have been revived by the recovery and aspirations of Eastern European nations since Stalin's death. The article brought into the open, with acute insight, the residual pull of capitalism as an economic system that is being felt in nations under the Communist yoke. And they confirm fragmen- tary reports from behind the Iron Curtain that the Soviet monolith is far from secure in the area of economics."18 The Advisory Board agreed to this convincingly expressed jury vote and gave the International Reporting award of 1965 to J. A. Livingston "for his reports on the growth of economic independence among Russia's Eastern European satellites and his analysis of their desire for a resumption of trade with the West."19 In 1966, there were stationed no less than 1,376 American foreign correspondents in 93 countries in the world.20 A comparative content analytical study about American daily papers with and without their own foreign correspondents obtained quite remarkable findings. "Readers of the group of newspapers with foreign correspondents," the report stated, "contrasted to readers without such staff, had available (1) more foreign news stories, (2) of greater mean length, (3) with more specific sources, (4) dealing with more significant topics, (5) and, probably, with more background and analysis. There seems to be, then, at least some more evidence that papers which maintain staff abroad provide for their readers some quantitative and qualitative value which makes the cost worthwhile."21 It has to remain open whether and to what extent these statements apply also to war corre- spondents. In spite of the still existing deficit of foreign correspondence from African countries which had been deplored by another author in the same year, the war-related Vietnam correspondence had gained pre-eminence in American media, which had its effect also on the nominations for the Pulitzer Prizes. "The committee regarded the main story - and the bulk of the entries attested to this - as Vietnam," and the 1966 jury reported (1) that it proposed awarding the Pulitzer Prize to three individuals - Peter Arnett and Hugh Mulligan of the Associated Press and Jack Foisie of the Los Angeles Times (which was the strongest preference of all the committee members), and (2) that it was to go to Peter Arnett in case that the Board insisted on only one journalist receiving the prize.23 In the beginning of May, 1966, the Advisory Board chose the second alternative

18 G. Edward Murry/Martin S. Hayden/Robert W. Lucas/John Seigenthaler: Report from the Jury on International Reporting to the Pulitzer Advisory Board, New York, March 4, 1965, p. 1 (PPO). 19 Advisory Board on the Pulitzer Prizes (Ed.): The Pulitzer Prizes, 1917-1977, New York: Columbia University, 1977, p. 29. 20 Cf. John Wilhelm: The Overseas Correspondent, in: Overseas Press Club of America 1966 Directory, New York: Overseas Press Club of America, 1966, pp. 42 f., 160. 21 John B. Adams: What the Foreign Correspondent Does for a Newspaper's Readers, in: Journalism Quarterly (Minneapolis, Minn.), Vol. 43/No,2, Summer 1966, p. 304. 22 Cf. Russell Warren Howe: Reporting from Africa - A Correspondent's View, in: Journalism Quarterly (Minneapolis, Minn.), Vol. 43/No.2, Summer 1966, pp.314ff. 23 Cf. Daryle M. Feldmeir/John R. Herbert/Robert C. Notson/Michael J. Ogden/Robert M. White, II: Report of the Jury on International Reporting, New York, undated (March, 1966), p. 1 (PPO). Heinz-Dietrich Fischer xxix proposed by the jury and announced the bestowal of the International Reporting award on Peter Arnett of AP "for his coverage of the war in Vietnam" during the year before.24 A few days later, on May 10, 1966, the Advisory Board arranged an exclusive commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of the Pulitzer Prizes. "For the guests of honor at the fiftieth anniversary dinner of the Pulitzer Prizes," Hohenberg describes the event, "there was a priceless ticket of admission. It was a Pulitzer Prize. Almost two hundred of the three hundred surviving winners of the award attended. ... On the dais were nineteen double winners of the Pulitzer Prize with President Kirk of Columbia, Chairman Pulitzer of the Advisory Board, and Maurice T. Moore, chairman of the university's Trustees ... Gover- nor Nelson A. Rockefeller of New York State came to extend his tribute to the guests in an informal way, as did Mayor V. Lindsay of New York City ... At one time, it had been planned to invite John Fitzgerald Kennedy to deliver the main address as the most eminent of Pulitzer Prize winners;25 instead, he was represented by his mother, Rose Kennedy, and his brother, Senator Robert Francis Kennedy ... The current President of the United States, Lyndon Baines Johnson, was so displeased by the opposition of Pulitzer's St. Louis Post-Dispatch to the Vietnam War that he would have nothing to do with the party ... The old war correspondents were there, headed by Homer Bigart, Harrison Salisbury, Relman Morin, and Don Whitehead. And the foreign correspondents also turned up, from Edgar Ansel Mowrer, who had been expelled from Germany before World War II, to A. M. Rosenthal, who had been expelled from postwar Poland."26 Among the official speakers, Hohenberg continues, "typically enough, it was only the journalist, James Reston, who brought the harsh realities of the night inside the ... ballroom: the great American tragedy was in the making in Vietnam .. ,"27 This subject, which was almost inevitable also for the Pulitzer Prize committees of the following year, was to cause a conflict which was carried out in public. The object of the controversy was the New York Times correspondent Harrison E. Salisbury, who in 1955, already, had won the International Reporting award for his correspondence from the Soviet Union.28 Salisbury, Hohenberg writes about the controversial discussion in the Pulitzer Prize committees, "landed in Hanoi at dusk on December 23, 1966, after a short flight from Vientiane aboard an ancient aircraft of the International Control Commission. American bombers had raided the North Vietnamese capital as recently as December 13 and 14 and he was given a prompt escorted tour of the damage, which had included civilian areas as well as military targets. The articles that he wrote then, and the others that followed a number of additional tours behind enemy lines, created a furor when they were published in the New York Times. Until Salisbury's departure from Hanoi on January 17, 1967, he dominated the war news. To the antiwar movement he became a hero; to the crusty desk warriors at the Pentagon, little better than an enemy agent. He was accused of having given aid and comfort to North

24 Columbia University (Ed.): Announcement of the 50th Annual Pulitzer Prize Awards, New York, May 2, 1966, p. 2 (mimeographed press release). 25 In 1957, John F. Kennedy had been awarded a Pulitzer Prize in the Biography or Autobiography category for his book entitled "Profiles in Courage;" cf. Advisory Board on the Pulitzer Prizes (Ed.): The Pulitzer Prizes, 1917-1977, op. cit., p. 55. 26 John Hohenberg: The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., pp. 290f. 27 Ibid., p. 293. 28 Advisory Board on the Pulitzer Prizes (Ed.): The Pulitzer Prizes, 1917-1977, op. cit., pp.27f. XXX Introduction

Kareh 9, 1967 Colnabl» DnlTsnitgr

To Advisory Comlttee» In Category 5 — International P. porting Jury submits tbesa reco=endationsi

Grimas, Paul, Philadelphia Brills tin — Thailand* Significant foreign correspondence pointing to an extreaelgr Important area for the future of U.S. Aalan policy.

Hughes, R. John, Christian Silence Kohl tor — IaJoaesia» First American correspondent on scene of big a tory, œ te 17: ri sing in getting his story out, and sound ai d draoatlc In reporting*

Just) Ward, Washington Post — Vletnaa» Brilliant and balanced ovep-all reporting on Tletnaa*

Kfimow, Stanley, Washington Post — Indonesia* Good original reporting, albeit after Hughes', and fine recapitulation of complicated story on seoond visit*

Mulligan, Hugh A., and Hoffaann, Fred S., Associated Press — Vletnaa corruption* Significant expose for U.S. taxpayer.

Salisbury, Harrison, Dev York Tines — Reporting from Hanoi. Enterprise, 10 rid irpact and total significance outweigh on demerits In on-the-spot reporting*

Ccgmsntt Four of the five' Juors rated Salisbury Do. 1 with the fifth Juror entering a strong dissent* In a mmbrlcal rating In which lovrest Timber of points was considered best, the jurors gave these ratings« 1. Salisbury — 10 points. 2. Just — 12 3. and li — Mulliran/rioiiaann and Hughes — IB each 5. Xarnow — 23 6. Grimes — 2b.

/CT^c-u^

Report of the 1967 International Reporting Jury Heinz-Dietrich Fischer xxxi

Vietnam. And his critics singled out in his dispatches some errors of fact which, they charged, were due to relying too much initially on North Vietnamese sources."29 Salisbury, Hohenberg goes on, "was, of course, by no means the only correspondent on whom the American government did not look with favor. At least two other Pulitzer Prize winners were viewed with suspicion - David Halberstam and Malcolm Browne, the co- winners in 1964; Peter Arnett, ... who had put up with the scandalous attacks on his integrity as an Associated Press correspondent in Saigon and won the 1966 award; even the intrepid Kyoichi Sawada of UPI, the 1966 photography winner, whose pictures didn't include the kind of propaganda the American embassy desired. What the government thought," he says about the nomination of Salisbury, "however, obviously made no difference to the International Reporting jury for 1967. The five editors, headed by Michael J. Ogden of the Providence Journal-Bulletin, had a lot of top-flight correspondence to consider in addition to Salisbury's. High on the list of exhibits were the work of John Hughes of the Christian Science Monitor, with his exclusive account of the frightful purge in Indonesia following an abortive Communist coup; Ward Just and Stanley Karnow of the Washington Post; Paul Grimes of the Philadelphia Bulletin; and Hugh A. Mulligan and Fred S. Hoffmann of the Associated Press. After two days of deliberation, the jury voted 4-1 for Salisbury and sent this verdict on to the Advisory Board."30 A "comment" of the jury, attached to the report, literally ran: "Four of the five jurors rated Salisbury No. 1 with the fifth juror entering a strong dissent. In a numerical rating in which lowest number of points was considered best, the jurors gave these ratings: 1. Salisbury, 10 points; 2. Just, 12 points; 3. and 4. Mulligan/Hoffmann and Hughes, 18 points each; 5. Karnow, 23 points; 6. Grimes, 24 points."31 In order to make transparent the process of decision, Hohenberg describes in detail the almost dramatic discussion in the central committee of the Pulitzer Prizes: "When the Advisory Board met on April 14, 1967, at Arden House, Harriman, N.Y., Erwin D. Canham of the Christian Science Monitor was absent in South Africa and the New York Times'% executive editor, Turner Catledge, was not in the conference room during the debate over the foreign correspondence prize. With Chairman Pulitzer presiding and ten other members present, a majority of six was required to recommend an award and it was apparent from the outset that the vote would be close. Those who opposed Salisbury argued that he was not entitled to special credit for having been the first reporter from the United States to be invited to Hanoi, that he had failed to give the sources of casualty figures in his initial articles, and that there were other reportorial deficiencies in his work. The case for Salisbury, as it was argued before the Board, emphasized the reporter's accomplishments in forcing the Defense Department to concede that civilian casualties were inevitable in the wide-ranging American bombing campaign and in bringing to the American public a first hand view of North Vietnam at war. Despite Chairman Pulitzer's championship of Salis- bury's cause, the vote went against the Times correspondent, 6-5, and in favor of John Hughes of the Christian Science Monitor. But next morning, when I was asked to give the

29 John Hohenberg: The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., pp. 296f. 30 Ibid., p. 297. 31 Ray Dorsay/J. Edward Murray/Michael J. Ogden/Cruise Palmer/Eugene Patterson: Report from the International Reporting Jury to Advisory Committee, New York, March 9, 1967, p. 1 (PPO). xxxii Introduction

THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK MAKE KNOWN TO ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT R. JOHN HUGHES HAS BEEN AWARDED THE PULITZER PRIZE IN JOURNALISM FOR INTERNATIONAL REPORTING IN WITNESS WHEREOF WE HAVE CAUSED THIS CERTIFICATE TO BE SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY AND OUR CORPORATE SEAL TO BE HERETO AFFIXED ON THE FIRST DAY OF MAY IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD ONE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND SIXTY-SEVEN

' PRESIDENT

Pulitzer Prize Document for R. John Hughes in 1967

Advisory Board a fuller report of the work of the jury, which I obtained by telephone from its chairman, Mike Ogden, the debate was renewed. On a motion for reconsideration of the previous day's action, a secret ballot was taken. The result remained 6-5 in favour of Hughes and against Salisbury."32 Ultimately, as the highest authority after the jury and the Advisory Board, the Board of Trustees had to make the final choice of the Pulitzer Prize-winners. "When the decision of the Advisory Board," Hohenberg reports, "went to the university's Trustees on the afternoon of May 1, the issue was debated for more than an hour and the prize announce- ment accordingly was held up until 4:29 P.M. Between the unexpected delay and the publication in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch of an authoritative account of the Advisory Board meeting, the reporters had all they could handle and raised no questions - with me, at least - about the Trustees' action. It soon became known, however, that much the same split had

32 John Hohenberg: The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., pp. 297 f. Heinz-Dietrich Fischer xxxiii occurred among the Trustees as the one that had developed within the Advisory Board. While Arthur Ochs Sulzberger of the New York Times did not participate in the Trustees' debate, the case for Salisbury was put so strongly by his advocates that the Trustees for a time thought of reversing the Advisory Board even though the university's counsel had repeatedly warned them that they had no authority to do so. Eventually, under the influence of the chairman, Maurice T. Moore, the Trustees by a close vote upheld the Advisory Board's decision. Salisbury said only: 'I put the judgement of the editors of the Times ahead of any other criteria.' And Catledge held his peace until, several years later in his autobiography, he accused some of his Board colleagues of making their decision 'on political rather than journalistic grounds.' The charge was promptly denied."33 Thus, the press release about the Pulitzer Prize-winners published by Columbia University in the late afternoon of May 1, 1967, said that the award was given "for a distinguished example of reporting on international affairs" to R. John Hughes of the Christian Science Monitor "for his thorough reporting of the attempted Communist coup in Indonesia in 1965 and the purge that followed in 1956-66. "34 Parallel to the announcement of the Pulitzer Prize-winner of 1967 the communications researcher Ralph L. Lowenstein of the University of Missouri presented an empirical study of the status of the freedom of the press in 115 states in the world. Although the study primarily aimed at the registration of communication-controlling measures of the respective states against their own journalists, it also touched questions of the freedom of journalistic movement and information of foreign correspondents in these countries. Among the total of 23 factors on which Lowenstein's PICA-index35 was based, the following items were of a considerable importance: "1. Legal controls of the press, not including libel and obscenity laws (but including laws involving official censorship, contempt, forced corrections and retractions, suspensions, privacy, security, incitement to riot, etc.); 2. Extra-legal controls (threats, violence, imprisonment, confiscation, etc.); 3. Libel laws; 4. Organized self- regulation (press councils, courts of honor); 5. News and editorial personnel (all media) subject to government licensing, certification and appointment; 6. Favoritism in release of government news; 7. Media allowed to utilize services of foreign news agencies; 8. Government controls over domestic news agencies; 9. Print media subject to government licensing; 10. Government control of circulation and distribution, not including postal service; 11. Degree of press criticism of local and regional governments and officials within the country; 12. Degree of press criticism of national government and national officials within the country .. ,"36 As quite a few of the respondents to Lowenstein's questionnaire were recruited among American foreign correspondents,37 aspects related to the working conditions of foreign correspondents in the countries examined entered into it. Based on 571 out of a total of 1,003 forms returned, the following distribution - without explaining methodical details in

33 Ibid., p. 298. 34 Columbia University (Ed.): Announcement of the 51st Annual Pulitzer Prize Awards, New York, May 1, 1967, p. 2 (mimeographed press release). 35 PICA = Press Independence and Critical Ability. 36 Ralph Lynn Lowenstein: Measuring World Press Freedom as a Political Indicator, unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia, Mo., August 1967, pp. 51 f. 37 Ibid., p. 59. xxxiv Introduction

this connection - of 115 independent nations into seven classifications of Press Freedom was drawn up:38 1. Group: Free - High Degree: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Costa Rica, Denmark, Finland, Guatemala, The Netherlands, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Sweden, Switzerland, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela; 2. Group: Free - Moderate Controls: Austria, Bolivia, Columbia, Cyprus, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, West Germany, Honduras, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Malaysia, New Zealand, Panama, Singapore, Turkey, United Kingdom; 3. Group: Free - Many Controls: Argentina, Brazil, Ceylon, Chile, China (Taiwan), Dominican Republic, Greece, India, Kenya, Lebanon, Malawi, Mexico, Morocco, Rhodesia, South Africa, Tansania, Thailand, Uganda, Zambia; 4. Group: Transitional: Burma, Congo (Kinshasa), Ghana, Indonesia, South Korea, Laos, Nigeria, Pakistan, South Vietnam, Yugoslavia; 5. Group: Controlled - Low Degree: Afghanistan, Cambodia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Nepal, Portugal, Spain, Tunesia; 6. Group: Controlled - Medium Degree: Cameroon, Haiti, Hungary, Senegal, Syria, United Arab Republic; 7. Group: Controlled - High Degree: Albania, Algeria, Bulgaria, Chad, China (People's Republic), Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, East Germany, North Korea, Poland, Rumania, Union of the Socialist Soviet Republics, Upper Volta. The following countries had to remain unranked because of incomplete or wholly missing information: Burundi, Central African Republic, Dahomey, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Libya, Malagasy Republic, Mali, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Niger, Paraguay, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Togo, North Vietnam, and Yemen. With regard to this representation of the various grades of freedom (or lack of freedom) of the press in 115 states of the world it is intriguing to compare the countries of origin of Pulitzer Prize-winning foreign correspondence with the ranking on the PICA-index. If, for example, the Vietnam correspondence of the preceding years came from a country classified under "Transitional," that is on the frontier between a restricted freedom of the press and weak communication controls, this classification applied also to Indonesia, where R. John Hughes had written his Pulitzer Prize articles. While with the subject covered by Hughes the Advisory Board had not honored reporting from South Vietnam, it had remained geograph- ically in a neighboring region. Though in the following term, 1968, the Advisory Board did not favor the coverage of Vietnam but tried to focus on the war in the Middle East of the year before, the International Reporting jury took into consideration correspondents from that area, too, recommending (1) Peter Arnett, and (5) Harrison E. Salisbury.39 Ranked only third by the jury was Alfred Friendly of the Washington Post who "did an outstanding job of reporting on the Middle East. His writing was sharp and incisive and his comprehen- sion of the short war thorough and meaningful and presented in easily understandable manner."40 The Advisory Board finally decided in favor of Alfred Friendly, and in the

38 Ibid., p. 125. 39 James A. Clendinen/Edward Freeman/Bower Hawthorne/Howard H. Hays/Paul E. Neville: Report of the Committee on International Reporting, New York, March 7, 1968, p. 1 (PPO). 40 Ibid. Heinz-Dietrich Fischer xxxv official announcement of the prize it said that the award was given "for his coverage of the Middle East War of 1967."41 With this award, Hohenberg interprets the consideration of the Middle East subject, "new ground was broken in foreign correspondence despite the national preoccupation with Vietnam" in the U.S.A.42 About the time when the prize was presented to Alfred Friendly a new study of foreign correspondents was published, investigating, among other things, whether U.S. media played an important part in foreign correspondence. When several foreign correspondents were asked "Which U.S. news organization, in your opinion, does the best job of reporting from the part of the world where you are stationed?"43 the answers were not surprising in view of the Pulitzer Prize-winning newspapers and journalists. "In the eyes of the respon- dents," the report states, "the most highly admired U.S. news-gathering organization is the New York Times; 29% say that it does the best job of reporting from that part of the world where they are stationed; 19% mentioned the Associated Press, 11% UPI, 1% Time Inc., 6% the Los Angeles Times, and 6% Newsweek,"44 In fact, the 1969 Pulitzer Prize-winner in the International Reporting category was recruited from this small circle of American print media, the honor going to William Tuohy of the Los Angeles Times "for his Vietnam War correspondence in 1968."45 In the nomination submitted by the newspaper's managing editor it was pointed out that Tuohy in one of his articles had referred to "the apparent military injustice that initially insued for Marine Private Robert J. Vickers." "We do not claim because we cannot prove," the entry continued, "that Tuohy's reporting directly or indirectly resulted in Vickers's freedom. But Tuohy's article was published in newspapers throughout the country, readers in several cities have told us they were inspired by Tuohy's story to write their Congressmen, and the Marine Corps later freed Vickers of all charges."46 The 1969 jury report shows clearly that the nomination of Tuohy's articles "was the only entry appearing on the ballots of every member of the panel and is our unanimous choice for the prize. The panel was impressed by the diligence and hard work manifest in Mr. Tuohy's reporting, by the perception he showed in exploring psychological and other areas of the war, and by his apparently successful efforts to prevent a miscarriage of justice in the Marine trials .. ."47 This convinced the Advisory Board, too, which gave the prize to William Tuohy. The jury report of 1970 also unanimously favored a single nominee whose subject was related to Vietnam. "The jurors ... unanimously and enthusiastically recommend," the jury report reads, "that the 1970 Pulitzer Prize for international reporting be given to Seymour M. Hersh of Dispatch News Service. In the face of disbelief and disinterest on the part of many newspapers, and operating with limited resources, Hersh showed initiative,

41 Columbia University (Ed.): Announcement of the 52nd Annual Pulitzer Prize Awards, New York, May 6, 1968, p. 2 (mimeographed press release). 42 John Hohenberg: The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 306. 43 Leo Bogart: The Overseas Newsmen - A 1967 Profile Study, in: Journalism Quarterly (Minneapolis, Minn.), Vol.45/No.2, Summer 1968, p. 304. 44 Ibid., pp. 303f. 45 Advisory Board on the Pulitzer Prizes (Ed.): The Pulitzer Prizes, 1917-1977, op. cit., p.29. 46 Frank P. Haven: Nomination of William Tuohy for a Pulitzer Prize, entry of January 29, 1969 (PPO). 47 Norman A. Cherniss/Wilbur E. Elston/Richard Hollander/Carl T. Rowan/William M. Ware: Report of the International Reporting Jury, New York, undated (March, 1969), p. 1, (PPO). xxxvi Introduction

(Efy* Uiasijtitg&m 'pojsi

15'5/L STREET, N. Wy 2^3-60jbO

VV^SHTNGTON. ff. C. SOOOS

January 1968

Prof. John Hohenberg Secretary Advisory Committee on the Pulitzer Prizes Graduatfe School of Journalism Columbia University New Yoxfk, N. Y. 10027

Dear Exof Hehenberg.-

We believe that Alfred Friendly*s reporting of the 1967 Middle "ast conflict—the events leading up to the war, the hostilities themselves and the developments of the next two months—is the most distinguished of any American newspaperman covering that cataclysmic event.

Only a fraction of Friendly's coverage over three months—about one-eighth of the total—is presented in the accompanying exhibit, limited to ten stories. Necessarily excluded, therefore, are vivid features and color stories on the mood and circumstances in Israel jefore the war; the fascinating resurgence of peacetime life in Jerusalem and the West Bank after the war; day- to-day coverage of military and diplomatic events; the post-war border fighting, etc. Nevertheless, the ten pieces demonstrate, it seems to us, how the coverage excels in every facet:

Exclusivity and priority on spot news, such as 1 he first positive intimation of the beginning of hostilities, 36 hours in advance of the act; the first eyewitness report of the battle for the Syrian heights, with its revelation of Soviet military participation;

Accompanying Letter for Heinz-Dietrich Fischer xxxvii

and the first flight of an American newspaperman, at sand-dune level, over the whole of the Sinai battle- fields and to Sharm el-Sheikh, the day before the end of the fighting. Similarly, exclusivity and priority in coverage of diplomatic news, and in its accuracy and fundamental insight, as, for example, the disclosure of Israeli peace objectives only two days after the war began —objectives that have remained fundamentally unchanged since then—and the intense chronicling (most of it necessarily omitted in this selection) of foreign policy developments in the succeeding 10 weeks.

The discovery—usually accomplished in the face of intense official efforts at secrecy—of important postwar developments. The example included here is the exclusive report on the destruction of a strategic Arab village. Others, not included, were the first disclosure and eyewitness story of the resumption of clandestine trade across the Jordan River (a reportorial effort for which Friendly suffered a day's arrest), and the first reports in detail of Israeli diplomatic maneuverings with various Christian groups over the shrine in Jerusalem.

Informed and comprehensive assessments of the foreign policy posture and peace settlement goals of Israel, the stories of June 8, June 9, July 15 and August 25 being four examples out of a score or more.

The Washington Post is proud to nominate Alfred Friendly for the 1967 Pulitzer Prize for a distinguished example of reporting on international affairs.

Nomination of 1968 xxxviii Introduction

enterprise and perseverance to break the My Lai story - a story that shook the nation and had vast international repercussion. In pursuing his story to the print that the topmost officials in the United States, South Vietnam, Great Britain and other countries became publicly and directly involved, Hersh's performance met the high journalistic standards for which Pulitzer recognition is traditionally granted."48 How had this journalistic scoop been accomplished which was to have political consequences in the U.S.A. of far greater importance than the Tuohy article covering the individual fate of an unjustly sentenced marine? "No one can say exactly," - this is how Hohenberg tries to analyze it -, "what combination of circumstances created the forces that turned public opinion in the United States against the Vietnam War. But certainly, an agressive, 33-year-old free-lance reporter, Seymour M. Hersh, had something to do with it when he exposed the My Lai tragedy and at least a part of the evidence that led to the conviction of Lieut. William L. Calley Jr. for his part in the slaughter of South Vietnamese villagers there. If the critical public reaction in the United States after the Tet offensive of 1968 obliged President Johnson to retire, the shock of My Lai at the very least put the succeeding Nixon administration on the defensive. The Chicago-born Hersh, a graduate of the University of Chicago and a former Pentagon correspondent of the Associated Press, had heard about My Lai from former members of Calley's army unit. With a $ 2,000 grant from a small foundation, the free lancer interviewed other participants during 40,000 miles of travel in this country. He put together his evidence carefully and gave his series to a struggling new syndicate, the Dispatch News Service, which was operated by a friend and neighbor, 24-years-old David Obst. Hersh's first My Lai article was run by thirty-six newspapers, including the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which put it on Page 1 on November 13, 1969. As he poured out his horror tale, the tone of public opinion changed from incredulity to shock. Obst, despite his youth and inexperience, knew enough to get his nomination of Hersh before the International Reporting Jury promptly, with the result that it unanimously recommended him for the 1970 Pulitzer Prize in that category ... No member of the Advisory Board even raised a question about Hersh's right to the award. The recommendation was voted unanimously, and without discussion, and ratified without dissent by the University Trustees. It was a measure of the change that had come about in American public opinion in the three years since the uproar about Salisbury's first-hand reports of American air raid damage to Hanoi."49 As justifiable as this award was, even viewed retrospectively, one has to ask whether from a systematic point of view this Pulitzer Prize was awarded in the proper category. As it was a borderline case thematically, the researched events having occurred in Vietnam, while Hersh had interviewed his respondents in the U.S.A., David Obst had already suggested in his nomination letter to nominate the Hersh materials either under category 3 ("for a distinguished example of local investigative or other specialized reporting") or under category 5 ("for a distinguished example of reporting on international affairs, including

48 Charles T. Alexander/Richard H. Leonhard/Carl T. Rowan/David Starr: Report of the International Reporting Prize Jury, New York, March 6, 1970, pp. If. (PPO). 49 John Hohenberg: The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., pp.299f.; cf. also John Hohenberg: The Pulitzer Prize Story II, op. cit., pp. 181 ff. Heinz-Dietrich Fischer xxxix

A NEW APPROACH TO MEDIA COMMUNICATION

DAVID OBST - WASHINGTON

P. C. BOX 1 I 004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 2000S (202 ) 9G6-3056

Dispatch News Service encloses for the 1969 Pulitzer

Prize in Journalism Seymour M. Hersh's four stories on the

My Lai ^ Massacre, as published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

With the rest of the nation's newspapers looking the

other way, Mr. Hersh traveled more than ¿+0,000 miles

criss-crossing the country to single handedly track down

and publish the facts on My Lai. He made over 25 interviews

in the process of developing his stories. His first report

was a world scoopj so was his secondi his third) etc. He was

able to lead the media to the story and then to stay in front

of it as long as the incident was front-page news. Dispatch

believes Mr. Hersh's performance after breaking the news

of the massacre is just as praiseworthy as his initial

research.

The stories are accurate, well-written, and in the best

tradition of American journalism. That they were published

by more than 30 newspapers is a credit to the industry.

Because of the nature of Mr. Hersh's stories, we have

entered them in both category #3i for investigative reporting,

and in category #5. for international affairs.

Submitted by David Obst General Manager Dispatch News Service

Accompanying Letter for a Nomination of 1969 xl Introduction

OO CO N M OTOOlO-^^VOVO^MiNi^. ^. —« 00i -J ^ (S ^ ^ o ^ fi n **

•S 0 § & Bi I a c — o a *8 £ Li q § i 6 .§ s; i 3 3 1 3 ° Q. ^ .2 5 a 090 So» : «5S ^£ Q O U " <2 2 ^ S •a | oo 3 c i i a o ist » ® 4 » •! a S P. 9 O w 3 £ a -s t-o - < .3 as 2 •§ ca to .a o M o -> -5 El r> n Q pq J= m 5 «5 ^ - S.sl z X s > s U o- 1

Tf fO «N M r-

c 5 o S •o •> u v a c 4> v § •3} Bi -o •a c c o ^ ft: S O „ g .2 o. s 3 «9 3 to c s T « 3 <0 O * r; fc. g 'O £ s s 2 e o- .a oi K •>. g 3 ^ i •si J I o B e <£ i/> a a (» u s •8 •Q O •V 'o e ^ « v, £ ^ ° O O O 2 S £ - V * 2 Q > n 8. C u > M o o > 2 -3 * S o £ -y3 -5 ft •S >- I s as I« o§ ts? % o- -2 o Si v 3 O 11i 1to i J So z 5 S3 e it Q o .«i " » £ 9) .3 g 'C 3 r to -a -5 a Z ^ 3 £ £ PK JS i< fO «« > z u ^ o-n ¿3 Us ^-s X¿i 55 00° 6s66 B S

II 0> S-O .a E •gs i-MS ^ £ 1; &o ^ 'e •a O 5 a: a c 2 go i 3 I Si r * § <3 * £ •S O Q 3 «w tlo l «8 iS ita-i Q ^ = 5 9 i o t; « S •*> "5 i M tIc 8 : Q s 5 •o i '3 zr c « s < o aT" & 3 I S n %tm » i is E ^ '3 ^ - 4 3 « C i O » s « ^ ^ 9 0 C w s 5 S u J eo S a> Heinz-Dietrich Fischer xli

United Nations correspondence").50 In the process of pre-sifting the entries it was decided51 to put the Hersh articles in category 5, and it was acted accordingly, as the lack of definition of the term "reporting on international affairs" justified such a decision. With the honor for the sensational Hersh articles the Pulitzer Prize committees could finally close the files on the Vietnam theme;52 attention could be turned to other regions in the world from then on. In the very next awarding term, another burning problem was dealt with; one a Washington Post correspondent had investigated in detail: the apartheid question in South Africa. "The committee's unanimous choice," the jury report ran, "was entry No. 250 by Jimmie Lee Hoagland of the Washington Post for his series of articles on South Africa. The committee felt Mr. Hoagland did an outstanding reporting and writing job on a difficult, controversial subject that has generated considerable viewpoint material but very little solid reporting."53 Hoagland, in a way, already represented an approach toward that new type of foreign correspondent distinguished from the war correspondent referring to facts primarily, a type outlined, for example, by an interdisciplinary team of researchers at Ohio University which, in 1970, presented a report including the following passage: "James Reston has suggested that the times demand a new breed of newspapermen, one trained to practice an interpreta- tive and anticipatory reportorial style .. ,54 This requires some consideration of what we anticipate will be expected of the future journalist, what he will be expected to know, what skills he will be expected to possess, what tasks he will be asked to undertake ... We forecast that the premium journalist of tomorrow will have to possess two additional skills ...: the development of expertise and specialized knowledge about issue areas (e.g., national security policy, international trade and commerce, etc.), or geographic areas (e.g., East Africa, East Asia, 'developing' nations, etc.), and ... the acquisition or development of 'primary' and 'secondary' social analysis skills such as systems analysis, program budget- ing, sample surveys, content analysis, etc. We forecast that major media will continue an already observable trend of paying premium prizes for journalists with special knowledge about institutions, issue areas or geographic areas ... The New York Times has a covey of experts in various fields: Hanson Baldwin on military affairs; Harrison Salisbury and Harry Schwartz on Soviet affairs; Tillman Durdin who, with Robert Elegant of the Los Angeles Times, is on the top rung of this country's Asian experts .. ,"55 Such an expert on African questions was Jim Hoagland, Pulitzer Prize-winner in International Reporting in 1971. He had prepared himself systematically for his job and had participated - with a scholarship of the Ford Foundation - in Columbia University's Advanced International Reporting Program.56 Hoagland's analytical ability in political-

50 Cf. David Obst: Nomination of Seymour M. Hersh for a Pulitzer Prize, entry form of February 2, 1970 (PPO). 51 Ibid. 52 Cf. Edwin Emery: The Press in the Vietnam Quagmire, in: Journalism Quarterly (Minneapolis, Minn.), Vol. 48/No. 4, Winter 1971, pp. 619ff. 53 Norman A. Cherniss/Thomas S. Gephardt/George N. Gill/John Stallings/Joseph M. Ungaro: Report of the International Reporting Jury, New York, March 5, 1971, p. 1 (PPO); cf. also John Hohenberg: The Pulitzer Prize Story II, op. cit., p. 44. 54 Cf. James Reston: Artillery of the Press, New York: Harper & Row, 1967. 55 Philip M. Burgess/Paul S. Underwood: New Approaches to Educating the International Journalist, in: Journalism Quarterly (Minneapolis, Minn.), Vol. 47/No.3, Autumn 1970, pp. 519f. 56 Cf. The Washington Post (Ed.): Introduction to: Apartheid, by Jimmie Hoagland - Awarded the xlii Introduction

àlre Ifiasimn-tfcm $Taai oo WASH I NGTON . C.

EJ5KNE ~ . PAT T E. R s c N

January 25, 1971

Professor John Hohenberg Secretary, Advisory Board on the Pulitzer Prizes 702 Journalism

Columbia University, N. Y. 10027

Dear Professor Hohenberg: Jim Hoagland's sensitive articles on South Africa, published in The Washington Post in 1970, constitute what we believe is the best description in print of the current state of race relations in that simmering republic. This cool, balanced description shows the reader exactly how the system of Apartheid works. The merit of this group of articles lies in the skill with which Mr. Hoagland has approached his subject from many perspectives: from the historical traditions of this country, from the econo- mic pressures at work, from the play of political forces, above all from the experiences of individual people living there.

Mr. Hoagland was appointed The Post's correspondent for Africa in June, 1969, and is based in Nairobi. Before going to South Africa, he had reported from African countries ranging from South Africa's most vehement critics to Rhodesia, her closest friend. He went into South Africa on April 12, 1970, and returned to Nairobi on May 25.

Many students of African affairs believe that the dialogue be- tween black and white will be the main issue throughout the conti- nent for some years to come. Apartheid has central importance to this dialogue. A full, precisely accurate description of Apartheid is, we believe, an extremely valuable service to The Post's readers who -- in their various roles as officials, voters and citizens -- will have to make decisions affecting South Africa and United States policy toward the African continent as a whole. The time to report the background is before the crisis comes.

Accompanying Letter for a Nomination of 1971 Heinz-Dietrich Fischer xliii social affairs was emphasized in his newspaper's nomination letter to the Advisory Board: "This cool, balanced description shows the reader exactly how the system of Apartheid works. The merit of this group of articles lies in the skill with which Mr. Hoagland has approached his subject from many perspectives: from the historical traditions of this country, from the economic pressures at work, from the play of political forces, above all from the experiences of individual people living there."57 The endeavour to integrate into foreign correspondence the social and human touch, as Hoagland had done in such exemplary fashion, could also be found in the materials submitted in 1972. Although this term's prize went to Peter R. Kann of the Wall Street Journal "for his coverage of the Indo- Pakistan War of 1971"58 the articles did not consist primarily of war correspondence, but also illustrated the numerous problems the civil population suffered from. "The perceptive- ness of his coverage of East Pakistan's events of 1971 impressed every juror," the jury report said about Kann's dispatches: "Better than anyone else, he told what it all meant. He displayed initiative in getting into the story early, and in depth, and the quality of his writing in every dispatch vividly told the reader what was going on and why. His entry is truly 'a distinguished example of reporting on international affairs.'"59 Kann was the first Wall Street Journal correspondent to win a Pulitzer Prize in International Reporting for his coverage of Pakistan. The prize of the following awarding term, 1973, was given for correspondence covering another Asian subject of world-political importance: Max Frankel of the New York Times was awarded the prize "for his coverage of President Nixon's visit to China in 1972."60 Frankel, however, had been placed only second on the jury's list of recommendations, precedence being given to Robert Kaiser and Dan Morgan of the Washington Post for a series of articles about the Soviet Union. As to Frankel, the jury said "in a highly competitive situation, Frankel's reports distinguished themselves for their comprehensiveness and their readability."61 The Advisory Board seems to have decided unanimously for Frankel, probably being influenced by the reasons for Frankel's nomination presented by A. M. Rosenthal, the former Pulitzer Prize-winner for International Reporting. "Working almost around the clock," Rosenthal had written, "Max Frankel, day after day, working alone in competition with the huge staffs of other media and far outdistancing them, not only turned brilliant reportage on the President's visit but also accompanied his news stories daily with a series of China notebooks that gave rare insight both on the visit and China itself, through a constant series of anecdotes, glimpses of conversations and backgrounds insights. The New York Times Washington bureau chief made the visit and its implications come alive ... His sharp eye for the detail of China and

1971 Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting, Washington, D.C.: The Washington Post (1971) (brochure). 57 Nomination letter from Eugene C. Patterson, Managing Editor, The Washington Post (Washington D.C.) to Professor John Hohenberg, Secretary, Advisory Board on the Pulitzer Prizes (New York) of January 25, 1971; in entry Hoagland (PPO). 58 Advisory Board on the Pulitzer Prizes (Ed.): The Pulitzer Prizes, 1917-1977, op. cit., p. 29. 59 Ernest Cutts/Bob Eddy/Barclay Jameson/Sylvia Porter/Harry L. Sonneborn: Report of the Jury on International Reporting Awards, New York, March 10, 1972, p. 1 (PPO); cf. also John Hohen- berg: The Pulitzer Prize Story II, op. cit., pp. 126ff. 60 Advisory Board on the Pulitzer Prizes (Ed.): The Pulitzer Prizes, 1917-1977, op. cit., p.29. 61 Robert M. Carney/Joseph W. Dunn, Jr./Edward H. Harte/Michael B. Howard/Sylvia Porter: Report of the International Reporting Jury, New York, March 9, 1973, p. 1 (PPO). xliv Introduction

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL DOVV -IOXI.S & COMPANY,INC.

1'ilhli :;h'-VS

3C : I M /. /f,PKi I) Y. 10 00-1

January, l')77.

Advisory Board on the Pulitzer Prizes Columbia University New York, New York

Gentlemen:

Re: Peter R. Kann International Affairs

Peter R. Kann is a Far Eastern staff reporter for The Wall Street Journal. Mr. Kann's entry, only part of his total Far Eastern news reporting in 1971, centers upon his coverage of the India-Pakistan war. Mr. Kann be- gan his coverage of this affair back in March when West Pakistan began its attempt to put down the rebels in East Pakistan, and continued through the end of the India-Pakistan war itself.

Back in March Mr. Kann's dispatches forecast the eventual in- dependence of East Pakistan. Although nominally based in Hong Kong, be- cause of his belief that war was imminent—at a time the Administration was saying there would be no war—he was in Dacca,, East Pakistan, when the war actually broke out and declined to leave until Indian troops had taken over the country, despite considerable personal danger and incredible difficulties in getting his dispatches transmitted to the U.S. The attention of the Judges is particularly directed to Mr. Kann's stories of December 14 and December 21, which are diaries kept by Mr. Kann when he was unable to cable. After his diaries appeared, other publications began sprouting diaries like daisies, one New York newspaper printing two by different reporters the same day.

I believe his stories In The Wall Street Journal were the finest examples of Initiative, perception and style written by any foreign correspondent In 1971.

Sincerely yours,

Frederick Taylor Managing Editor

Accompanying Letter for a Nomination of 1972 Heinz-Dietrich Fischer xlv

for the nature of the event gave Times readers a beautifully balanced, highly readable report every day. Especially noteworthy was Mr. Frankel's success in keeping the whole visit in perspective. He never pretended to have solved the riddle of China in 72 hours and he meticulously avoided drawing bloated conclusions from meager evidence."62 Max Frankel, who at the time of the prize announcement in 1973 had exchanged the job of a foreign correspondent with the one of the Sunday editor of the New York Times, learned of the prize at a meeting of the Time's top editors and managers, when Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, the publisher, "interrupted a solemn budgetary discussion to announce that Frankel's China coverage had won him the Pulitzer."63 Which where the circumstances, one might ask in this connection, under which other Pulitzer Prize-winners learned of their honors? "In a remote village in Turkey," Hohenberg found out, "where Alfred Friendly of the Washington Post was vacationating, the townspeople wove him wreath of native laurel and crowned him with it when they learned he had been honored. And in a steeming hotel room in Monrovia, Liberia, an Associated Press stringer greeted a visiting correspondent, Lynn Heinzerling, with a congratulatory cable and a toast in warm champagne."64 Peter R. Kann, Hohenberg reports about the 1972 winner of the prize in another passage of his book, "was awakened at 5 a.m. in Hong Kong by a telephone call from his jubilant Wall Street Journal editor in New York, told the good news, and could find nothing to celebrate with but a stale cigar, which he proceeded to light and smoke in bed. A. M. Rosenthal of the New York Times had his moment of satisfaction in Geneva when his sister telephoned him to tell him of his prize. But the next day, when an American tourist approached with congratula- tions while Rosenthal was having a luncheon celebrating with Daniel Schorr of CBS, the signals were slightly mixed. The tourist said, looking at Schorr, 'It was a great show, and I always wanted to meet you' .. ,"65 After Max Frankel had won the International Reporting Award in 1973, in the following term the Pulitzer Prize-winner in this category again belonged to the New York Times. This time, the honor went to Hedrick Smith "for his coverage of the Soviet Union and its allies in Eastern Europe in 1973.The materials of Smith, described by Hohenberg as "innovative foreign correspondence,"67 had been favored unequivocally by the jury: "We unanimously recommend the entry of Hedrick Smith ... as our first choice. Working in an essentially hostile environment, he has consistently demonstrated a superior ability to report in a clear, comprehensive and well-written manner significant developments within the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc."68 Hohenberg concludes that "the influence of correspondents like ... Hedrick Smith ... is based primarily on respect for their judgement, their reporting and their sources. As the leaders in their profession, they are bound to have a following."69

62 A. M. Rosenthal: Nomination of Max Frankel for a Pulitzer Prize, entry of February 2,1973 (PPO); cf. also John Hohenberg: The Pulitzer Prize Story II, op. cit., pp. 140ff. 63 John Hohenberg: The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., pp.4f. 64 Ibid., p.2. 65 Ibid., pp.3f. 66 Advisory Board on the Pulitzer Prizes (Ed.): The Pulitzer Prizes, 1917-1977, op. cit., p.29. 67 John Hohenberg: The Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 306. 68 Larry Allison/Charles W. Bailey/Evarts A. Graham Jr./Edward H. Harte/George H. Packard: Report of the Panel on International Reporting, New York, March 8, 1974, p. 1 (PPO). 69 John Hohenberg: The Pulitzer Prize Story II. Award-winning News Stories, Columns, Editorials, Cartoons, and News Pictures, 1959-1980, New York: Columbia University Press, 1980, pp. 303 f. xlvi Introduction

Although the award for Hedrick Smith in the International Reporting category obviously caused no problems for the awarding committees, certain disagreements, as it turned out later, had existed with regard to some of the earlier prize-winners. In the middle of October, 1974, the president of Columbia University, William James McGill, announced in an interview "that he has begun talks with members of the Pulitzer Advisory Board concerning the 'substantial' dissatisfaction expressed by the Board of Trustees over how the coveted journalism awards are administered. The President disclosed," the report continues, "that he will also probably discuss the trustees' discontent with Joseph Pulitzer (Jr.), publisher of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, whose grandfather Joseph first established the prize ... The discussions, it has been speculated, could lead to possible modifications in the way the prizes are awarded ... According to McGill, a number of trustees strongly disagreed with the advisory board, which consists largely of publishers and editors .. ."70 The main reform of the subsequent award procedures consisted of the fact that, from 1975 on, "the Trustees of Columbia University ... delegated their function in regard to the prizes to President McGill," who henceforth also made the announcements of the awards.71 In the 1975 term, the International Reporting jury seemed to hesitate which prize nomina- tion to rank first. "The jury found a variety of stories," the report reads, "many of exceptional quality, reflecting a high standard of journalism. First person reporting, including an excellent mountain climbing saga by Christopher Wren of the New York Times and a graphic report of the Kurdish War by Smith Hempstone of the Washington Star, mixed with vivid reports of world significance, presented the jury with difficulties in forming criteria for awards. The jury determined," the report concluded, "that for writing skill, content significance, reportorial enterprise and reader impact, the finalists should be: First (a split award): William Mullen, foreign correspondent of the Chicago Tribune, for coverage of the drought and famine in Africa, and Alan C. McConogha, Washington correspondent of the Minneapolis Tribune, for coverage of the drought in sub-Sahara Africa."72 When, on May 5, 1975, the president of Columbia University finally announced the Pulitzer Prize- winners, the International Reporting award had, as suggested by the jury, been split among two journalists, but not in the way originally scheduled since McConogha was not among the two prize-winners. Instead, the honor was bestowed on "William Mullen, reporter, and Ovie Carter, photographer, of the Chicago Tribune for their coverage of famine in Africa and India."73 A look at the entry shows that it really was a piece of journalistic teamwork that had been submitted the jury. Both, as stated in a booklet attached to the entry, "spent three months traveling 10,000 miles thru West and Central Africa, Ethiopia, and India. The two men found that bungling by relief agencies - and red tape and corruption by governments - were aggravating instead of relieving the problem. Their dramatic account of the pain and

70 David Smith: Trustees Troubled by Pulitzers, in: Columbia Spectator (New York, N.Y.), Vol. XCIX/No. 29, October 17, 1974, p. 1, cols. 1-2; p. 3, cols. 1-3. 71 Columbia University (Ed.): Announcement of the 59th Annual Pulitzer Prizes, New York, May 5, 1975, p. 4 (mimeographed press release). 72 Gordon Hanna/William K. Hosokawa/Sylvan Meyer/Edward D. Miller/Robert E. Thompson: Report of the International Reporting Jury, New York, March 7, 1975, p. 1 (PPO). 73 Columbia University (Ed.): Announcement of the 59th Annual Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 2. Heinz-Dietrich Fischer xlvii helplessness suffered by hunger's hardest-hit victims triggered an outpouring of concern and contributions from Tribune readers."74 The jurors gave weight to the dispatches of Mullen and Carter by stating: "The jury sees the world story of hunger, food and population as a major continuing subject of enormous impact."75 The Advisory Board in fairness considered for the award beside Mullen, as the author of the texts, also Carter, the photographer, because the striking effect of their newspaper series resulted from the combination of text and illustration. This was the first time after a considerable period that the Advisory Board gave the honor to two persons in one category. It was the first time at all, however, that a press photographer was honored equally with his writing partner. "Somehow," Hohenberg concludes from this human-touch series in the field of foreign correspondence, "Mullen's words and Carter's pictures broke through the hard shell of American indifference and touched a responsive nerve."76 The obvious effectiveness of the reports of the two journal- ists once more raises the basic question of the rank of foreign correspondence in American press organs: with regard to the reactions of the readership and the attitudes of the press people themselves. An experimental study pulished in 1975 tried to measure the acceptance of foreign correspondence by the recipients. "The foreign news content in the mass media of the United States," the study ran, "is quite low. This is because the editors responsible for allocating news content believe that the average citizen has very little interest in what is happening elsewhere in the world ... In the present study," the report continues, "it was specifically hypothesized that the student readers with access to the newspaper emphasizing foreign news content (Christian Science Monitor) in terms of greater quantity, more prominent display, and broader contextual treatment of foreign news will rank international affairs higher on scale of personal interests and importance for a newspaper to cover than will readers with access to newspapers with less emphasis on foreign news content (Mil- waukee Journal or Minneapolis Star and Tribune, the papers read by almost all members of the controlling group). The resulting data do not support the hypothesized media impact on the respondents' interest and perceived importance in foreign news coverage." Thus, to produce evidence, further examination proves necessary.77 As to the refusal of several American newspapers to employ foreign correspondents of their own, even large papers repeatedly pointed at the question of expenses as a reason for their abstinence. A paper like the Boston Globe, for example, did not have a single foreign correspondent in the mid- seventies as the management of the publishing-house was not willing to grant expenses rated between $30,000 and $60,000 per year and correspondent.78

74 Chicago Tribune (Ed.): The Faces of Hunger, Chigago, 111.: Chicago Tribune, 1974, foreword (brochure). 75 Gordon Hanna/Williara K. Hosokawa/Sylvan Meyer/Edward D. Miller/Robert E. Thompson: Report ..op. cit., p. 1. 76 John Hohenberg: The Pulitzer Prize Story II, op. cit., p. 57. 77 John Spicer Nichols: Increasing Reader Interest in Foreign News by Increasing Foreign News Content in Newspapers - an Experimental Test, in: Gazette - International Journal for Mass Communication Studies (Deventer, The Netherlands), Vol.21, 1975, pp.231, 235f. 78 Cf. Petra E. Dorsch: Isolationismus oder Weltoffenheit? Zur Auslandsberichterstattung von Boston Globe und Süddeutscher Zeitung, in: Publizistik (Konstanz, Germany), Vol.20/No,4, October- December 1975, p. 906. xlviii Introduction

It was not only for financial reasons, however, that some American newspapers showed little inclination to install their own foreign correspondents, but more and more often the question of their journalistic Efficiency arose. For by this time a world-wide deterioration of the working opportunities for foreign correspondents could be observed; their freedom of traveling and gathering information was restricted in more und more countries, quite apart from their minimal chances for background coverage.79 The Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe which took place during the period from July, 1973, to August, 1975, was an opportunity to discuss this burning problem at the highest political level. The so- called "Basket III" of the final act signed on August 1, 1975, in Helsinki includes some passages which are quoted here because of their great importance for foreign corre- spondents and the international communications system:80 "The participating States, desiring to improve the conditions under which journalists from one participating State exercise their profession in another participating State, intend in particular to: examine in a favourable spirit and within a suitable and reasonable time scale requests from journalists for visas; grant to permanently accredited journalists of the participating States, on the basis of arrangements, multiple entry and exit visas for specified periods; facilitate the issue to accredited journalists of the participating States of permits for stay in their country of temporary residence and, if and when these are necessary, of other official papers which it is appropriate for them to have; ease, on a basis of reciprocity, procedures for arranging travel by journalists of the participating States in the country where they are exercising their profession, and to provide progressively greater opportunities for such travel, subject to the observance of regulations relating to the existence of areas closed for security reasons; ensure that requests by such journalists for such travel receive, in so far as possible, an expeditious response, taking into account the time scale of the request; increase the opportunities for journalists of the participating States to communicate person- ally with their sources, including organizations and official institutions; grant to journalists of the participating States the right to import, subject only to its being taken out again, the technical equipment (photographic, cinematographic, tape recorder, radio and television) necessary for the exercise of their profession; enable journalists of the other participating States, whether permanently or temporarily accredited, to transmit completely, normally and rapidly by means recognized by the participating States to the information organs which they represent, the results of their professional activity, including tape recordings and undeveloped films, for the purpose of publication or of broadcasting on the radio or television. The participating States reaffirm that the legitimate pursuit of their professional activity will neither render journalists liable to expulsion nor otherwise penalize them. If an accredited journalist is expelled, he will be informed of the reasons for this act and may submit an application for the re-examination of his case." It can hardly be ascertained whether and to what extent this resolution, which had also been signed by the U.S.A., caused any perceptible improvements for foreign corre- spondents in certain parts of the world. At any rate, no fewer than 6,000 members of the

79 Cf. Peter Galliner: Annual Report of the International Press Institute about Press Freedom in the World, Zürich: International Press Institute, 1975, pp. 53ff. (mimeographed). 80 From James Avery Joyce (Ed.): Human Rights - International Documents, Vol. Ill, Alphen, The Netherlands - Dobbs Ferry, N.Y.: Sijthoff & Noordhoff/Oceana Publications, 1978, pp. 1417 f. Heinz-Dietrich Fischer il foreign press corps were stationed all around the world in the mid-seventies, 5,572 of them concentrated in the 32 metropolitan areas listed in the following survey:81

City/Cities Country Number of Foreign Corre- countries spondents represented Accra Ghana 22 5 Ankara Turkey 20 20 Belgrade Yugoslavia 80 22 Bern/Geneva/Zurich Switzerland 127 30 Bonn/Berlin (West) West Germany 385 61 Brasilia/Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil 59 17 Brussels Belgium 234 34 Cairo Egypt 130 32 Canberra/Melbourne/Sydney Australia 97 19 Copenhagen Denmark 131 30 Den Haag/Amsterdam The Netherlands 62 23 Helsinki Finland 63 17 Kinshasa Congo 17 5 Lisbon Portugal 84 21 London England 306 41 Luxembourg Luxembourg 66 15 Madrid/Barcelona Spain 129 29 Moscow Soviet Union 250 46 New Delhi India 77 27 Oslo Norway 23 15 Ottawa Canada 21 9 Paris France 725 53 Prague Czechoslovakia 97 25 Pretoria South Africa 52 10 Rome/Milano Italy 358 43 Singapore Singapore 60 12 Stockholm Sweden 156 34 Tel Aviv/Jerusalem Israel 100 12 Tokio lapan 417 35 Vienna Austria 282 32 Warsaw Poland 79 20 Washington/New York United States 863 70

Among the American correspondents accredited in Singapore in those days there was one who could do his job for the New York Times only under very risky working conditions in adjacent countries. It was Sydney H. Schanberg who since 1973 had been busy for his newspaper in the former British crown-colony, and who was awarded the 1976 Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting "for his coverage of the Communist takeover in Cambodia, carried out at a great risk when he elected to stay at his post after the fall of Pnom Penh" in

81 Information for this survey was obtained from press attachés of foreign diplomatic corps in the Federal Republic of Germany, from foreign correspondents, and from other personal sources, whom the author had asked for information by letter in 1976 and to whom he wants to express his gratitude for the material they provided. 1 Introduction

®l)e JieUr JJo rk Simeo 229 WEST 43 STREET NEW YORK. N Y 10036

AM.ROSENTHAL

January 7, 1976

Professor John Hohenberg Secretary Advisory Board on Pulitzer Prizes 702 Journalism Columbia University New York, N.Y. 10027

Dear Professor Hohenberg:

Sydney Schanberg's decision to stay in Cambodia after the American

evacuation was an example of dedication, independence and courage. But

staying behind is one thing; putting the decision to the best possible

use is another. Sydney Schanberg used these days to range throughout

the city and countryside, detailing not only the military moves that

were leading to the fall of Phnom Penh but providing the readers of

The New York Times with the human insights that accompanied the last

days of the beleaguered city.

Then, after a grueling evacuation by truck to Thailand, he produced

on deadline, some 8,000 words of copy that occupied half the front page

of The New York Times and two inside pages detailing the historical

movement of people that was taking place within Cambodia. The amount of

copy run was almost unprecedented; but Syd Schanberg had grasped the

historic importance of the moment, detailed it in human terms and even

found space and time to examine it against his own previous reporting.

Accompanying Letter for Heinz-Dietrich Fischer li

Much that was written later by others depended upon Sydney's original reporting as their starting point of reference.

But what gave his record of these months an instantly recognizable quality was his insistence on telling these things in direct personal terms.

A couple of examples. He writes on the fifth anniversary of

Sihanouk's overthrow, and contrasts the enthusiasm at the time and the smell of smoke from the North Vietnam embassy, set on fire by the crowds.

"Today, with Phnom Penh largely encircled by the Communist-led insurgents, the United States Embassy is burning some of its files in order to 'thin itself down' to prepare for the possibility of evacuation and the ashes drift slowly to the embassy courtyard."

A soldier comes into a bombarded refugee station for his mortally- wounded child. "He picks up his daughter in his shaking arras: his face, bathed in a cold sweat, contorts as he tried to hold back the tears that come anyway. 'I love all my children,' is all he says as he walks away with the dying child."

It was both its scope and this kind of detail that made Sydney's reporting so widely respected by commentators and analysts looking beyond official reports and statements for a sense of what was really nappening in Cambodia.

Sincerely,

Nomination of 1976 lii Introduction

1975.82 The former Pulitzer Prize-winner A. M. Rosenthal, who had nominated Schanberg, had specified in his letter of recommendation to the secretary of the Advisory Board some of the accompanying circumstances under which the reports had been produced: "Sydney Schanberg's decision to stay in Cambodia after the American evacuation was an example of dedication, independence and courage. But staying behind is one thing; putting the decision to the best possible use is another. Sydney Schanberg used these days to range throughout the city and countryside, detailing not only the military moves that were leading to the fall of Pnom Penh but providing the readers of the New York Times with the human insight that accompanied the last days of the beleaguered city. Then, after a grueling evacuation by truck to Thailand, he produced, on deadline, some 8,000 words of copy that occupied half of the front page of the New York Times and two inside pages detailing the historical movement of people that was taking place within Cambodia ... Much that was written later by others depended on Sydney's original reporting as their starting point of reference."83 Thereupon, the International Reporting jury "strongly recommended" Schanberg, the jury report saying: "The jury feels that Mr. Schanberg's excellent and sensitive professional performance and his personal courage in covering this story make him the most distin- guished candidate for a Pulitzer Prize in this category this year."84 "With that judgment," Hohenberg states, "the Pulitzer Prize Board agreed and Schanberg received the Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting in 1976."85 On the occasion of the presentation of the 1976 Pulitzer Prize a change in the administration of the awards took place. John Hohenberg, who had become secretary of the Advisory Board as the successor of Carl W. Ackerman, retired from this function on June 30, 1976, after a tenure of office that had lasted more than two decades.86 In recognition of his work the Advisory Board awarded him, on the occasion of the announcement of that year's prize-winners, a "special citation": "An antique plaque, inscribed by all members of the Advisory Board, expressing appreciation for his services for 22 years as Administrator of the Pulitzer Prizes and for his achievements as teacher and journalist."87 At the same time Professor Richard T. Baker, who had belonged to the teaching staff of the Graduate School of Journalism, Columbia University, since 1947, "was elected secretary of the Advisory Board to succeed Professor Hohenberg."88 Thus continuity in the administration of the prizes was assured. Like Hohenberg, who had devoted several books to the phenomenon of foreign correspondence,89 Baker ranked the International Reporting award high among the

82 Advisory Board on the Pulitzer Prizes (Ed.): The Pulitzer Prizes, 1917-1977, op. cit., p. 29. 83 A. M. Rosenthal: Nomination of Sydney Schanberg for a Pulitzer Prize, entry of January 7, 1976 (PPO). 84 John C. Ginn/Gordon Pates/Carol Sutton/Frederick Taylor/John Troan: Report of the International Reporting Jury, New York, March 5, 1976, p. 1 (PPO). 85 John Hohenberg: The Pulitzer Prize Story II, op. cit., p. 201. 86 Columbia University (Ed.): Announcement of the 60th Annual Pulitzer Prizes, New York, May 5, 1976, p. 5 (mimeographed press release). 87 Advisory Board on the Pulitzer Prizes (Ed.): The Pulitzer Prizes, 1917-1977, op. cit., p. 45. 88 Columbia University (Ed.): Announcement of the 60th Annual Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 5. 89 Cf. John Hohenberg: Foreign Correspondence, op. cit.; John Hohenberg: Between Two Worlds. Policy, Press, and Public Opinion in Asian-American Relations, New York - Washington - London: Frederick A. Praeger, Publishers, 1967. Heinz-Dietrich Fischer liii

Pulitzer Prizes.90 It therefore seems appropriate to point out that, a short time after Baker's taking over, on the occasion of the anniversary of the Association for Education in Journalism a remarkable plea was delivered for the improvement of the educational situation of foreign correspondents. It included, among other things, the following remarks of Karin Dovring of the University of Illinois, Urbana, 111.: "There are two basic facts that should be clear to those who train foreign correspondents and those who want to become foreign correspondents themselves. One thing is that we cannot communicate any more with the rest of the world on American terms only. Neither our special value system, nor the established meaning of our English can be taken for granted in global communication at home and abroad."91 This should entail various consequences. A short time after the Pulitzer Prize award had been given to Sydney Schanberg in 1976, a communications researcher of Temple University, Philadelphia, Pa., presented the results of a synopsis he had drawn up about the generally rather small consideration given to foreign subjects in American newspapers. "The research tells us," Lent wrote, "that United States dailies ... are not known for outstanding international coverage, the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Christian Science Monitor being notable exceptions. Available content analyses have shown that English, Canadian, Latin American and Asian newspapers use more international news than their American counterparts, and that the United States is covered much more thoroughly in the press abroad than those world areas are reported in the United States Press. Of course, the United States is seen as a major news source because of its big power status - many of its actions affecting other world regions - and because of its pervasive, world-wide network of news agencies. Still, it would seem American newspapers would be much more interested than they are in the nations where American influence is felt. It would seem they would remain interested in the problems of Indochina, even after most US troops left the area, but they are not. It would seem they would be concerned about presenting a fuller view of Marco's Philippines, rather than concentrate solely on the increased tourism there, but they are not. It would seem they would present background reports on other nations or regions, even when crises do not exist, but they do not. It would seem they would continually strive to portray other nations - besides the travel pages or in features picturing bizarre or mysterious aspects of other cultures, but, unfortunately, they do not."92 "The blame for this insular nature of American newspapers," Lent goes on in his critical analysis, "has at different times been laid at the feet of the foreign correspondents, newspaper editors and the public itself ... Certainly this is true, but there are United States correspondents who have ... expertise and who are filing regular reports. Unfortunately, again with a few exceptions, their stories are not being given maximum exposure ... The size of the United States press contingent abroad is probably less of a determinant of the foreign news fare the American reader is served than attitudes of American newspaper editors. Too often, editors assume their readers are not interested in international news

90 Interview of the author with Professor Richard T. Baker on April 30, 1979, in New York, N.Y. 91 Karin Dovring: Training for Foreign Correspondence, paper presented to the Annual Convention, Association for Education in Journalism, College Park, Md., July-August 1976, p. 1. 92 John A. Lent: Foreign News Content of United States and Asian Print Media - A Literature Review and Problem Analysis, in: Gazette - International Journal for Mass Communication Studies (Deventer, The Netherlands), Vol.22/No.3, 1976, p. 177. liv Introduction unless ... a crisis involving the United States is involved or some bizarre angle is featured. Editorial policies on many metropolitan dailies are still based on the idea of the United States as a center of the universe, rather than a global village concept ... Too often, American editors continue to think in terms of providing what they think readers want, rather than what they might need for a full account of a day's happenings. The assumption is that American readers want trivia, therefore, give it to them. Thus, Zaire is only important as a news event in the United States because two of our boxers stage a 'battle of the century' in that African nation; the Philippines becomes newsworthy because Miss Universe is crowned there. The moral," Lent summarizes: "If a nation wants to be covered thoroughly in the American press, it should stage a pseudo-happening."93 These sweeping and perhaps somewhat too rough charges amount to an attack on the whole American press and imply a plea for an increase of the U.S. press corps stationed all over the world. One can only speculate whether Lent's findings of a relatively small potential of competent foreign correspondence in American dailies was - indirectly - responsible for the fact that no award was given in the International Reporting category in the 1977 term.94 This seems somewhat strange, for the jury had submitted several entries which it had thoroughly examined and classified, and finally recommended in the following order of precedence: "1. James Markham and Henry Tanner, foreign correspondents, New York Times, for their coverage from Lebanon ...; 2. Larry Heinzerling, chief of bureau, Johannesburg, The Associated Press, for stories analyzing the turmoil in southern Africa ...; 3. William F. Woo, editorial page, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, for reports from China .. ,"95 Thus, it must have been for reasons of content or quality only that neither the Advisory Board nor the Board of Trustees - represented by the university's president since two years - were inclined to bestow a prize on one of these journalists or on any other nominee for the International Reporting award of 1977. Actually the three recommended entries would have fit in this category perfectly. As in the Spot News Photography category the prize had been split between two press photographers for the first time and one of them had covered an international subject, however, the Advisory Board may have believed that the internation- al range of the Pulitzer Prizes was adequately covered by one prize-winner, namely Neal Ulevich of the Associated Press. Ulevich had received his award "for a series of photographs of disorder and brutality in the streets of Bangkok."96 "The pictures brought home again the instability of Southeast Asia," the jury report stated, "at a time when many were still trying to forget. The pictures showed the violence of the people enflamed and raging at their fellow man."97 Besides, some of the articles winning the Commentary award for George F. Will of the Washington Post contained international subjects.98 The denial of an award in the International Reporting category, occurring for the first

93 Ibid., pp. 178f. 94 Cf. Columbia University (Ed.): Announcement of the 61st Pulitzer Prizes, New York, April 18, 1977, p. 2 (mimeographed press release). 95 Myrtle S. Barnes/Robert P. Early/Vernon Jarrett/William R. Pearman: Report of the International Reporting Jury, New York, March 4, 1977, pp. 1 f. (PPO). 96 Columbia University (Ed.): Announcement of the 61st Annual Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 2. 97 John S. Driscoll/Luke Feck/Charlayne Hunter-Gault/Ralph E. Looney/Celestine Sibley: Report of the Photography Jury, New York, March 4, 1977, p. 1 (PPO). 98 Michael J. Davies/Charles Hauser/John M. Jones Jr./Ted M. Natt/William N. Roesgen: Report of the Commentary Jury, March 4, 1977, p. 1 (PPO). Heinz-Dietrich Fischer lv time in 1977, coincided, by chance, with the sixtieth anniversary of the awards. "Mr. Pulitzer's gift," the president of Columbia University, William J. McGill, explained on this occasion, "continues to have its intended effect in what we continue to be dedicated to producing the best young talent for the communications professions. But a superior professional school does more than that. It also holds the media under steady and responsible scrutiny. It speaks out against bad practice. It rewards the best. This was what Mr. Pulitzer had in mind. It was for this reason that Dr. Butler embraced the Pulitzer Prizes as a function of an academic institution. And it is surely why I view the Pulitzer Prizes as an unmatched instrument for upgrading journalistic and literary performance in America."99 Sixty years after the creation of the prize the following persons, beside the president of Columbia University, McGill, belonged to the Advisory Board of the Pulitzer Prizes: Elie Abel (Dean, Graduate School of Journalism, Columbia University); Benjamin C. Bradlee (Executive Editor, The Washington Post)-, John Cowles, Jr. (Chairman, Minneapolis Star and Tribune Company); Howard H. Hays, Jr. (Editor and Co-Publisher, Press-Enterprise, Riverside, Calif.); Lee Hills (Chairman of the Board, Knight-Ridder Newspapers, Inc., Miami, Fla.); John Hughes (Editor and Manager, The Christian Science Monitor, Boston, Mass.); Clayton Kirkpatrick (Editor and Vice President, Chicago Tribune)', Richard H. Leonard (Editor and Vice President, Milwaukee Journal)-, Eugene C. Patterson (Editor and President, St. Petersburg Times, St. Petersburg, Fla.); Warren H. Phillips (President and Chief Executive Officer, Dow Jones & Co., New York, N.Y.); Joseph Pulitzer, Jr. (Editor and Publisher, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, St. Louis, Mo.); James Reston (Columnist, The New York Times); Thomas Winship (Editor, The Boston Globe) and Richard T. Baker (Secretary, Advisory Board on the Pulitzer Prizes, Graduate School of Journalism, Colum- bia University, New York, N.Y.).100 A few days before the announcement of the Pulitzer Prize-winners of 1978 the campus paper of Columbia University covered the approaching event and described the rather Spartan proceedings. "On Monday, April 17," the article read, "President McGill will announce the winners of the ... Pulitzer Prizes. There will be no public presentation. No long-winded speeches. No chicken dinner. The recipients will be notified by telegram and a follow-up letter enclosing a check for $ 1,000. Unlike the 'Oscars' or the 'Emmys,' the presentation of America's most prestigious awards in journalism and letters is devoid of fanfare and showy display. Yet their history is steeped in controversy and disputation, befitting the character of the man whose name the awards bear .. . Almost from the beginning, the Pulitzer Prizes developed a life of their own, even though their namesake clearly wanted them to be in the shadow of the school ... Whatever its failures," the article closed, "the achievements of the Pulitzers must ultimately be considered greater, for the awards have endured as the most sought-after tribute in journalism and letters America can bestow."101 That "the prizes are prestige awards in American journalism and letters"102 is

99 William J. McGill: (Foreword), in: Advisory Board on the Pulitzer Prizes (Ed.): The Pulitzer Prizes, 1917-1977, op. cit., p. 1. 100 Ibid., p.2. 101 Evan Miller: Pulitzers Prized for Prestige Alone, in: Columbia Spectator (New York, N.Y.), Vol. CI/No. 101, April 14, 1978, p. 4, cols. 1-5. 102 Columbia University (Ed.): Graduate School of Journalism, in: Columbia University Bulletin (New York, N.Y.), Vol. 10/No. 16, September 6, 1976, p. 16. Introduction

cjo:;niK;;TlAL C/.'i :G0 (Y FIV

REFORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL KF.PORTIriG JURY PULITZER PRIZES KOli 1977

(5) For a distinguished example of reporting on International affairs, in- cluding United Nations correspondence. One thousand dollars ($1,000).

X. James Markham and Henry Tanner, foreign correspondents, New York Times, for their coverage from Lebanon.

Our choice of James MaiV.hara and Henry Tanner for the Pulitzer Prize in International Reporting was unanimous.

Their first-hand accounts of the war in Lebanon represented the finest in writing skills and expository reporting from an unstable, violent setting -- one probably least understood among all foreign crises that exploded over the past year.

Their reports and analyses of the internal and external forces at play in what first appeared to be only a civil war brought Lebanon into focus as a potential trigger for a broader explosion in the Middle East.

The historic religious and other ethnic antagonisms in Lebanon were placed in the context of international politics and the Mideast power struggle.

2. Larry Heinzerllng, chief of bureau, Johannesburg, The Associated Press, for stories analyzing the turmoil in southern Africa.

The entry of Mr. Helnjerling was impressive, both in depth and In clear, sharp writing on struggling southern Africa.

His task required him to meet daily deadlines under pressure, not allowing time for reflective writing. His coverage, however, made the complex southern Africa story easily understandable.

His entry was in contenti n for first place until the final vote.

3. William F. Woo, editor, editorial page, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, for reports from China.

William ?. Woo's reportage from China stands out above the average journalistic sojourn lo that country, which have been few irt number but rem.irkable in their sameness.

The jury liked the ei.try because it did contain stories of news

- more -

Report of the 1977 Heinz-Dietrich Fischer

CU^JD^iJAL r.•]...,Ü'.Y FIVE

Report of the International Reporting Jury -- P. 2 value -- the official Chinese position on the requirements for further improvement of Ucshlngton-I'eking relations.

!!ut, more Importantly, the series gave some unusual glimpses of a nation closed to our press for two decades where the curtain is only be- ginning to part: political education of a k

William Woo's series Is devoid of the tedium of the production statistics on the show collective farms and the dubious superlatives (China has no files) that have permeated reports of eerlier visitors.

P.ecause the writer used basic reporting skills in attacking the story of today's China, the reader la the winner and entertainment and enlightenment his rewards.

Kyr* le S. Barnes, ohrm. Asst. Managing Editor Timea-Herald, Mev.-; ort liews, Va.

Roberkitft P. Early- (•OvJtf' Managing Editor Indianapolis (Ind.) Star

(Mwfw Vernon Jarrett'' Column!st Chicago (111.) Tribune

•ch /.. 1977 {^iiL*. Villian H. Pearman Mana^inj 2:1 it or The Kan::as City (Ko.) Tine s

International Reporting Jury lviii Introduction

proved by several examples of demonstrative exposition of a Pulitzer Prize for publicity purposes by the prize-winning medium. The dimensions such a prestige-improving publicity is able to assume were demonstrated, for example, only two days after the official announcement of the 1978 prize-winners in the New York Times which won three prizes as the first newspaper ever.103 Among these three prize-winners was Henry Kamm, who was given the award "for his stories on the refugees, 'boat people,' from Indochina" in 1977.104 Like in similar cases in the preceding years, the bestowal of the prize on Kamm was made by the Advisory Board and not by the International Reporting jury, which had ranked Kamm only fourth in its list of recommendations. "The committee's judgment of the 60 entries in this field," the jury report runs, "was based on the enterprise exhibited by the reporter in getting the story, the story's significance to the world at large, the extent to which the story contributed to understanding of the foreign situation, and the quality of writing with special attention to the precision element. Where several reporters entered the same story we leaned toward the one who got the story first. We are also impressed by the extent of research and background preparation shown in the work. The vote for first place was three for Les Payne, one for Richard Dudman. The other choices were unanimous: 1. Les Payne, News day; 2. Richard Dudman, St. Louis Post-Dispatch; 3. Leon Dash, The Washing- ton Post; 4. Henry Kamm, The New York Times."105 While Payne had reported about South Africa, Dudman about Vietnam, and Dash about Angola, Kamm was the only one among the four best-ranked journalists who had covered the burning subject of the Indo-Chinese "boat people" and their terrible problems. In order to avoid any suspicion that the New York Times representative in the Advisory Board, James Reston, might have influenced the vote in favor of Henry Kamm the following press release was issued as had been done in previous years: "In any category in which Board members had an interest due to the action of the various juries, those members did not participate in the dicsussion and voting and left the room until a decision was reached in the affected category."106

Which arguments, one might ask, could have convinced the majority of members to vote for Henry Kamm of the New York Times? The Advisory Board were probably influenced by some of the statements of A.M. Rosenthal in the nomination for Kamm. "On July 15, 1977," the nomination letter from the New York Times explains, "President Carter announced that he would admit 15,000 new Indochinese refugees to the United States, including 7,000 'boat people' still living on the vessels they used to flee from Vietnam. Simultaneously, the White House and the State Department launched vigorous diplomatic efforts to persuade other nations ... to adopt a more generous attitude toward the refugees and give them a place to live . .. Judging by the testimony of not only government officials but also private citizens engaged in world-wide relief efforts, one man was largely respon- sible for mobilizing the sympathies of world governments: Henry Kamm, the chief Asian correspondent of the New York Times ... As he became increasingly sensitive to the

103 Cf. the Internal Advertisement "... The largest number of Pulitzer Prizes ever awarded ...," in: The New York Times (New York, N.Y.), Vol. CXXVII/No. 43, 915, April 19, 1978, p. B 2. 104 Columbia University (Ed.): Announcement of the 62nd Annual Pulitzer Prizes, New York, April 17, 1978, p. 2 (mimeographed press release). 105 William E. Chilton III./Michael T. Grehl/Allen M. Lazarus/Celestine Sibley: Report of the Inter- national Reporting Competition, New York, March 3, 1978, p. 1 (PPO). 106 Columbia University (Ed.): Announcement of the 62nd Annual Pulitzer Prizes, op. cit., p. 5. Heinz-Dietrich Fischer lix

Listing of the Pulitzer Prizes for The New York Times During Six Decades, 1918-1978 Henry Kamm, Walter Kerr and William Safire of The NewlbrkTjmes win Pulitzer Prizes for ...The largest number of Pulitzer Prizes ever awarded I ^LM 1 in a single year to a single newspaper. 1918 The New York Times, "for the 1945 James B. Reston. for news 1964 David Halberstam. for his most disinterested and meritorious dispatches and interpretative articles distinguished reporting from public service rendered by an American on the Dumbarton Oaks Security South Vietnam. Conference. newspaper"—complete and accurate 1968 J Anthony Lukas, for "a coverage of the news of the war 1946 Arnaldo Cortesi, for distin- distinguished example of local 1923 Alva Johnston, for distin- guished correspondence from reporting"—an article on a guished reporting of scientific news Buenos Aires. murdered 18-year-old girl and 1926 Edward M Kingsbury, for the 1946 William L Laurence, for his the two different lives she led. most distinguished editorial of the eyewitness account of the atomic 1970 Ada Louise Huxtable, archi- year on the Hundred Neediest Cases. bombing of Nagasaki and articles on tecture critic, for distinguished 1930 Russell Owen, for graphic news the atomic bomb dispatches from the Byrd Antarctic 1947 Brooks Atkinson, for a distin- 1971 Harold C Schonberg, music Expedition. guished series of articles on Russia. critic, for distinguished criticism 1932 Walter Duranty. for dispas- 1949 C P. Trussell. for "consistent 1972 The New York Times, "for a sionate interpretative reporting of the excellence in covering the national distinguished example of meritorious news from Russia. scene from Washington " public service by a newspaper through the use of its journalistic resources" 1934 Frederick T Birchall, for 1950 Meyer Berger. for "a distin —publication of the Pentagon Papers. unbiased reporting of the news from guished example of local reporting"— Germany. an article on the killing of 13 people by 1973 Max Frankel. for his coverage a berserk gunman. of President Nixon's visit to China. 1935 Arthur Krock, for distin- a distinguished example of reporting on guished correspondence, impartial and 1951 Arthur Krock, a special international affairs. analytical Washington coverage. commendation for his exclusive inter- 1936 Lauren D. Lyman, for distin- view with President Truman as "the 1974 Hedrick Smith, for his coverage guished reporting: a world beat on the outstanding instance of national of the Soviet Union in 1973. a departure of the Lindberghs for reporting in 1950." distinguished example of reporting England. 1951 Cyrus L. Sulzberger, special on foreign affairs. 1937 Anne O'Hare McCormick, for citation for exclusive interview with 1976 Sydney H. Schanl.erg. for his distinguished foreign correspondence: Archbishop Stepinac of Yugoslavia coverage of the fall of Cambodia, a distinguished example of reporting dispatches and snecial articles 1952 Anthony H. Leviero, for on foreign affairs. from Europe. distinguished reporting on national 1937 William L. Laurence, for 1976 Walter W. ("Red") Smith, for his distinguished reporting of the Tercen- Sports of The Times column, an 1953 The New York Times, special tenary Celebration at Harvard, shared example of distinguished criticism. citation for its Sunday Review of the with four other reporters. Week Section which "for 17 years has 1978 Henry Kamm, chief Asian 1938 Arthur Krock. for distin- brought enlightenment and intelligent diplomatic correspondent, for calling guished Washington correspondence commentary to its readers " attention to the plight of Indochinese 1940 Otto D. Tolischus. for articles 1955 Harrison E. Salisbury, for a refugees, an outstanding example ol from Berlin explaining the economic series of articles based on his six years reporting on foreign affairs. and ideological background of war- 1978 Walter Kerr, drama criti.. for engaged Germany. his theater criticism, an outstanding 1955 Arthur Krock, a special example of distinguished criticism. 1941 The New York Times, special citation for distinguished correspond- citation "for the public education ence from Washington. 1978 William Safire, Op-Ed Page value of its foreign news reports, columnist, for his columns on the exemplified by its scope, by its 'xcel- 1956 Arthur Daley, for his sports Bert Lance affair, an example lence of writing, presentation and column. "Sports of The Times." of distinguished commentary. supplementary background informa- tion, illustration and interpretation." 1957 James B Reston. for distin- guished reporting from Washington 1942 Louis Stark, for distinguished reporting of important labor stories. 1958 The New York Times, for its el)0 JfcUi jlork (times distinguished coverage of foreign 1943 Hanson W Baldwin, for a and members of its series of articles reporting a tour of the Pacific battle areas. 1960 A M. Rosenthal, for perceptive staff have won 45 and authoritative reporting 1944 The New York Times, "for the from Poland. Pulitzer Awards most disinterested and meritorious service rendered by an American 1963 Anthony Lewis, for his distin- More than any other newspaper"—a survey of the teaching guished reporting of the proceedings of American history. of the United States Supreme Court. newspaper.

[Source: The New York Times (New York, N.Y.), Vol. CXXVII/No. 43,915, April 19, 1978, p.B2.] Ix Introduction

DEPARTMENT OF STATE W,T = l>i!Vtc- 0 C 20S20

February 7, 197 8

Prof. Robert T. Baker, Secretary Advisory Board on the Pulitzer Prizes 702 Journalism Columbia University New York, N.Y. 10027

Dear Prof. Baker:

I am writing to support the nomination of Henry Kamm of the N.Y. Times for a Pulitzer Prize for his series of articles on the plight of refugees fleeing from the Indochina countries in 1977. Kamm's articles reawakened interest in this problem in the U.S. and led directly to the new "parole" programs under which an additional 22,000 Indochinese refugees have been authorized to be admitted to the U.S.

I -nave first hand knowledge of the impact of Mr. Kamm's articles, because our Bureau in the State Department is responsible for refugee affairs. From our own reports we were aware of the flight of additional refugees from Indochina, and of the refusal of some neighboring countries to allow them to land. There was some coolness in the U.S., however, to reopening the parole authority under which 150,000 refugees had already entered (since April, 1975). Our preliminary checks with the Congress indicated a lack of enthusiasm for refugees from Indochina which made the prospects for further parole authority look dim.

That is, until Mr. Kamm's articles began to appear. Day after day, week after week, Mr. Kamm reported about the groups of refugees clustered in small boats beating their way across the South China Sea, being turned away when they wanted to land, being passed up by freighters reluctant to be stuck with them, sometimes drowning in storms at sea. There were occasional reports by others, but to my know-

Letter of Recommendation for Heinz-Dietrich Fischer

lege Mr. Kamm was the only journalist, at least the only American journalist, who regularly visited the refugee camps to investigate what was happening, and to write the story. His article on Japan's reluctance to accept refugees led directly to that country starting a program. His pieces had similar positive effect in Thailand, Malaysia, and Hong Kong.

But the effect in the US was most striking. Through the late spring, when we had run out of parole numbers, his articles documented the case in human terms for admitting more refugees to the US. He described how the refugee ramps in Thailand were filling up with more than 80,000 refugees. He reported the unwillingness of countries in the area to accept more until there were new assurances the refugees would have elsewhere to go. His stories helped pave the way for new consultations with the Congress, which led in August, 1977 to the parole of an additional 15,000 refugees from Indochina. A further 7000 were authorized for parole into the U.S. in January, 1978.

Mr. Kamm's stories were accurate. They required hard digging. And they had results, in an important humanitarian area. From his stories Mr. Kamm strikes one as a responsible, professional reporter. He does not overwrite. But it is not too much to say that the medium of his re- porting helped save the lives of hundreds, possibly thousands of desperate people.

His reporting in 1977 strikes me as pre-eminently qualified for a Pulitzer. I'd be glad to comment further or answer questions if they would assist you.

Sincerely

Frank A. Sieverts Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Rights & Humanitarian Affairs

Nomination of 1978 lxii Introduction enormous gulf between what Japan could do for the refugees who washed up on its shores and what little it actually did, Mr. Kamm decided to launch a personal search for the boat people themselves. The search took him to miserable camps, overcrowded hospitals, police stations, disused jails, factories and warehouses and fishing boats that were forbidden by their governments to bring to land the loads of refugees they had picked up from the sea. In story after story, he described the plight of the refugees, usually at first hand, and in the end he forced officials and the public to take notice ... His aggressive reports spared no authority ... Mr. Kamm's first story ... provoked immediate interest in the State Depart- ment. The story was passed to the national Security Council and finally to President Carter."107 Beside this letter from the New York Times lauding the journalistic products of Henry Kamm, the Advisory Board had received another letter from the Department of State expressing similar approval,108 so that, in all probability, these letters were responsible for the awarding committees' decision to give the International Reporting prize to Kamm. When the prize for Henry Kamm was announced in April, 1978, neither the awarding committees nor the American public had noticed that this was the 50th award of the Pulitzer Prize which had been created in 1928 under the general title "Correspondence," being defined more closely as "International Reporting" only in 1948.109 At the same time, the award for Kamm was the final one of a series of prizes given for the coverage of Vietnam- related subject matters. This series had been started with the prize-winning articles by David Halberstam, The New York Times, and Malcolm W. Browne, The Associated Press, on the increasing American engagement in Indochina after the fall of the Diem government, and ranged up to Henry Kamm's reporting of the 1977 boat people tragedy. These descriptions of one of the indirect consequences of the Vietnam war110 caused emotions all over the world. Below all Pulitzer Prize-winners for International Reporting from the beginning of the Vietnamese War in 1963 to 1977 are listed. For each award the jurors responsible are mentioned by name, as are the newspaper, news agency, or newspaper chain they belonged

For Articles from 1963 - Awarded in 1964 Award Winners: Malcolm W. Browne, The Associated Press, New York, N.Y. David Halberstam, The New York Times, New York Jury Members (March, 1964): John R. Herbert, The Patriot-Ledger, Quincy, Massachusetts Jack B. Krueger, The Dallas Morning News, Dallas, Texas

107 A. M. Rosenthal: Nomination of Henry Kamm for a Pulitzer Prize, entry of January 23,1978 (PPO). 108 Letter from Frank A. Sieverts, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Rights & Humanitarian Affairs, Department of State (Washington, D.C.) to Professor Richard T. Baker, Secretary, Advisory Board on the Pulitzer Prizes (New York, N.Y.) of February 7, 1978 (PPO). 109 Cf. Advisory Board on the Pulitzer Prizes (Ed.): The Pulitzer Prizes, 1917-1977, op. cit., pp. 21 ff. 110 Cf. Phillip Knightly: The First Casualty. From the Crimean to Vietnam: The War Correspondent as Hero, Propagandist, and Myth Maker, London: André Deutsch, 1979, pp. 378ff. 111 The listing is based on documents which can be looked at in the Pulitzer Prize Office, and Mrs. Robin Kuzen, Assistant Administrator of the Pulitzer Prizes, Columbia University, N.Y., was kind enough to give additional information. Heinz-Dietrich Fischer lxiii

Robert W. Lucas, The Hartford Times, Hartford, Connecticut Miles H. Wolff, Greensboro Daily News, Greensboro, North Carolina

For Articles from 1964 - Awarded in 1965 Award Winner: Joseph A. Livingston, Philadelphia Bulletin, Philadelphia, Penn. Jury Members (March, 1965): Martin S. Hayden, The Detroit News, Detroit, Michigan Robert W. Lucas, The Hartford Times, Hartford, Connecticut J. Edward Murray, The Arizona Republic, Phoenix, Arizona John Seigenthaler, The Tennessean, Nashville, Tennessee

For Articles from 1965 - Awarded in 1966 Award Winner: Peter Arnett, The Associated Press, New York Jury Members (March, 1966): Daryle M. Feldmeir, Minneapolis Tribune, Minneapolis, Minnesota John R. Herbert, The Patriot-Ledger, Quincy, Massachusetts Robert C. Notson, The Oregonian, Portland, Oregon Michael J. Ogden, The Journal, Providence, Rhode Island Robert M. White, II., The Evening Ledger, Mexico, Missouri

For Articles from 1966 - Awarded in 1967 Award Winner: R. John Hughes, The Christian Science Monitor, Boston, Mass. Jury Members (March, 1967): Ray Dorsey, The Plain Dealer, Cleveland, Ohio J. Edward Murray, The Arizona Republic, Phoenix, Arizona Michael J. Ogden, The Journal, Providence, Rhode Island Cruise Palmer, The Kansas City Star, Kansas City, Missouri Eugene Patterson, The Costitution, Atlanta, Georgia

For Articles from 1967 - Awarded in 1968 Award Winner: Alfred Friendly, The Washington Post, Washington, D.C. Jury Members (March, 1968): James A. Clendinen, The Tampa Tribune, Tampa, Florida Edward Freeman, The Tennessean, Nashville, Tennessee Bower Hawthorne, Minneapolis Tribune, Minneapolis, Minnesota Howard H. Hays, Jr., The Enterprise, Riverside, California Paul E. Neville, Buffalo Evening News, Buffalo, New York

For Articles from 1968 - Awarded in 1969 Award Winner: William Tuohy, Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles, Calif. Jury Members (March, 1969): Norman A. Cherniss, The Enterprise, Riverside, California Wilbur E. Elston, The Detroit News, Detroit, Michigan Richard Hollander, Washington Daily News, Washington, D.C. Carl T. Rowan, Chicago Daily News, Chicago, Illinois William M. Ware, The Plain Dealer, Cleveland, Ohio

For Articles from 1969 - Awarded in 1970 Award Winner: Seymour M. Hersh, Dispatch News Service, Washington, D.C. Jury Members (March, 1970): Charles T. Alexander, The Journal Herald, Dayton, Ohio Richard H. Leonard, The Milwaukee Journal, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Carl T. Rowan, Hall-Syndicate, New York David Starr, Long Island Press, Jamaica, New York lxiv Introduction

For Articles from 1970 - Awarded in 1971 Award Winner: Jimmie L. Hoagland, The Washington Post, Washington, D.C. Jury Members (March, 1971): Norman A. Cherniss, The Enterprise, Riverside, California Thomas S. Gephardt, The Cincinnati Enquirer, Cincinnati, Ohio George N. Gill, The Courier-Journal, Louisville, Kentucky John Stallings, Corpus Christi Caller, Corpus Christi, Texas Joseph M. Ungaro, The Bulletin, Providence, Rhode Island

For Articles from 1971 - Awarded in 1972 Award Winner: Peter R. Kann, The Wall Street Journal, New York Jury Members (March, 1972): Ernest Cutts, The Evening Post, Charleston, South Carolina Bob Eddy, The Hartford Courant, Hartford, Connecticut Barclay Jameson, The Daily Sentinel, Grand Junction, Colorado Sylvia Porter, Hall Syndicate, New York Harry L. Sonneborn, Milwaukee Sentinel, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

For Articles from 1972 - Awarded in 1973 Award Winner: Max Frankel, The New York Times, New York Jury Members (March, 1973): Robert M. Carney, The Sacramento Union, Sacramento, California Joseph Willcox Dunn, Jr., The Virginian-Pilot, Norfolk, Virginia Edward H. Harte, Corpus Christi Caller, Corpus Christi, Texas Michael Balfe Howard, Rocky Mountain News, Denver, Colorado Sylvia Porter, Hall Syndicate, New York

For Articles from 1973 - Awarded in 1974 Award Winner: Hedrick Smith, The New York Times, New York Jury Members (March, 1974): Larry Allison, Press-Telegram, Long Beach, California Charles W. Bailey, Minneapolis Tribune, Minneapolis, Minnesota Evarts A. Graham, Jr., St. Louis Post-Dispatch, St. Louis, Missouri Edward H. Harte, Corpus Christi Caller, Corpus Christi, Texas George R. Packard, Philadelphia Bulletin, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

For Articles from 1974 -Awarded in 1975 Award Winners: Ovie Carter, Chicago Tribune, Chicago, Illinois; William Mullen, Chicago Tribune, Chicago, Illinois Jury Members (March, 1975): Gordon Hanna, The Commercial Appeal, Memphis, Tennessee William K. Hosokawa, The Denver Post, Denver, Colorado Sylvan Meyer, The Times, Gainesville, Georgia Edward D. Miller, The Morning Call, Allentown, Pennsylvania Robert R. Thompson, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Seattle, Washington

For Articles from 1975 - Awarded in 1976 Award Winner: Sydney H. Schanberg, The New York Times, New York Jury Members (March, 1976): John C. Ginn, The Independent, Anderson, South Carolina Gordon Pates, San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco, California Carol Sutton, The Courier-Journal, Louisville, Kentucky Frederick Taylor, The Wall Street Journal, New York John Troan, The Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Heinz-Dietrich Fischer lxv

For Articles from 1976 - Awarded in 1977 Award Winner: (no award)112 Jury Members (March, 1977): Myrtle S. Barnes, The Times-Herald, Newport News, Virginia Robert P. Early, The Indianapolis Star, Indianapolis, Indiana Vernon Jarrett, Chicago Tribune, Chicago, Illinois William R. Pearman, Kansas City Times, Kansas City, Missouri

For Articles from 1977 - Awarded in 1978 Award Winner: Henry Kamm, The New York Times, New York Jury Members (March, 1978): William E. Chilton, III., The Charleston Gazette, Charleston, West Virginia Michael T. Grehl, The Commercial Appeal, Memphis, Tennessee Allan M. Lazarus, The Shreveport Times, Shreveport, Louisiana Celestine Sibley, The Constitution, Atlanta, Georgia

A preliminary resumé of five decades of Pulitzer Prizes for International Reporting shows clearly that some changes took place with regard to the prize-winning materials in this period: to begin with, an expansion of thematic scope can be observed. The reporting and interpretation of "big policy" was more and more being supplied by journalistic coverage with certain social or humanitarian intentions. Moreover, the original purism in the International Pulitzer Prize category, allowing only written materials to be taken into consideration for an award, was relaxed at least occasionally as press photographers were repeatedly nominated together with writing correspondents, the awards then being split between the nominees.113 Finally, the constantly decreasing number of American print media's own foreign correspondents strikes the eye, causing a concentration of prize- winners among the few big daily papers in the country. Only relatively few papers beyond the "hard core" succeeded in breaking through this phalanx. If they did, the prize-winning materials rarely consisted of dispatches written by the papers' own resident foreign corre- spondents, but for the most part of reports and analyses filed by special correspondents who had been sent by their papers to certain regions in the world on a special journalistic assignment.114 Since the criteria for the bestowal of an International Reporting award are rather loosely defined by the formula: "for a distinguished example of reporting on international affairs, including United Nations correspondence,"115 the opportunity to honor outstanding products of special correspondents was repeatedly seized by the re- spective juries and the Advisory Board. It was also due to this loose interpretation of the awarding criteria that it appeared possible to consider, beside merely factual reporting, also background reporting and even

112 International subject matters are found among other Pulitzer Prizes awarded in 1977: a) the prize for Spot News Photography given to Neal Ulevich "for a series of photographs of disorder and brutality in the streets of Bangkok;" b) the prize in the Commentary category given to George F. Will "for distinguished comment on a variety of topics;" for details cf. chapter 49 in the Introductory Notes. 113 Cf. Advisory Board on the Pulitzer Prizes (Ed.): The Pulitzer Prizes, 1917-1977, op. cit., p.29. 114 Cf. John Hohenberg: The Pulitzer Prize Story II, op. cit., pp. 117ff. 115 Cf. Heinz-Dietrich Fischer/Christopher G. Trump (Eds.): Education in Journalism. The 75th Anniversary of Joseph Pulitzer's Ideas at Columbia University (1904-1979), Bochum: Studienver- lag Dr. N. Brockmeyer, 1980, p. 147. Ixvi Introduction

Joseph Pulitzer, Jr., Editor and Publisher of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, photograph taken in January, 1976.

political analyses under the concept of International Reporting. For - in the words of a team of authors - "Pulitzer Prizes and other awards in journalism are typically given for excellence in investigative or analytic reporting, not for the size of audience a newsman appeals to, or for efficiency in meeting deadlines."116 Hohenberg once tried to describe this journalistic group as follows: "The average foreign correspondent is no devil-may-care youngster risking his neck on some foolish but glamorous exploit, but a rather sedate and settled family man of good background and education. He travels a great deal from his established base, which is changed every two or three years. If he has to take risks in his sometimes hazardous routine, he does so because it is part of the job - not just for the fun of it. In war zones, particularly in a guerilla war, he is every bit as valid a target as a soldier to an enemy who seldom observes the Geneva Convention."117 Not only in periods of war but

116 John W. C. Johnson et al.: The News People, A Sociological Portrait of American Journalists and Their Work, Urbana - Chicago - London: University of Illinois Press, 1976, p. 128. 117 John Hohenberg: The Professional Journalist. A Guide to the Practices and Principles of the News Media, 2. ed., New York - Chicago, etc.: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc., 1969, p. 432. Heinz-Dietrich Fischer lxvii also in so-called "normal" phases of international policy foreign correspondents increasingly run not only a personal risk but often meet with situations which render impossible any legitimate journalistic research work and in which any comprehension of their duty is missing on the side of their host countries' government.118 For this reason the extraordinary circumstances under which the reporting sometimes had to be performed, which in many cases involved a considerable personal risk on the part of the researching correspondent, were frequently taken into consideration when the Pulitzer awards for International Reporting were being made.119 Since apart from the big news agencies at best a handful of important daily papers in the country dispose of a widespread net of foreign correspondents, it can be expected that in the future, too, Pulitzer Prizes for International Reporting will go to journalists from these media. The Associated Press has been by far the most honored news agency so far and among the newspapers the New York Times leads in the list of prize-winners way ahead of any other American daily. Hardly any other paper strives more intensely for the honors because of their prestige, and no other paper is represented as often among the nominations for the International Reporting award as the New York Times. Its entries are thoroughly prepared, skilfully supported by arguments, and submitted to the juries in an excellent form of presentation.120 Of course, it is not only the newspapers or the agencies that enjoy the glamour of the Pulitzer Prizes, but also the journalists of these media who were awarded the honors ad personam and who - if they had not yet belonged to the country's journalistic establishment before - were counted among the elite as of the day of their award. It should be also mentioned that well-known war correspondents often were glorified in a ques- tionable way, leading to an additional rise in their prestige. "It is impossible to realize how much of Ernest Hemingway still lives in the hearts of men until you spend time with the professional war correspondent," wrote Norma Ephron in the New York magazine, and she continued: "Most of the Americans are stuck in the Hemingway bag and they tend to romanticize war, just as he did."121 This statement leads back to the unanswered basic question whether the American newspaper reader was interested in foreign news at all, or whether foreign correspondence was a field which was highly estimated and lavishly sponsored by the media, but which really failed to incite the recipient's attention. The problems of any valid findings in this area can be seen in a 1976 study by the Indianapolis News: "The News' editors designed a poll to determine the significance which readers attach to world events ... First, the editors put together their own annual list of what they considered to be the Top Ten stories of the year. Then they asked readers to vote on what they thought were the most important stories. To encourage serious response, the News awarded prizes to those whose lists most closely matched the results of the national poll conducted by the Associated Press among editors

118 Cf. William A. Hachten: The World News Prism. Changing Media - Clashing Ideologies, Ames/ Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1981. 119 Cf. Dante B. Fascell: International News - Freedom under Attack, Beverly Hills - London: SAGE Publications, 1979. 120 Findings of the author based on the examination of all entries in the international prize category since its creation in 1928, which are kept in the Pulitzer Prize Office at Columbia University, New York (PPO). 121 Quoted from Phillip Knightly: The First Casualty, op. cit., p. 408.

Heinz-Dietrich Fischer lxix and news directors of member newspapers, radio and television stations ... One reading of the poll results is that news organizations are giving readers and viewers more substance than they want. The poll seemed to show that audiences, left to choose, would seek out more, not less, sensationalism and domestic news. But the poll also showed something else: Editors - and correspondents - had not been able to get across the importance of foreign affairs to their audiences. Most news people ... believe that foreign news is important. But few think that their readers and viewers do .. ."122 It remains an academic question whether these results are due to a certain satiety of American audiences created by the Vietnam reporting which had dominated the foreign news for years, or whether they stem from a basic lack of interest in non-domestic news. A few weeks after the presentation of the Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting to Henry Kamm the renowned Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn dealt with this question in a speech to Harvard University's 1978 graduates. He stated that Americans are unaware of world currents which threaten their way of life - and their mass media, rather than alerting and educating them, comfort them in their complacency.123 "Solzhenitsyn was right," Rosenblum remarks in his critical study about the situation of American foreign correspondence in the mid- and late seventies, "Americans are reared in an insular society, and their schools produce doctors and lawyers who, from first grade to final degree, might not be told the difference between the Balkans and the Balearics. In that sort of society, sex scandals in Washington are bound to sell more papers than serious news from abroad ... A democracy cannot function without an informed electorate, and this applies no less to foreign affairs than to domestic matters. Foreign policy cannot be left unchecked to a Washington elite, to specialists or to interested lobby groups. World crises, if foreseen in time, sometimes can be avoided. But without reliable reporting from abroad, citizens are vulnerable and weak."124

122 Mort Rosenblum: Coups and Earthquakes. Reporting the World for America, New York - Hagerstown - San Francisco - London - Sidney: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1979, pp. 220ff. 123 Cf. Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn: Loss of Courage, Spiritual Values in Western World, in: Harvard Gazette (Cambridge, Mass.), June 8, 1978. 124 Mort Rosenblum: Coups and Earthquakes, op. cit., p. 223.