Harry Truman could've taught Barack Obama a thing or two about how to deal with a hostile press -- basically, by ignoring it.

Obama's core argument, in support of his newly declared war against Fox News, is that the cable channel is biased, unfair and fraudulently branded. In the words of a top Obama aide, Fox is ``opinion journalism masquerading as news,'' and therefore the White House has no choice but to lash out in response.

This is where a little historical perspective might be valuable. It's absolutely valid to complain that Fox is opinion journalism masquerading as news. But so what if it is? Sixty years ago, the Truman administration was consistently harassed by a faux news operation that was far more dominant in its day than Fox News could ever hope to be.

In the late 1940s, when TV had yet to become a mass medium and print still ruled, the most influential information organ was Time magazine. Time spoke for the American mainstream and shaped mainstream opinion. Most important, Time had branded itself as a ``newsmagazine,'' when in fact it was nothing more than opinion journalism masquerading as news. And in Time's opinion, the Democratic president was a corrupt wimp who was soft on communism.

Hewing to Luce's line

Time had a unique process. The reporters in the field sent their journalistic dispatches to New York -- where the editors rewrote them so that they hewed to the conservative predilections of Time's legendary proprietor, Henry Luce. Nobody in today's fragmented media world, including Fox, wields Luce's kind of clout. He was a high-profile power broker in the Republican Party, which he liked to call ``my second church,'' and he used his magazine to make or break careers.

His top mission, during the Truman era, was to tell Time's readers that the president and Secretary of State Dean Acheson were willfully surrendering China to the communists. The truth was actually quite different. Luce's own reporters in China wrote in their dispatches that the anticommunist army ineptly commanded by Chiang Kai-shek was wasting the weapons and money sent East by Truman and Acheson, and that the communists had far more grassroots support.

That's how Chiang's American military advisors saw the situation. The senior advisor, Gen. David Barr, warned Washington that Chiang was doomed because of ``the complete ineptness of his high military leaders and the widespread corruption and dishonesty throughout the armed forces.'' The journalists on site saw the same ills.

But Luce's editors killed those dispatches, or softened them, to make it appear that Chiang was poised to defeat the communists if only Truman and Acheson had the guts to persevere. Luce's star reporter in China, Theodore H. White, put a sign on his door: ``Any resemblance to what is written here and what is printed in Time magazine is purely coincidental.''

Luce knew exactly what he was doing. Publicly, he always insisted that Time was the exemplar of objective journalism, but he did say in 1947: ``Impartiality is often an impediment to truth. Time will not allow the stuffed dummy of impartiality to stand in the way of telling the truth as it sees fit.''

Time a `successful liar'

There were some dissidents. Former Time executive Ralph Ingersoll said that ``the way to tell a successful lie is to include enough truth in it to make it believable, and Time is the most successful liar of our times.'' An ex-Time writer named Merle Miller quipped that the ideal Time story contained ``just enough innuendo, exactly the correct amount of what, while it could not be proved, read just as well as fact and in many ways better.'' But they could not compete with Luce.

Harry Truman had the standing to compete. He certainly felt aggrieved; privately, he referred to his right-wing critics as ``the animals.'' And sometimes he'd grumble about press people in general (''not one of them has enough sense to pound sand in a rathole''). But he sucked it up, did his job and refused to whine about opinion journalism masquerading as news. That seems like sound advice for a successor.

Dick Polman is a columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer.

(C)2009 The Philadelphia Inquirer

Join the discussion

The Miami Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. In order to post comments, you must be a registered user of MiamiHerald.com. Your username will show along with the comments you post. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

     Showing: Oldest first Newest first Most-recommended first Least-recommended first

@Nyx.AuthorDisplayName@ wrote on @Nyx.PostedAtTime@:

@Nyx.repliedToText@

@Nyx.replyAnswerText@

Reply to this Comment @Nyx.Recommender@ @Nyx.AbuseReporter@