Report on Blacklisting: II. Radio-Television
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
$1.25 reporton BLACKLISTING II Radio -Television JOHN COGLEY THE FUND FOR THE REPUBLIC, INC. report on BLACKLISTING II Radio - Television JOHN COGLEY THE FUND FOR THE REPUBLIC, INC. Copyright 1956 by The Fund for the Republic, Inc. CONTENTS Acknowledgment v Foreword vii Counterattack and Red Channels 1 The First Cases 22 Blacklisting: An Institution 49 Newsmen and Commentators 7 1 "Clearance" 89 The Syracuse Crusade 1 00 "Take Their Word" 110 Security on Madison Avenue 115 "Clearance" at CBS 122 Aware, Inc. 129 The Theatrical Unions 1 43 Some Interviews 163 Blacklisting Experiences 173 Industry Viewpoints 192 Blacklisting and Broadway 210 Appendix 218 Anti-Communism and Employment Policies in Radio and Television 221 by MARIE JAHODA Research Center for Human Relations New York University Index 282 iii Acknowledgmento THIS REPORT is based on the findings of a staff of researchers and reporters Edward Engberg, Harriet Davis, Gwendolyn Boulkind, Saul Blackman, Margaret Bushong and William Pfaff. The study conducted by Dr. Marie Jahoda of the Research Cen- ter for Human Relations, New York University, was wholly independent. I am indebted to the Fund for the Republic, which sponsored the study, and to all who supplied the material on which the report is based. This latter group includes not only the research staff but some two hundred persons in the radio-television industry who gave are freely of their time for lengthy interviews. Special thanks due to my assistant Michael Harrington, who gave invaluable help in organizing the mass of material collected, and to James Greene, the project secretary. The conclusions found in these pages are mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect the judgments of any other person. JOHN COGLEY Foreword MOST AMERICANS ARE CONVINCED that loyalty-security investiga- tions of people working for the government in sensitive positions or seeking key federal jobs are necessary to protect the government from the infiltration of persons who might try to destroy it. But when loyalty tests are applied by private groups to people in private industries and people are barred from jobs because they are "controversial" many citizens become alarmed. The present report (with its companion volume dealing with the motion picture industry) embodies the results of a study initiated by The Fund for the Republic in September, 1954, when many Americans had become disturbed by the revelation of blacklisting industries. practices in the radio, television, and motion picture At the time this study was launched, such blacklisting was a subject of vigorous public controversy, involving civil liberties issues of a serious kind. It raised questions of freedom of thought of the individual and speech, of due process, of the protection the against group pressures and of the community against disloyalty of the individual. It was a controversy in which all participants and civil commonly spoke in the name of the Constitution liberty, but in violently conflicting terms. Those who advocated blacklisting practices did so on the ground that Communist and pro-Communist infiltration into the entertain- to the American ment industries represented a serious peril system of law and governance, and therefore to the freedoms which it Communists enshrines. The peril might be direct, through giving vii access to mass media into which they could introduce subversive propaganda, or which they might even sabotage given the proper circumstances. It might be only indirect, permitting Communist sympathizers to enjoy popular esteem, earning incomes which would help support Communist causes, operating their own black- lists against anti-Communists and promoting the interests of an international conspiracy directed toward the destruction of all liberties. In any case, it was contended, the extirpation from the entertainment industries of proven members of the Communist conspiracy and of all who were considered to have lent it their support or had been indifferent to its dangers (and remained im- to institutions. penitent) was essential as a protection American could Opponents of blacklisting contended that such a policy it to held only subvert the rights and liberties sought protect. Some that it violated the Constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech the and thought, since it destroyed an individual's livelihood on beliefs. This raised the issue whether sole ground of his political a sympathy with Communism could properly be regarded as a as of in a "political belief" or must be taken proof complicity could criminal conspiracy, even though no criminal charge be that a con- brought. Beyond that, many who accepted the view vinced Communist should be barred from the cameras and micro- phones were disturbed by the methods being used to achieve this result. It was contended that blacklisting resulted in the ruin of without formal or many entirely loyal individuals charges, hearings or mistaken other safeguards of due process, often on flimsy charges and at the dictates of self-appointed censors or pressure groups. Several things were apparent in this controversy. The major facts which the arguments simply did not meet. The around argu- In these of ments raged were largely unknown. issues, plainly critical importance to all those interested in the preservation of to at valid conclu- civil liberty, the information necessary arriving It not even clear whether a sions was largely unavailable. was vm existed in blacklisting system actually the motion picture, radio and industries. If it it not TV existed, was known on what principles it worked, who controlled it, how accurate were the criteria it applied in screening Communists and pro-Communists out of the industries, what were the motives which might have contributed to its growth. Beyond the somewhat rough-and-ready disclosures of the various investigating committees, there was little useful data on the nature and extent of Communist influence in the industries; on the effect, if any, which it had exerted on the output; on the extent to which the Communists themselves had engaged in black- listing practices, or on numerous other facts essential to formu- lating any answers for the issues of civil liberties here involved. The subject was being debated, in short, in a vacuum. The Fund for the Republic was established as an educational undertaking in the field of civil liberties in the United States. It seemed to its Directors that here were problems of immediate con- cern and that the Fund could render a useful service toward their solution by ascertaining the facts involved. It asked John Cogley, then Executive Editor of The Commonweal, to study and report upon the situation as a whole. This he has done. Mr. Cogley and his associates have interviewed so far as they found it possible to do so every important interest concerned. These include ex- ecutives of the motion picture industry and the radio and TV chains, the advertising agencies, leading advertisers, the theatrical unions, leaders of anti-Communist organizations and others promi- nent in "listing" or "clearing" individuals, and many producers, directors, actors, writers, reporters, news commentators and agency men. From the first it was recognized that this was a highly complex question, and Mr. Cogley and his associates have been scrupulous a in trying to present all significant points of view. He was given free hand in the organization of the study and presentation of the its director facts. While he accepts responsibility for this report as ix and author, the Board of The Fund for the Republic wishes to state its full confidence in the calm deliberation which he has given to its preparation. We believe he has done a thorough job in a very difficult field. It was recognized that many in the industries are aware of the difficulties raised by blacklisting and have been wrestling earnestly with them. Mr. Cogley has tried to give a detailed picture of a situation as it exists. He has brought in no indictments, and has offered no recommendations. The Board of the Fund for the Republic offers none, believing that progress in resolving the con- flicts of interest, viewpoint, and principle involved must and will come hi the first instance from the industries affected. But even this progress must ultimately turn upon public knowledge and understanding of the actual situation and its problems. This report seeks only to supply the data on which such knowledge and under- standing may be established. FOR THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, THE FUND FOR THE REPUBLIC: By Paul G. Hoffman, Chairman v_ Counterattack and Red Channels COUNTERATTACK is a weekly, four-page newsletter published by the American Business Consultants in New York. It was founded in 1 947 as Counterattack, the Newsletter of Facts on Communism. Subscribers to Counterattack ($24 yearly) are entitled to the Special Reports which the newsletter publishes irregularly. The most famous of these reports was made available to the public at one dollar a copy and bore the name Red Channels, The Report of Communist Influence in Radio and Television. Red Channels provided a list of 151 persons in the radio-tele- vision industry who, the editors claimed, were linked, either hi the past or present, with a variety of "Communist causes." The "links" were cited in each case. They included organizations identified as subversive by the Attorney General, the House Committee on Un- American Activities, the California Un-American Activities Com- mittee and other official and private sources. Among the private sources were the authors of Red Channels themselves. At the beginning of the volume there is a disclaimer pointing out that the listed activities or associations may well have been innocent of subversive intent; Red Channels is only reporting them. to This statement made it virtually impossible for the listed people of the obtain legal satisfaction for damages suffered as a result sources has been suc- listing.