Gather No Moss: Vietnam and the Political Evolution of Rolling Stone Magazine Madeline Cohen College of Arts and Sciences University Honors in History Major: History Spring 2011 School of Public Affairs Professor Aaron Bell Minor: Political Science Cohen 2 Abstract In 1967 Jann Wenner founded Rolling Stone magazine. A tribute to the flourishing rock and roll culture of the 1960s, Rolling Stone began as a purely musical publication. However, Rolling Stone changed profoundly in the early 1970s and began publishing a host of political pieces. Today, Rolling Stone is known for its politically radical articles and controversial exposés. This study seeks to identify why and how Rolling Stone shifted from a magazine about music to a political powerhouse. Sifting through the magazine’s archives from 1967-1975, the findings point to something much larger than music which occupied the American conscience at the time: the Vietnam War. The following analysis of Rolling Stone during the war indicates that American failure in Vietnam and the antiwar movement at home strongly affected Wenner and fundamentally changed his magazine. This change has allowed Rolling Stone to become the robust political voice that it is today. Cohen 3 Introduction The Vietnam War profoundly affected American culture. It was the first truly televised war, bringing the gruesome realities of battle into the American home. As Americans became disillusioned with the war in Vietnam and lost hope for any form of traditional victory, a powerful antiwar movement broke out. Especially popular with the youth, antiwar protests often coincided with music festivals and the movement as a whole was pegged to hippie culture, rock and roll, and the New Left. Caught in the middle of it all was young Jann Wenner. A rock enthusiast and student leader at the University of California Berkeley, Wenner started Rolling Stone magazine in 1967 to follow the rock explosion of the late 1960s. Over the course of the war, Wenner’s magazine became increasingly critical of American policy in Vietnam and supportive of dovish Democrats and liberals. Soon Rolling Stone was no longer just a music review; it was a political and social critic as well. Using the Rolling Stone archive, scholarly journals, and the broader history of Vietnam journalism, this essay seeks to document the changes the magazine underwent during this critical period, which solidified Rolling Stone ’s place in both popular culture and politics. There are many historiographical debates surrounding journalism in the Vietnam War era. Historians argue over everything from the media’s level of allegiance to the government to whether or not the pessimism expressed by the press during the war contributed to America’s defeat. The history of Rolling Stone itself is a bit less contested. There are several interesting studies of the magazine which outline its development, including its transition from a purely musical magazine to a political voice within the media. The political transformation of Rolling Stone magazine is situated at the intersection of these two distinct histories; the story of journalism and the antiwar movement during the Vietnam War, and the history of the magazine Cohen 4 itself. Only by positioning the issue in both of these contexts can the arguments about Rolling Stone and Vietnam be analyzed. The most important source which will answer the question ‘how did the Vietnam War revolutionize Rolling Stone magazine?’ is of course Rolling Stone itself. From its conception in 1967 to the end of the Vietnam War period, the number of politically oriented articles in Rolling Stone increased dramatically. Furthermore, these articles became less focused on political issues found in music or hippie culture and more on national elections, antiwar protests, and the Vietnam War itself. Rolling Stone did not, however, exist in a vacuum. It is critically important to examine articles and reports from other news media in order to place the magazine in the broader context of journalism during Vietnam. Presidential speeches and congressional records will serve as a chronological parallel to the reports coming from the media. Finally, Rolling Stone ’s role must be located in the larger picture of the antiwar movement. The history of Rolling Stone is as relevant now as ever. Many critics believe that journalists did not fulfill their expected role as watchdogs in the months leading up to the 2003 war in Iraq. Reporters were expected to ask the tough questions and view the government’s position through a critical lens. Instead, the media generally tended to toe the Bush administration’s line. This idea that journalists are responsible for helping readers understand the motives, or ulterior motives, for war stems in large part from the Vietnam era. Vietnam led to a change in American attitudes towards war. During World War II, a feeling of heroism and glory pervaded the United States. The war effort swept across the country and gained immense support among both the media and the people. American feeling towards Vietnam demonstrates a radical shift from this victorious atmosphere to a mood of hopelessness and defeat. As the war escalated, the national consensus broke down. In turn, the media conveyed these doubts to the public. Cohen 5 Rolling Stone was one of many media outlets that strongly criticized, and eventually called for an end to, the Vietnam War. More recently, the Rolling Stone article “The Runaway General,” which was published in July of 2010, led to the dismissal of General Stanley McChrystal as commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. 1 In his interview with Rolling Stone, McChrystal repeatedly blamed the president and vice president for America’s lack of success in the war in Afghanistan and made a range of inappropriate remarks regarding the Obama administration. Later, in November of 2010, Rolling Stone contributor Jeff Goodall wrote an article titled “The Dark Lord of Coal Country” which exposed Massey Energy CEO and Chairman Don Blankenship’s greed, corruption and abuse of power. 2 One week later, Blankenship resigned. Though coincidence is possible, it is likely that the exposé at least contributed to Blankenship’s decision to step down. Rolling Stone magazine continues to provide the type of political commentary that it began in the 1970s during Vietnam and consequently continues to affect American domestic and foreign politics. The story began in 1967 when Jann Wenner started Rolling Stone . A student activist and a member of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), Wenner had been a part of the vast student movement that permeated American college campuses in the 1960s. However, his objective in creating Rolling Stone was not to dissect hippie culture or promote the ideas of SDS, but instead to capture the burgeoning rock culture of the sixties and bring it into mainstream society. Consisting mostly of album reviews and reports from music festivals, the first issues present the magazine as purely a music publication. However, by the end of the American intervention in Vietnam, the magazine was decrying the war, writing features on returning veterans and supporting political candidates like George McGovern and Jimmy Carter. Why did 1. Michael Hastings, “The Runaway General,” Rolling Stone , July, 8 2010. 2. Jeff Goodall, “The Dark Lord of Coal Country,” Rolling Stone , November 29, 2010. Cohen 6 Rolling Stone go through such drastic changes? What seminal events surrounding Vietnam helped transform Rolling Stone ? How did Rolling Stone’s political coverage change over time? These are critical questions which will put the history of Rolling Stone and its political inclination in perspective. In the late sixties and early seventies, events such as Bloody Thursday in People’s Park (1969) and the Kent State shootings (1970) as well as controversial reports from prominent journalists like Seymour Hersh, stirred up a wave of dissent in America. Jann Wenner could not turn a blind eye. He recognized that change was brewing in America and that politics were becoming a larger part of everyday life. The Vietnam War and the protests, shootings, and massacres that resulted from wartime abuses and antiwar sentiment had a significant impact on Jann Wenner and ultimately changed the face of Rolling Stone magazine. The Media and Vietnam Lyndon Johnson’s decision to officially commit American troops to the conflict in Vietnam (U.S. military advisors arrived there in 1955) came in 1964 with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. With support for the war coming from the president and Congress, the news media’s coverage of the escalating war in Vietnam was generally positive. According to political scientist W. Lance Bennett, the media’s adherence to the government’s word can be explained by the indexing hypothesis. The indexing hypothesis states that journalists give government officials an informational advantage by accepting their word at face value and awarding them significant time and space within the media. Journalists cover the ideas and opinions of the government, marginalizing more “radical” voices in the public sphere and emphasizing those supported by the majority. Therefore, when a consensus exists among the political elite (in this case, the president Cohen 7 and Congress) the media disseminates their ideas. 3 Indexing is clear in the case of Vietnam. Before Tet, William Hammond says, reports sometimes criticized certain tactics or decisions, but not the American presence in Vietnam as a whole. 4 Todd Gitlin explains that in 1965 the New York Times was hesitant to support the antiwar movement. When reporting on one SDS protest, the Times misleadingly equated the fifteen-thousand man march with a one hundred and fifty man pro-war counterdemonstration. Gitlin argues that this is “a staple…of coverage of the Left,” especially in these early days of the war. 5 Editors viewed any show of support for the leftist antiwar movement that was not balanced with coverage of pro-war protesters as a contradiction to the government’s official story.