THE CENSURE OF SENATOR JOSEPH R. MCCARTHY
AS REPORTED IN FIVE WISCONSIN

DAILY NEWSPAPERS

By

John David Strickler

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

School of Journalism

1967

Accepted by the faculty of the School of Journal—
alism, College of Communication Arts, Michigan State
University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the Master of Arts degree.

10. (OW-”Mm

Director—EPRThesis

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer is particularly indebted to his graduate
and thesis advisor, Dr. w. C. Meyers, who listened when
questioned, coaxed when needed, and scolded when necessary.
Thanks also go to Professor Frank Senger, chairman of the
School of Journalism, and to Professor Walter Emery, who
first suggested that the author study the censure of

Senator McCarthy.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Chapter
I. BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF JOSEPH R. MCCARTHY . 5
II. THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PRESS . . . . 31
III. PRESS COVERAGE . . . . . . . . . . A3
IV. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 78
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

iv

INTRODUCTION

United States Senator Joseph Raymond McCarthy--patriot
or antilibertarian? The question in all probability cannot
be answered to the satisfaction of all Americans. To those
who idolized him, McCarthy was an American patriot and the
term "McCarthyism," in the senator's own words, was "a
household word describing a way of dealing with treason and
the threat of treason." To his enemies, he was a demagogue

and McCarthyism, in the minds of the New York Times' editors,

 

among others, stood for "the invasion of personal rights,
the irresponsible attacks on individuals and institutions,
and the disregard of fair democratic procedures."l
There can be little doubt that the American press was
instrumental in McCarthy's rise to fame and consequently his
rise to political power. As a senator he made some sen—
sational charges that newspaper editors deemed obliged to
publish regardless of whether McCarthy documented his ac-
cusations. The great mass of Americans formed their opinions
of the Wisconsin senator through information received via
the news media. Because the press played such an important

role in McCarthy's career, it is important to consider and

evaluate its performance in covering his political life.

 

1New York Times, November 11, 1954, p. 30.

 

This study will examine the reportage by five Wisconsin
daily newspapers of events prior to and including the action
of December 2, 1954, when the senate censured McCarthy's
conduct as unbecoming a member of the United States senate.
Responsibility in covering a controversial figure such as
McCarthy, and the performance of the five papers in report—
ing the news of the senate censure debate also are con—
sidered.

Five Wisconsin daily newspapers were chosen for con-
sideration in this study. The only competing daily news-
papers published in Wisconsin in 195“ were the two in Mil—
waukee, the state's largest city with a population of
637,392; and the two at Madison, the state capitol, with a
population of 96,056. The fifth newspaper in the study was
published at Appleton, the principal community of the Fox
River Valley, with a population of 34,010, and the legal
residence of Senator McCarthy. Only Wisconsin newspapers
were evaluated, partly to limit the paper's scope, but also
because it was believed the Wisconsin press had a particular
duty to inform McCarthy's constituents of his activities.
The two Milwaukee papers examined were the Journal and the

Sentinel: the two Madison papers the Capital-Times and the

 

Wisconsin State Journal; and the Post Crescent of Appleton.

 

 

The Milwaukee Journal, published weekday evenings and
Sunday mornings, and owned by the employees of the Journal
Company, listed a circulation of 3U6,36U in 195A. The

Journal was served by its own Washington bureau and by the

complete wire services of the Associated Press, of which it
was a member. It also subscribed to the United Press, the
New York Times News Service, and the North American News-
paper Alliance. The Milwaukee Sentinel, published weekday
mornings and Sundays, with a circulation of 18u,155, was one
of the daily newspapers then owned by the Hearst Publishing
Company. The Sentinel received its wire news from the
Hearst Headline Service, the Washington news bureau of the
corporation; from the Associated Press, of which it was a
member; and from the Hearst-owned International News Ser-
vice.

The two newspapers at Madison, the Wisconsin State

 

Journal,2 published weekday mornings and Sundays with a

circulation of 42,7OA in 1954, and the Capital Times, pub—

 

lished weekday evenings with a distribution of “1,961, were
owned by Madison Newspapers, Incorporated. The corporation
Operated the business, circulation, and mechanical depart-
ments of both newspapers, but the corporate structure of each
newspaper was separate, and the publications were editorially
independent and competitive. Each newspaper was a member of
the Associated Press, and each subscribed to the servides of
the United Press.

The Post-Crescent at Appleton was published weekday

 

evenings and Sundays. In 195“ its circulation was 32,179

 

2Wisconsin State Journal hereinafter cited as State
Journal.

 

and like the other newspapers in the study, was a member of
the Associated Press.

Each of the five dailies listed its political affili—
ation in 1954 as "Independent."3

All the newspapers studied relied exclusively on the
wire services for daily reports of the censure debate, and
four used primarily dispatches from the Associated Press.
The Sentinel used the AP sparingly, relying mainly on INS.
For the most part, then, differences in daily coverage de-

pended on how each paper used the wire service reports.

 

3Editor and Publisher Year Book-~1955, "Daily News—
papers of the United States,“ Thirty-fifty Annual Inter—
national Year Book (New York: Editor and Publisher Co.,
1955), pp. 163—6u.

 

CHAPTER I
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF JOSEPH R. MCCARTHY

Joseph Raymond McCarthy was born on a farm in Grand
Chute, Outgamie County, Wisconsin, the fifth of seven
children.1 Grand Chute is near Appleton in the center of
a section known locally as "the Irish Settlement." When he
was fourteen, the family moved to another farm in Manawa in
adjoining Waupaca County. When the family moved, the youth
quit school to become a full-time chicken farmer, building
an original flock of fifty to one that eventually numbered
ten thousand. When he was nineteen, however, the business
failed, and he returned to high school in Manawa. At Little
Wolf High School he crammed four years of high school into
one year while supporting himself as the manager of a chain
grocery store and as an usher at a motion picture theatre.

In 1930, he entered Marquette University in Milwaukee
as an engineering major, but his interests turned to the
study of law in his Junior year. Again, he supported him-
self by taking outside Jobs. He was admitted to the

Wisconsin bar in 1935-

 

lBiographical material, unless otherwise noted, is
from the New York Times, May 3, 1957, p. 14.

 

Upon graduation, McCarthy hung out his shingle in
Waupaca but after nine months he moved to Shawano where he
practiced law at fifty dollars a week with an attorney named
Michael Eberlein. In 1936 the young lawyer ran as a Demo-
crat for district attorney of Shawano County. He lost the
three-way election but he did better than expected, finish-
ing behind the favored LaFollette Progressive candidate but
ahead of his Republican opponent.

By 1939, McCarthy had switched his allegiance to the
Republican party and was ready for his second attempt at
winning an elective office. He was elected Judge of the Tenth
Judicial Circuit, one of the courts of first Jurisdiction in
the state. McCarthy's opponents claim that during his cam—
paign for Judge, and during his subsequent years on the
bench, McCarthy demonstrated the use of unscrupulous power
that they say later became a familiar device of his in the
United States Senate. During the 1939 campaign, one critic
charges, McCarthy tacked seven years on his opponent's age,
and subtracted a year from his own in order to be distin-
guished as the youngest Circuit Court Judge in the state's
history. After his election he earned a reputation in
divorce cases "as a kind of mobile Reno--a circuit Judge who
worked exceedingly fast and seldom found any obstacles in
the statutues, particularly where friends of political sup—

porters were involved."2

 

2Richard H. Rovere, Senator Joe McCarthy (New York:
Harcourt, Brace & Company, 1959), p. 92.

 

Without resigning his Judicial post, McCarthy obtained
a direct commission to serve in World War II as a Marine
Corps lieutenant. He accompanied a Marine light bomber
squadron to the Solomon Islands where he served from Septem-
ber 1 through December-31, 1954. Although he was an intelli—
gence officer and not required to fly missions, he actually
flew a number as a tailgunner and later used the nickname
"Tailgunner Joe" in his political campaigns.

Upon his return to the United States, McCarthy cam-
paigned in uniform for the Republican nomination for the
United States Senate seat held by Alexander Wiley since 1938.
His candidacy was conducted despite a military ruling that
forbade servicemen from speaking on political issues, and a
Wisconsin law that prohibited Judges from holding other than
Judicial offices. Senator Wiley easily won the primary, but
McCarthy made a good showing, receiving nearly 100,000 votes
more than any of the other three unsuccessful candidates.
McCarthy was relieved from active duty in the Marine Corps
on February 20, 1945, and resigned under honorable conditions
on March 29, 19A5. He was re-elected circuit Judge that
year, but in the following year went after bigger game-—the
United States Senate seat held for twenty years by Robert M.
La Follette, Jr., and for twenty years before that by Y
La Follette's father.

McCarthy carefully laid plans for the 19A6 Republican
primary and he was aided by two tactical errors committed

by La Follette. First, he remained in Washington for much

of the campaign while McCarthy launched a vigorous cam-
paign based on the slogan, "Congress Needs a Tailgunner."3
Second, La Follette chose 1946 as the year to bring the
Progressive party back into the Republican fold. Many of
the Progressives felt a closer tie with the Democratic
party and hedged at identification with the GOP. Likewise,
some Republicans viewed with something less than wild en—
thusiasm the idea of being represented by a man with the
liberal voting record of La Follette. In any case, McCarthy
gathered the support of the state Republican organization
and defeated La Follette, 207,935 to 202,536. He then easily
beat his Democratic opponent in November, 620,229 to 278,722.
The Irish chicken farmer had become a United States Senator.

McCarthy's early years in the senate were relatively
unnoticed by the public, but were later to be subJected to
senate investigation. He associated with the lobbyist for
the Pepsi-Cola Company, a soft-drink manufacturer, and was
at one time referred to in Congress as "the Pepsi-Cola Kid."
He also associated with real-estate lobbyists and was paid
$10,000 by the Lustron Corporation for an essay he wrote
entitled, "A Dollar's Worth of Housing for Every Dollar
Spent.“4

But the problems of Pepsi—Cola and the real—estate

lobby were unimportant to a public increasingly concerned

 

31bid., p. 100.

“U. 8., Congress, Senate, Hearings Before A Select
Committee to Study Censure Charges, 83rd Cong., 2nd Sess.,
195A, Part 1, p. 23.

 

 

with the menace of world communism. On March 12, 19u7,
President Truman called on congress for $A00 million to aid
Greece and Turkey against Russian aggression in a speech
later known as the "Truman Doctrine." That June, Secre-
tary of State, George Marshall, formulated his Marshall
Plan; and, while the armies of Mao Tse-tung swept the
Nationalist forces from the Chinese mainland, the Russian
dictator Stalin precipitated a crisis in occupied and di-
vided Germany by blockading all highway, river and rail
traffic into Berlin. By December, 19A9, Chiang Kai-shek
occupied Formosa but the communists owned China.

Against this backdrop McCarthy, little known and un-
noticed, on February 9, 1950, addressed the Ohio County
Women's Republican Clubs of Wheeling, West Virginia. The
menace of communism, asserted McCarthy, came not from without
but from within. He said that he held in his hand a list of
names of persons who had been made known to Secretary of
State Dean Acheson as members of the Communist party but who
were nevertheless still employed by the State Department and
were shaping State Department policy.5 Critics said McCarthy
had claimed the possession of a list of 205 such communists.
McCarthy later insisted he had said there were fifty-seven.
The next night McCarthy repeated his charges in Salt Lake

City, and the following night in Reno.

 

5New York Times, February 13, 1950, p. 3.

 

IO

Eleven days after his Wheeling speech, McCarthy was
called before a specially created subcommittee of the Senate
Committee on Foreign Relations to substantiate his charges.
Senator Millard F. Tydings, a Maryland Democrat, was sub—
committee chairman. After hearing more than three million
words of testimony the senate group failed to find any com-
munists currently employed by the State Department. The
Democratic maJority of the subcommittee issued a report
charging McCarthy with making charges and employing methods
that constituted "a fraud and a hoax."

That November, when Tydings sought re-election, he was
defeated by little known John Marshall Butler under circum-
stances that resulted in an investigation by a subcommittee
of the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections. On
January 22, 1951, the subcommittee issued a report identify—
ing McCarthy and his staff as having been active in the de-
feat of Tydings.

On August 6, 1951, pursuant to a resolution offered
by Senator William Benton, a Connecticut Democrat, a sub-
committee of the Senate Committee on Rules and Adminis-
trations was created to investigate aspects of McCarthy's
financial affairs. Detailed testimony was taken and a re—
port issued after McCarthy declined to appear before the
subcommittee. The report included six questions three of
which McCarthy had refused to answer on the grounds that the
subcommittee was controlled by Democrats bent on smearing

him. The questions, put forth by subcommittee member

11

Thomas Hennings, a senator from Missouri, in a letter to
McCarthy on November 21, 1952, asked:

1. Whether any funds collected or received by
[McCarthy] to conduct [his] activities, including
those related to communism, were diverted to [his]
personal advantage.

2. Whether [McCarthy] used [his] official posi-
'tion as a member to obtain a $10,000 fee from the
Lustron Corporation which was almost entirely subsi—
dized by agencies under the Jurisdiction of the com-
mittees of which [he] was a member.

3. Whether [McCarthy's] activities on behalf
of interest groups were motivated by self interest.

A. Whether [McCarthy's] activities in senatorial
campaigns, particularly with respect to the reporting
of financing, involved violations of the federal and
state corrupt practices acts.

5. Whether loans or other transactions which
[McCarthy] had with the Appleton State Bank, of
Appleton, Wisconsin involved violations of tax and
banking laws.

6. Whether McCarthy used close associates and
family members to secrete receipts, income, commodity
and stock speculation, and otger financial trans-
actions for ulterior motives.

The subcommittee, stymied by McCarthy's refusal to testify
before it, suspended its hearings.

McCarthy won renomination by Wisconsin's voters in the
1952 primary election, defeating his nearest rival by nearly
300,000 votes. In the general election, however, his edge
over Thomas E. Fairchild was only 130,000 votes. He trailed
the entire Republican ticket in Wisconsin and was far be-
hind Eisenhower's plurality of more than 357,000 votes.
But the Republicans gained control of the United States

Senate in 1952 and McCarthy was rewarded with the

 

6U. 8., Congress, Senate, Hearings Before a Select

Committee to Study Censure Charges, 83rd Cong., 2nd Sess.,
195A, Part 1, pp. Hu-AS.

 

l2

chairmanship of the senate Permanent Subcommittee on In—
vestigations.

By the opening of the second session of the Eighty-
third Congress in 195“, McCarthy was at the peak of his
power. His communist investigations during both the Truman
and Eisenhower administrations had commanded continuous
front page attention in the nation's press. He had at-
tacked former Secretary of State George Catlett Marshall

"7

as a "communist dupe; and his investigations subcommittee,
led by its young chief counsel Roy Cohn and Cohn's ever
present companion, G. David Schine, had investigated and
made a shambles of the government operated radio network
Voice of America. But when Schine, the subcommittee's un—
salaried "chief consultant," received a draft call to serve
in the armed forces, and McCarthy trained his sights on a1-
leged security leaks in the Army, the stage was set for the
Wisconsin senator's ultimate return to obscurity.

On April 25, 195A, McCarthy's own investigations com—
mittee opened hearings to determine certain issues between
McCarthy and the Army. The Army contended that McCarthy
and members of his staff, particularly Cohn, had sought to
obtain preferential treatment for Schine both before and
after he had been drafted. McCarthy contended that the Army

had sought to use Schine as a "hostage" to get the sub-

committee to ease the pressure of its investigations into

 

7U. 8., Congressional Record, 82nd Cong., lst Sess.,
1951, Vol. XVIIIC, Part 5, p. 705M.

 

13

reported spying and sabotage at the Army Signal Corps in—
stallation at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey.8 The hearings
lasted thirty-six days and were viewed by millions of
Americans over national television. For most, the hear-
ings offered the first opportunity to actually observe
McCarthy in action.

Although the hearings themselves were inconclusive,
something intangible had happened as a result of them.
Congressmen who had never spoken publicly against McCarthy
now openly denounced him. And his enemies were not limited
to the opposition Democratic Party. In the words of
Senator Charles E. Potter, Republican from Michigan, a
member of McCarthy's investigations subcommittee:

As the hearings ended in June, 195“, a new atmosphere

spread through the Senate Building. Many Senators

who had lived in complete terror of Joe McCarthy, who

had been avoiding their responsibilities to save their
political lives, were suddenly brave again. They
talked openly now, instead of in whispers; they poured
out the anger they had held back for so long. They
had seen him strike down Tydings of Maryland and

Benton of Connecticut and had trembled when he in—

vaded many states to wage a vicious campaign against

them and had sent his hatchet men into others. They
knew now that he was finished and they closed in for
the kill.9

On the morning of June 11, Senator Ralph Flanders, a

Vermont Republican, strode into the Senate Caucus Room and,

 

8U. 8., Congress, Senate, Hearings Before the Sub-

committee on Investigations of the Senate Committee on
Government Operations, 83d Cong., 2nd Sess., 195“, p. 2.

 

 

 

9Charles E. Potter, Days of Shame (New York:
Coward—McCann, Inc., 1965), p. 285.

 

14

before television cameras gathered for the Army—McCarthy
hearings, informed the Wisconsin senator that he would speak
about him on the Senate floor. That afternoon, in front of
a packed senate gallery, Flanders delivered a stinging re-
buke of McCarthy in a speech that ended with a resolution
of censure. It read:

Resolved, That Senator McCarthy be separated from

the chairmanship of the senate committee on govern-

ment operations and furthermore be prohibited from

being chairman or vice chairman of any such sub-

committee thereof.10

The wheels were turning but before action was taken,
Flanders, on July 20, read a new resolution that he pre-
ferred to be considered over the first:

Resolved, That the conduct of the senator from Wisconsin,

Mr. McCarthy, as chairman of the senate permanent sub—

committee on investigations, is unbecoming a member of

the United States Senate, is contrary to senatorial

traditions, and tends to bring the Senate into dis-

repute, and such conduct is hereby condemned.l
Flanders announced he would send the resolution to the desk
on July 30 as a privileged matter and move its adoption with-
out reference to a committee.

Ten days later the senate galleries were packed in
anticipation of the opening of the censure debate. But

first Flanders again presented a new resolution, this one

to take precedence over the one introduced on July 20:

 

lOU. 8., Congressional Record, 83d Cong., 2d Sess.,
1954, Vol. C, Part 6, p. 8033.

 

llIbid., Part 8, p. 10993.

15

Resolved, That the conduct of the Senator from

Wisconsin is unbecoming a member of the United

States Senate, is contrary to senatorial traditions,

and tends to being the senate into disrepute, and

such conduct is hereby condemned.12.

Flanders supported his resolution with a list of
thirty-three specific charges against McCarthy, but several
senators voiced disapproval that the resolution itself con-
tained no specific charges. Senator Wayne Morse, an Oregon
Independent, while opposing it on this ground, said he
would be pleased to prepare a bill of particulars to be
attached to the resolution in the form of an amendment.13

The resolution was not greeted with enthusiasm by the
senate's conservative Republicans. Illinois Senator
Everett Dirksen reacted violently, condemning the resol—
ution for being personal, not legal. But his bitterest
words were saved for what he called the resolution's sponsors.

Dirksen told the senate and its spectators that the Communist

party, the Labor League, the Daily Worker, the Americans for

 

Democratic Action, the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
the National Committee for an Effective Congress, "and all
their affiliates have crawled in bed with Senator Flanders
to defeat Senator McCarthy."lu
The next day Senator J. William Fulbright, Democrat

from Arkansas, entered the drama and presented to the senate

 

r '7

12Ibid., Part 10, p. 12729.

13Ibid., p. 12733.

Ibid., p. 12742.

 

16

a bill of particulars against McCarthy in the form of an
amendment to the resolution.

On August 2, maJority leader, William Knowland of
California moved that the resolution, along with its amend-
ments, be referred to a select committee composed of three
Democrats and three Republicans. Members were to be chosen
by their party leader and approved by the Vice President.
The committee was to study the resolution and its proposed
amendments and to make recommendations for action to the senate.
Knowland's motion did not specify that the committee make
its report before the senate adJourned for the year. When
Senator Irving Ives, Republican from New York, proposed
such an amendment, the maJority leader balked, but then con-
sented. The senate then voted seventy-five to twelve to
send the resolution to a select committee.15

The six senators chosen for service on the select com—
mittee were known in the senate for their quiet demeanor and
were practically strangers to the public. On the Republican
side were Senators Watkins of Utah, Carlson of Kansas, and
Case of South Dakota. Senators Johnson of Colorado,

Stennis of Mississippi, and Ervin of North Carolina served
for the Democrats. Senators Watkins and Johnson were se-
lected chairman and vice chairman, respectively. The com—

mittee was confronted with a formidable task. It had to

 

fi—

lSIbid., p. 12989.

17

make recommendations to the senate on a sensitive issue.
Included in the censure motion and its amendments were more
than fifty charges of misconduct that the committee had to
examine and report on between August 31 and September 27.16

The Watkins committee eliminated all but thirteen of
the charges due either to duplication or lack of documen-
tation. The remaining charges were then studied under five
categories:

1. Incidents of contempt of the senate or a sena—
torial committee.

2. Incidents of encouragement of United States
employees to violate the law and their oath of
office or executive orders.

3. Incidents involving the receipt or use of a
confidential or classified document or other
confidential information from executive files.

A. Incidents involving abuses of colleagues in the
senate.

5. Incidents relating to Army General Ralph W.

Zwicker.l7
The first category of charges referred to McCarthy's

dispute with the Senate subcommittee on privileges and

elections, which had investigated his financial affairs in

 

16U. 8., Congress, Senate, Report of the Select
Committee to Study Censure Charges, 83d Cong., 2nd Sess.,
1954, p. 2.

 

17Ibid., p. 5.

 

18

1951-52. Although invited to testify five times he re-
fused unless, he said, he was subpoenaed. McCarthy said
he would not testify because the subcommittee was attempt—
ing to "smear" him, and he accused its members of "steal—
ing the taxpayers' money in digging up unfounded charges."
In a letter to chairman Senator Guy Gillette on May 11,
1952, McCarthy accused the subcommittee of doing the com—
munists work in "exposing" him. He also saved some unkind
words for individual subcommittee members, calling Senator
Robert Hendrickson, Republican from New Jersey, "a living
miracle without brains or guts."l8
The select committee concluded that it was McCarthy's
duty to accept invitations to testify and that his failure
to do so hamstrung the committee and thus obstructed the
orderly process of the senate. No formal subpoena should
be necessary, the committee said, to bring senators to testify
before committees when their and the senate's honor are at
stake. The committee ruled that McCarthy had denounced the
subcommittee without Justification and that he had failed
to explain three of the six questions raised by Senator
Hennings. Specifically, he had not answered whether funds
collected to fight communism were diverted to other pur—
poses, whether certain of his official activities were moti—
vated by self-interest, and whether he had violated the law

in his senate campaigns.19

 

18Ibid., p. 13. lgIbid., p. 30.

_——— *

19

Thus, the committee reported, McCarthy's conduct be-
fore the subcommittee, the senate, and Senator Hendrickson
was "contemptuous, contumacious, and denunciatory without
reason or Justification, and was obstructive to legislative
process. For this conduct, it is our recommendation that
he be censured by the senate."20

The second category of charges concerned incidents of
encouragement by Senator McCarthy of federal employees to
violate the law and their oaths of office or executive
orders. ‘During the televised hearings that spring, the
Wisconsin senator had publicly urged federal employees to
give him any information of wrong doing in their departments.
McCarthy had admitted to the select committee that his re—
quest for information included that which was classified.
While admitting that giving classified information to un—
authorized persons, such as himself, was illegal, he claimed
that other federal statutes imposed a duty upon federal
employees to give him any information of wrong doing. Vice
President Richard Nixon, he argued, had also requested
classified information from federal employees when he was
a congressman.21

The select committee reported that it could not condone
McCarthy's action. Since it appeared to the committee, how—
ever, that he had acted in good faith and had been motivated

by a sense of official duty, censure was not warranted.22

 

20 21

Ibid., p. 31. Ibid., p. 33.

m

d2Ibid., p. 39.

20

The third category of charges was based on incidents
involving the receipt or use of a confidential or classified
document or other confidential information from executive
files. The question in point arose from a document pro-
duced by McCarthy in the Army hearings. He had referred
to it at the hearings as a copy of a two-and-a-quarter—page
letter from F.B.I. Chief J. Edgar Hoover to Army Major
General Bolling, marked "confidential," and complaining
about the poor security system at Fort Monmouth. Hoover
had immediately denied that the paper was a copy of any
letter sent to Bolling, but had said it was identical in
some respects to a fifteen-page interdepartmental memoran-
dum from the F.B.I. to Bolling. He had also stated that
the information contained in the document, which McCarthy
had offered to make public, was classified.23

In offering to make a classified document public, the
select committee stated, McCarthy had committed a grave
error. It believed, however, that he had not known the
document was not authentic. Furthermore, since McCarthy
had been under the stress of being questioned by the sub-
committee when he had revealed the paper, and since the con—
tents of the documents had been relevant to the subject
matter under inquiry at the time, the committee did not

2A
recommend censure.

 

23Ibid., p. uo. 2ulbid., p. 45.

 

21

The fourth category of charges dealt with abuses of
senate colleagues. Specifically, he was charged with
ridiculing and defaming Senator Hendrickson, in language
cited previously, and Senators Gillette, Monroney, Hayden,
and Hennings of the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elec-
tions. He had also spoken unkindly of Senator Flanders,
calling him, "senile--I think they should get a net and
take him to a good quiet place."25

His abuses of the subcommittee members were studied
under the first category of charges, and censure was recom-
mended for his actions. But the select committee believed
there was no basis for censure for McCarthy's remarks con-
cerning Senator Flanders since the Vermont Senator had pro-
voked the attack through words of his own.26

Finally, McCarthy was charged with abusing General
Ralph Zwicker who had testified in a closed hearing before
Senator McCarthy's subcommittee near the conclusion of the
Army hearings. The general had been questioned by McCarthy
about the promotion and honorable discharge of Major Irving
Peress, an alleged Communist. After the general had refused
several times to answer questions, saying an executive
order prohibited him from testifying on the matter, McCarthy
said,

General, you should be removed of command. Any
man who has been given the honor of being promoted to

 

25Ibid. 26Ibid., p. A6.

22

General and who says, "I will protect another General
who protects communists," is not fit to wear that
uniform, General. I think it is a tremendous dis—
grace to the Army to have this sort of thing given to
the public.27

McCarthy told the select committee that when questioned,
General Zwicker had been evasive, that he had changed his

story several times, that he was difficult to examine, and

that he had been arrogant.28

The committee thought differently. It found no evi-
dence that General Zwicker was not telling the truth in
testifying before McCarthy; nor did it find evidence that
the general was intentionally irritating, evasive, or
arrogant. It did find that McCarthy's conduct was imprOper

and recommended censure for his treatment of General

Zwicker.29

The select committee's report was made public on
September 27. It amended the Flander's resolution to con-
tain the specific charges for which it recommended censure.
The proposed amended resolution read:

Resolved, That the senator from Wisconsin failed to
co—operate with the subcommittee on rules and adminis—
tration in clearing up matters referred to that sub—
committee which concerned his conduct as a senator,
and affected the honor of the senate and, instead re—
peatedly abused the subcommittee and its members who
were trying to carry out assigned duties, thereby ob-
structing the constitutional processes of the senate,
and that this conduct of the senator from Wisconsin
in failing to co-operate with a senate committee in
clearing up matters affecting the honor of the senate
is contrary to senatorial traditions and is hereby
condemned.

 

273251., p.511. 281bid., p. 55. 291bid., p. 61.

23

Section 2: The senator from Wisconsin in conducting
a senatorial inquiry intemperately abused, and re-
leased executive hearings in which he denounced a
witness representing the executive branch of the
government, General Ralph W. Zwicker, an officer of
the United States Army, for refusing to criticize
his superior officers and for respecting official
orders and executive directives, thereby tending to
destroy the good faith which must be maintained be—
tween the executive and legislative branches in our
system of government; and the senate disavows the
denunciation of General Zwicker by Senator McCarthy
as chairman of a senate subcommittee and censures
him for that action.30

 

On November 8 the senate convened in extraordinary
session to weigh the merits of the Watkins committee recom—
mendations for censure. Before debate began in earnest,
however, McCarthy, on the floor of the Senate, accused three
committee members of being biased against him. He pointed
out that Senator Ervin had admitted to a newswoman that he
did not want to serve on the select committee because he had
once written unfavorable letters about McCarthy.31 He then
turned on Senator Watkins, claiming that the select committee
chairman had told a reporter during the Army—McCarthy hear-
ings that he hoped the television cameras had not caught
him shaking hands with McCarthy since such an action would

be hard to explain to his Utah constituents.32

Finally, he
charged that Senator Johnson of the select committee, had
said that all Democratic senators loathed McCarthy and
favored the Flanders resolution. When Senator Watkins

pointed out that at the conclusion of his committee's hear—

ings McCarthy had thanked the committee for its fairness,

 

8., Congressional Record, Part 12, p. 15922.

 

Ibid., p. 15930. 321bid., p. 15931.

 

24

Senator McCarthy replied that since that time he had dis-
covered several inconsistencies in the committee report.33

The most strenuous objection to the committee report
was to the assertion that no senator had the "right to
impugn the motives of individual senators responsible for
official action, nor to reflect upon their personal character
for what official action they took."3u McCarthy and his
supporters argued that such a policy violated the principle
of freedom of speech. Senator Herman Welker, Idaho Republi-
can, was particularly adamant on this point. He quoted
several precedents in which senators had employed violent
language but had not been censured.

In the last minutes of debate on November 10, McCarthy
requested that a speech he had prepared for delivery, and

which he had given to the press the night before, he entered

in the Congressional Record. The speech was to play an

 

important role in the eventual passage of the censure resol—
ution. He claimed that the resolution should be understood
primarily in terms of its bearing on the Communist issue.
The fight against subversion would be slowed down by the
resolution's passage and the Community party would win a
major victory.
The speech claimed that the real strength of the

Communist party was the extent to which it had gained its

objectives. The party, according to McCarthy, infected the

 

331818., p. 15928. 3ulbid., p. 15999.

25

senate and had made the select committee "its unwitting
handmaiden." He then warned against underestimating the
strength of the Communists. "At Yalta, through the efforts
of Alger Rise, and perhaps others we know not of," Franklin
Roosevelt had been persuaded to turn the fruits of a
victorious war over to international Communism.35
Two days later, Senator Barry Goldwater, Arizona fa
Republican, spoke against the resolution in a speech that
echoed McCarthy's words of November 10. The key issue,

said Goldwater, was what would happen to the fight against .

Communism if McCarthy was censured. "All the discredited L

 

and embittered figures of the Hiss—Yalta period of American
dishonor have crawled from under their logs to join the
efforts to get even."36

On November 18 Senator Majority Leader, William Know—
land announced that Senator McCarthy was in Bethesda Naval
hospital recovering from an attack of bursitus. After a
short but sharp discussion the senate moved, against the
votes of Senators Morse and Fulbright, to recess until
November 29 when Senator McCarthy could rejoin the debate.

When the senate reconvened on Monday, November 29,
members agreed to a unanimous consent request by McCarthy
to terminate debate that Wednesday at 3:00 P.M. Three

important test votes were taken on December 1 and the re—

sults clearly indicated that the senate would censure

 

351616., pp. 15952-95u. 36Ibid., p. 16001.

 

26

McCarthy. Senator Dirksen first introduced what, in ef—
fect was a substitute resolution, which stated that a
reasonable doubt existed as to the authority of the senate
to censure members for language or conduct in a prior
session of Congress. (McCarthy's dispute with the sub-
committee on elections and privileges had taken place dur-
ing the 82nd Congress and he had since been re—elected.)
The substitute further stated that a senator had no legal
obligation to accept a committee's invitation to testify
and that censure was not warranted for his refusal to ac-
cept such an invitation. Neither the use of "robust and
salty language" toward senate colleagues, nor the employment
of allegedly intemporate language in interrogating witnesses
constituted grounds for censure. The senate rejected Dirk-
sen's substitute, sixty-six to twenty-one. Nine senators
did not vote.37
Senator Carl Mundt, Republican from South Dakota,
then proposed an amendment designed at softening the resol—
ution, calling on the senate not to censure McCarthy, but
to "disavow and disapprove of the intemperate statements

"38 The amend—

employed by the Junior senator from Wisconsin.
ment failed, seventy-four to fifteen. The hard core McCarthy
supporters, Senators Dirksen, Welker, Hickenlooper, and
Jenner, as well as Majority Leader Knowland, voted against
the amendment. Senator Case, a member of the select com-

mittee, voted for it.39

 

37Ibid-, p. 16329. 38Ibid., p. 16330.

39Ibid., p. 16335.

27

Finally, Senator Bridges proposed a substitute similar
to Dirken's. It was defeated, sixty-eight to twenty.

The senate then turned to the consideration of the
recommendations of the select committee. It will be re-
called that the Watkins committee had proposed amendments
to the Flanders resolution. If amended, the resolution
would consist of two sections, each one censuring McCarthy A“?
on a specific charge. After the test votes of December 1,

approval of the first section of the select committee's

amendment, censuring McCarthy for abuses of the subcommittee

 

on privileges and elections, was a foregone conclusion.
The first section passed, sixty—seven to twenty, with nine
senators not voting.“0

The passage of section two of the Watkins committee
amendment was definitely not a foregone conclusion. Many
senators, including southern Democrats, seemed reluctant to
censure a senator for language used in interrogating a com-
mittee witness. To confound matters, Senator Case, on
November 15, had told the senate he no longer favored his
committee's recommendation to censure McCarthy for his
alleged abuse of General Zwicker. New evidence, he had
said, indicated that the Army had not cooperated with
McCarthy in his investigation of MaJor Peress, and that

the senator's treatment of General Zwicker had therefore

been justified.

 

“01616., p. 163uo.

28

Before the senate could consider section two, the
matter was conveniently taken off its hands. Senator
Bennett, Watkins' Junior colleague from Utah, moved to re-
place the Zwicker charge with a section censuring McCarthy
for vitriolic attacks on the select committee. With an
almost audible sign of relief from the resolution's sup-
porters, the substitution passed, sixty-four to twenty- FE
three.Lll

Shortly after the passage of the Bennett substitution,

the senate voted on the resolution as amended and passed it

 

by a vote of sixty-four to twenty—two. Eight senators did 7
not vote. Senator McCarthy answered "present" when his

name was called. All forty—four Democrats voted for cen-

sure while the forty-four Republicans voting split evenly.

The only independent, Senator Wayne Morse, voted for censure.

In its final passage the Flanders resolution stated:

Resolved, That the senator from Wisconsin failed to
cooperate with the subcommittee on privileges and
elections of the senate committee on rules and adminis—
tration in clearing up matters referred to that sub-
committee which concerned his conduct as a senator,
and affected the honor of the senate and, instead,
repeatedly abused the subcommittee and its members
who were trying to carry out assigned duties, there-
by obstructing the constitutional processes of the
senate, and that this conduct of the senator from
Wisconsin in failing to cooperate with a senate com—
mittee in clearing up matters affecting the honor of
the senate is contrary to senatorial traditions and
is hereby condemned.

Section 2. The senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy,
in writing to the chairman of the select committee to

 

 

Al A2

Ibid., p. 16381. Ibid., p. 16392.

29

study censure charges after the select committee had
issued its report and before the committee report was
presented to the senate, charging three members of
the select committee with "deliberate deception" and
"fraud" for failure to disqualify themselves; in
stating to the press on November A, 195A, that the
special senate session was a "lynch party"; in re—
peatedly describing this special senate session as

a "lynch bee" in a nationwide television and radio
show on November 7, 195A; in stating to the public
press on November 13, 195A, that the chairman of the
select committee was guilty of "the most unusual,
most cowardly thing I've heard of" and stating fur—
ther: "I expected he would be afraid to answer the
questions, but I didn't think he'd be stupid enough
to make a public statement"; and in characterizing
the said committee as the "unwitting handmaiden,"
"involuntary agent," and "attorneys in fact" of the
Communist party and in charging that the said com-
mittee in writing its report "imitated Communist
methods-—that it distorted, misrepresented, and
omitted in its effort to manufacture a plausible
rationalization" in support of its recommendations

to the senate, which characterizations and charges
were contained in a statement released to the press
and inserted in the Congressional Record of November
10, 195A, acted contrary to senatorial ethics and
tended to bring the senate into dishonor and disrepute,
to obstruct the constitutional processes of the senate,
and to impair its dignity; and such conduct is hereby
condemned.

 

The censure vote effected a kind of metamorphasis in
McCarthy. Although he had lost none of his rights as a
senator, he had lost status in the "world's most exclusive
club.”uu Two-thirds of the senate had publicly rebuked him.
President Eisenhower, who in 1952 had deleted from a Milwau-
kee speech a statement praising his old friend, General
Marshall, and who had promised in 1953 to make no appoint-

ments displeasing to Senator McCarthy, turned a cold shoulder

to the once powerful senator. In 1955, Senator and Mrs.

 

u3Ibid. uuRovere, op” cit., p. 236.

——_——

3O

McCarthy were stricken from the list of those invited to
White House functions. The press, which had once followed
his every move, now ignored him.

McCarthy's health failed and he became a frequent
patient at Bethesda Naval hospital. His admittance to the
hospital on April 28, 1957, then, received little notice
from the press. The next day, however, his condition was {a
listed as "serious," and on May 2, at 6:02 P.M. he died
of what his doctors described as "acute hepatitic failure."

A newspaperman was said to have observed that he "made it
A5
H

 

just in time for the seven o'clock news.

 

E
u’Ibid., p. 2A7.

CHAPTER II

THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PRESS

The American press was faced with a tremendous respon-
sibility in reporting the affairs of Joseph McCarthy.

Twelve years after his demise the public has still not
reached a consensus concerning his merits. Did he seek
personal glory and power or was he honestly concerned about
Communist subversion in the United States? While this
question is perhaps impossible to answer, it is possible

to review authoritative opinion from both sides of the
controversy.

McCarthy's supporters point out that at the very least,
he alerted the country to the danger of Communist subversion
and exposed a shamefully lax security system in the Depart—
ment of State. Conservatives William Buckley and Brent
Bozell point out that although the Tydings committee in
1950 gave an across-the-board clearance to all of those on
McCarthy's list of alleged subversives, the state department
later screened 80 percent of the cases and separated 29
percent of them. "In other words," says Buckley, "the state
department tacitly admitted that employees had't been ade-

quately screened. Therefore we are indebted to McCarthy

31

32

for Jolting the state department into reopening the
cases.”1

McCarthy's supporters are willing to give him the
benefit of doubt when the question of personal motives
arises. Buckley and Bozell claim that it is impossible
to determine whether McCarthy was above all a publicity
seeker and that only one fact can be definitely deter— FA
mined-—that he received more publicity than any American a
except the President. "However, since the need for public

ventilation of the government's security derelictions is

 

1

now firmly established, the presumption . . . ought to be i
that the senator who met the need was motivated by a desire
to serve the people."2

But what of the charge that McCarthy, by publicly
branding people as Communists, fellow travelers, or secur—
ity risks, often ruined the reputations of innocent citi-
zens? Buckley and Bozell answer that McCarthy's "method"
was to act in the interests of national security--to assume
a person unfit for government office if any doubt existed
as to his loyalty. They say that McCarthy, in making
accusations about the loyalty of state department employees,
had no obligation to adhere to the standards of proof re—

quired of a district attorney. "For government employment

 

lWilliam Buckley, Jr. and L. Brent Bozell, McCarthy

and His Enemies (Chicago: Henry Regnery Press, 195 ),
p. 166.

 

2Ibid., p. 28A.

—-..-——-———

33

is a privilege, not a right, and the security of the
country must come before the legal rights of the indivi-
dual." Furthermore, they say, McCarthy had a duty to
publicize his charges because the public has a right to
know what is happening, even though some innocent persons
3

may be hurt in the process.

On the other side of the fence stands New Yorker

 

editorial writer, Richard Rovere: "There has never been the
slightest reason to suppose that McCarthy took what he said

seriously or that he believed any of the nonsense he spread.

 

What he lusted for was glory."u To substantiate the AA
argument, Rovere recalls an incident that occurred shortly
after the Tydings committee hearings. McCarthy, he says,
delivered a speech on the senate floor on a day when only
five senators, six or seven reporters, and a handful of
tourists attended. In his speech McCarthy developed a con—
vincing case against an alleged Communist in the state de-
partment. But when the speech received only nominal mention
in the press, he dropped the case.5
Critics are not persuaded by the argument that McCarthy
contributed to the fight against Communism in the United
States. In fact, they say, he substantially detracted

from the fight. The New York Times, editorializing on a

 

McCarthy speech, said flatly that his claim as the nation's

 

3Ibid., p. 272. “Rovere, op. cit., p. A6.

51616., p. 158.

3A

number one anti-communist was "completely unsupported by
facts. He came late into the anti-communist picture and
when he did, he came in destructively." The Times then
devoted four paragraphs to documenting the contention that
by 1950 most of the "constructive anti-communist work" had
already been done.6

Discounting the merits or debits of McCarthy's anti-
Communism, it is a fact that his list of Communist sub-
versivies or security risks fluctuated wildly. As mentioned
earlier, there is still no agreement as to the number he
cited at Wheeling on February 9, 1950. Some say he claimed
the knowledge of 205 Communists in government. McCarthy
later insisted he had said there were 57. In any case, in
Reno and Salt Lake City three days later he said there were
57. That number gave way to 81 on the floor of the senate
on February 20; to 10 in the open Tydings committee hear—
ings; to 116 in the executive sessions; to 121 in the closing
phases of the investigation; to 106 in a senate speech on
June 6.7

When challenged, McCarthy tended to maintain the
offensive with a counter charge, leaving the original
question unanswered. Thus, when subcommittee chairman,
Senator Guy Gillette, wrote to McCarthy on October 1, 1951,

requesting his attendance before the subcommittee on

 

6New York Times, November 11, 195A, p. 30.

 

7Rovere, op cit. D. 130.

e ' ’ L

35

privileges and elections to answer charges made by Senator
William Benton, Democrat from Connecticut, the Wisconsin
senator dodged the issue. On October A, he replied in a
letter to Gillette:

Frankly, Guy, I have not and do not intend to even
read, much less answer, Benton's smear attack. I

am sure you realize that the Benton type of material
can be found in the Daily Worker almost any day of
the week and will continue to flow from the mouths
and pens of the camp followers as long as g continue
my fight against communists in government.

 

When the Watkins committee made its report public, recom—

mending McCarthy's censure, he answered, as has been noted,

by accusing three of the select committee's members of
prejudice and by accusing the entire committee of doing
the Communists' work.

None of the above should be interpreted as an argu—

ment that McCarthy was either a patriot or a demagogue. It

is meant to establish that he was indeed a controversial
figure. As such the American press was obligated to cover
his activities with extreme caution and care. But was the
press primarily responsible for McCarthy's meteoric rise
to fame?

Although probably not primarily responsible, the

press at least contributed a vital helping hand in bringing

McCarthy to the attention of the public and in keeping him

3'

.1
L

 

 

8U. 8., Congress, Senate, Hearings Before A Select

Committee to Study Censure, p. 23. The reader can wonder
how McCarthy knew Benton's charges constituted a "smear
attack” if, as he said in his letter, he did not even
intend to read them.

 

 

36

there. In reporting his affairs, newspapers were faced
with the difficult task of keeping a balanced picture of
the situation. Alan Barth, editorial writer for the
Washington Post, has pointed out that although there is
an element of truth in the stricture that the press built
up McCarthy and made him a power by keeping his name in-
cessantly in the headlines, it leaves out of account the
realities of daily Journalism:
No responsible newspaper could ignore sensational
charges made by a U. S. senator or fail to report
them simply because it believed them to be untrue.
That would be an unwarranted interJection of edi-
torial bias into the news columns. But the pur-
pose of good reporting must be to give readers a
focused picture of the world around them, to keep
that picture balanced and proportioned.9

The Wall Street Journal noted with despair on July

 

29, 1953, that "many writers and commentators cannot do a
piece on any subject, however remote from Mr. McCarthy,
without dragging in some gratuitous comment, pro or con,
on the senator. It's almost a compulsion neurosis."
Wallace Carroll, then Washington news editor of the

New York Times, writing in the Nieman Reports of July, 1955,

 

 

said that McCarthy used the press to further his own ends.
"Senator McCarthy was able to exploit our rigid 'objec—
tivity' in such a way as to make the newspapers his ac—

complices."

 

9Alan Barth, Government by Investigation (New York:
Viking Press, 1955), p. 19A.

 

37

The Associated Press Managing Editors Association
spent some time, at its 1953 convention, in discussing the
problems of reporting McCarthy. Its Washington Study
Committee examined the problem and came up with some
interesting conclusions. First, it acknowledged that
there was a great interest in the activities of Senator
McCarthy but stated that "whether newspapers have unwitt-
ingly been responsible for whipping it up is a matter of

10 Second, it concluded that he wouldn't get

opinion."
nearly as much publicity if there were three or four more
senators with half his sense of Showmanship. Finally, it
said that there was too much "rehash" on too many McCarthy
stories and recommended that the Associated Press "continue
to keep McCarthy in perspective. Don't go off the deep
end. Call the shots as you see them."11
At its 1951 convention, the APME admitted that it
had, at least on one occassion, aided McCarthy in distri—
buting false information. In the words of W. W. Reynolds,
chairman of the Washington Study Committee,
Senator McCarthy . . . issued a red—hot handout
early in 1951. The AP carried it without checking.
The Milwaukee Journal looked up the record and
stated that the handout consisted of half-truths

and even untruths. But the damage had been done
and the AP had aided McCarthy in spreading an

 

 

10Associated Press Managing Editors Association,
Blue Book (New York: Associated Press, 1953), p. 36.

 

lllbid., p. 2A.

 

38

unbalanced story. Care must be taken that news

statements he put in proper perspective, no matter

what the source.1

Unfortunately, this was more easily said than done.
McCarthy's statistics were so voluminous and his figures
tended to vary so frequently that it was virtually im-
possible for the reporter to check out every inconsistency.
As Barth put it, "I seldom have time to run through his
speeches. I can't afford to hire a full-time specialist
to keep up with what McCarthy has said . . ."13

The press, whether it wanted to or not, was obli—
gated to report every charge McCarthy made. He was, in
Walter Lippmann's words, a United States Senator in good
standing at the headquarters of the Republican party.
"When he makes attacks against the State Department and the
Defense Department, it is news which has to be published."lu

McCarthy's charges could have been kept in per-
spective if contradictory statements had been made from
other men of equal status. But neither President Truman
nor President Eisenhower chose to lock horns with him, and
the only senator willing to consistently cast a vote against

him prior to 195A was Senator Fulbright. Hence, McCarthy's

statements remained largely unchallenged by his colleagues.

 

12Associated Press Managing Editors Association,
Blue Book (New York: Associated Press, 1951), p. 15.

 

13Barth, op. cit., p. 56.

114Rovere, Op. cit., p. 57.

39

There were a few newspapers that fought McCarthy

from the outset of his political career. The Wisconsin

senator contended that these papers distorted the news

against him. In his book, McCarthyism: The Fight For

 

America, he complained bitterly about his coverage by the

liberal press. The job of the wire service reporters, he

said,

. was to present facts without any editorializ-
ing or distortion. In my opinion, they thus differ-
ed from men employed by papers such as the SE. Louis
Post Dispatch, New York Post, Milwaukee Journal, and
the Washington Post. . . . I, of course, knew the
left-wing elements of the press would twist and dis-
tort the story (of the Tydings committee hearings)
to protect every communist whom I exposed, but
frankly I had no conception of how far the dis-
honest news coverage would go.

 

 

 

 

 

McCarthy was one of forty-four senators who signed

a manifesto in 1951 criticizing Truman's orders for govern—

ment news secrecy as a violation of press freedom. On the

other hand he encouraged advertising boycotts of publi-

cations adversely critical of him, notably Time magazine,

16

the Milwaukee Journal, and the Madison Capital Times.

 

His attacks on several papers won him few friends

among newspaper editors and very possibly alienated many

others.

Northwestern University Journalism professor,

 

15Joseph R. McCarthy, McCarthyism: The Fight for

 

America (New York: Devin-Adair Company, 1952), pp. 3-A.

l6Charles LamMarkmann, The Noblest Cry: A History

 

of the American Civil Liberties Union (New York: St.

 

Martin's Press, 1965), p. 2A1.

AO

Curtis MacDougall has stated that "perhaps McCarthy would
have enjoyed press popularity longer had he not taken out

after newspapers and newspapermen who were adversely

critical of him."17

But is it the duty of the press to establish either
friends or enemies on its pppp_pages? When such a practice
exists the newspaper performs a disservice to its readers.
The duty of the press is rather to be objective. But
objectivity can be achieved only by being skeptical of
friend and foe alike, by taking nothing for granted or at
face value. In the words of Alan Barth,

. . there is, to be sure, no simple formula for
the achievement of genuine objectivity. One ob-
viously indispensable ingredient, however, is an
unremitting skepticism, a disposition to challenge
and probe and scrutinize every handout, every public
statement, every accusation.

There is nothing in the canons of objectivity
that requires newspapers to treat with even—handed
indifference the dredged-up reminiscences of pro-
fessional witnesses and the denials of their
victims.1

How, then, can the performance of the press be
Judged? MacDougall provides a hint:

Properly to evaluate any Journalistic performance,
the original purpose of the freedom of the press
clause in the first amendment to the Constitution
must be borne in mind. On one hand, the founding
fathers wanted to prevent any governmental inter-
ference with or censorship prior to the publication

 

l7Curtis D. MacDougall, Newsroom Problems and
Policies (New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1963),
p' d7.

18

 

Barth, op. cit., p. 19A.

A1

of news in the public interest. On the other
hand, freedom of the press also was intended as
a positive instrument to bolster the chances of
success for an experimental government of, by,
and for the people. It really was the "right
to be informed" that was being protected. .
Thus, freedom of the press is a means to an end,
not primarily an end in itself. 1
The First Amendment of the Constitution, in other words,
carries with it an obligation on the part of the press
to responsibly inform the public of the day's events.
The Hutchins Commission on Freedom of the Press, which
studied the American news media after World War II, in
explaining the first of five requirements of a free and
responsible press, points out that it must provide "a
truthful, comprehensive, and intelligent account of the
day's events in a context which gives them meaning." In
so doing, the reporter must be careful and competent, and
must identify fact as fact, and opinion as opinion. The
Hutchins Commission then goes to the nub of the matter:
"It is no longer enough to report the fact truthfully. It
is now necessary to report the truth about the fact." In
summarizing its requirements, the committee points out that
the information provided must be provided in
such a form and with so scrupulous a regard for
the wholeness of the truth and the fairness of its
presentation, that the American people may make
for themselves, by the exercise of reason and of
conscience, the fundamental decisions necessary to

the direction of their government and of their
lives.20

 

19Curtis MacDougall, Interpretative Reporting (Ath
ed., New York: Macmillan Company, 1963), p. 27.

20Commission on Freedom of the Press, A Free and
Responsible Press (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
19A7), p. 21.

 

 

 

A2:

Two other requirements of a responsible press
espoused by the Hutchins Commission are pertinent to this
discussion. First, publishers "can and should assume the
duty of publishing significant ideas contrary to their
own, as a matter of objective reporting . . J'And news-
papers, in their editorial pages, should assume a point
of view in controversial issues in order to "present and

clarify the goals and values of the society."21

Advocacy
on the part of the editors may aid the reader in forming
his own opinions and may alert him to possible bias in

the paper's news pages. The publication of divergent view-
points allows the reader to decide for himself what is
best.

A yardstick for evaluating the performance of the
individual newspaper in reporting the McCarthy censure has
been established. Judgment should depend upon the extent
to which the paper: (1) Presented all pertinent infor-
mation in a meaningful context; (2) Provided community
leadership by taking a clear and definite stand on the

proposed censure; and (3) Presented authoritative opinion

which differed from its own point of view.

 

2lIbid., p. 29.

CHAPTER III

PRESS COVERAGE

The United States Senate met in extraordinary session
on Monday, November 8, 195A to consider the Watkins com-
mittee report recommending censure of Senator McCarthy.

The Milwaukee Sentinel opened its coverage of the debate

on the front page under the headline: "McCarthy Hopes for
GOP Chiefs' Aid." Two stories were carried under the head-
line. The first, written by a staff reporter, described
the sendoff of the "Wisconsin Caravan," a group of McCarthy
supporters who were driving from Kenosha to Washington to
protest the pending senate censure. The story did not give
the number of people in the caravan, but noted that about

a hundred people attended a pro-McCarthy rally before the
sendoff. The other story, with a Washington dateline, was
attributed to the International News Service and it reported
that McCarthy had declared Sunday he expected "Democrats
and liberal Republicans to ’go down the line' in voting

to censure him but doubted that the GOP leadership would
support censure." The statements had been made during a
televised interview in which McCarthy had denounced the

proceedings as a "lynching bee" and he had said the

A3

AA

charges were motivated by self-interest. The story also
reported that McCarthy predicted he would be censured but
for political reasons. Finally, it summarized the charges
against the Wisconsin senator.

Sentinel editors left no doubt as to their stand
on the censure. In an editorial entitled, "Up Curtain,"
the newspaper commented, "We are treated—-if that is the
verb--today to the opening of another act in the stale
Washington farce of Investigating Joe. It will be over
in maybe two weeks, if we are lucky." At least, said the
editors, McCarthy would have a chance to "slug back," a
chance that was denied him by the Watkins committee.
McCarthy had had no chance to defend himself before the
select committee, the editorial said, and Senator Johnson
had been prejudiced against him. "We thought the Watkins
committee deliberations were a waste of time and we have
an idea the present proceedings will be the same."

The Wisconsin State Journal, in a story combined

 

from United Press and Associated Press, featured a front
page story beneath a two column headline, "Senator
Doubts GOP Leadership Will 'Go Along.'" The story re-
ported McCarthy's statement that he doubted Republican
leaders would sanction censure, but that the resolution

would still pass.l

 

r

1Wisconsin State Journal, November 8, 195A, p. l.

 

A5

In a story from United Press, the State Journal also

 

reported the departure of the Kenosha caravan. Included
were a few facts that the Sentinel had omitted. The story
revealed that the caravan consisted of only three cars,

one of which broke down after traveling a few yards.

The crowd at the rally was estimated at seventy-five.

The story concluded with the reminder that the week before,
the committee chairman of the America Club for Wisconsin
had announced that several thousand persons would make the
trip. "But only about a dozen filled the three care," the
story reported.

Also included on page one was a six—paragraph story
by the United Press syndicated Washington Columnist, Drew
Pearson. Pearson claimed new evidence of election irregu-
larities by McCarthy in 1952. Two short wire service
stories were carried on page two. The first reported a
Catholic priest had charged that McCarthy's enemies had
raised five million dollars to defeat him because of his
religion; the second, that Roy Cohn predicted McCarthy
would be censured.

The Drew Pearson article, which the State Journal

 

mentioned in a United Press report, was carried in its

entirety on the front page of the Madison Capital Times

 

for November 8. Pearson said that a former associate of
McCarthy's had Just given highly revealing information re-

garding his operations. They included an attempt by

A6

McCarthy to thwart the senate committee probing his finances
in 1951, and efforts to defeat Democratic candidates in
Utah, Montana, and Washington "by smearing them as com-
munists." Pearson said that a former McCarthy aide named
Harvey Matusow had told him that in 1951 he had whisked

Mrs. Alvin Bentley out of the country to prevent her from
testifying against McCarthy before the subcommittee on
elections and privileges. Matusow said Mrs. Bentley had
lent McCarthy $7,000 to fight communism but that he had

used the money to speculate in the stock market. The

Capital Times published pictures of Matusow and Mrs. Bentley

 

on the front page. The paper did not carry the story of the
Kenosha car caravan, but on page eighteen it reported that

a Gallup poll indicated a maJority of Americans favored
censure of McCarthy.

The Capital Times, the Milwaukee Journal and the

 

Appleton Post-Crescent all carried the same Associated Press

 

dispatch on November 8, reporting the morning's censure
debate. Of the three, only the Milwaukee Journal reported
the story of the Catholic priest's charges. The Capital
Timgp was the only one of the three to carry the Drew

Pearson "expose," and the Post—Crescent alone carried a

 

David Lawrence article claiming the Watkin's committee
report contained glaring errors.
The following day, both morning papers, the Sentinel

and the Statp Journal, stressed in identical Associated

 

A7

Press stories, Monday's stormy session in the Senate.
Both papers lead with this statement: "The 'Joe McCarthy
session' of the senate opened in an angry uproar before

packed galleries Monday." The State Journal, on its

 

editorial page, carried the same David Lawrence column

that the Post-Crespent had carried Monday and headlined

 

it, "Foes' Astonishing Errors May Help McCarthy." On its
editorial page the Sentinel presented a political cartoon
depicting a Democratic donkey wistfully eying an ax labeled
"partisan politics" and captioned, "Ah, temptation."

The three afternoon papers, the Milwaukee Journal,

the Capital Times, and the Post-Crescent, stressed the

 

 

possibility of a filibuster against the resolution. All
three stories originated from the Washington bureau of the
Associated Press but the lead paragraphs differed. The
Milwaukee Journal lead with, "Reports persisted today that
friends of McCarthy might try to talk to death a resolution
proposing his censure. McCarthy professed ignorance of nay
such strategy." The other two papers began with identical
leads that gave the story a slightly different connotation:
"Senator McCarthy said today he wouldn't favor any fili—
buster to prevent a senate vote on the question of censur-
ing him and would be surprised if one developed."

The Milwaukee Journal opened its editorial bombard—
ment on November 9 with a flank attack, chastizing the

priest who had charged McCarthy's enemies of hating him

A8

because of his Catholic religion. The censure, said the
editors, was not a religious issue. "Many Catholics and
Protestants alike oppose McCarthy because of his un-American
investigative techniques and his disgraceful behavior as a

United States senator." The Post-Crescent apparently pre—

 

ferred to speak again through the voice of Columnist David
Lawrence who commented in his syndicated piece that "changes
just made in the Watkins committee report" made it "even
worse" than it was in its original form.2
That night McCarthy released to the Washington
press corps his undelivered speech charging that the Watkins
committee was the "unwitting handmaiden" of the Communist
party. The speech was a top story for newspapers pub-

lished Wednesday morning, November 10. The morning

Sentinel and the State Journal carried Associated Press

 

accounts of Tuesday's developments, both leading with: "A
revised resolution of censure and condemnation--aimed at
Senator Joseph R. McCarthy--was filed in the senate today.
McCarthy counterattacked immediately with a charge that
the senate committee which drafted it was an 'unwitting

handmaiden' of the Communist party."3 The State Journal

 

made it immediately clear that McCarthy had not yet de-
livered the speech but had only released a prepared text
to the press. The Sentinel editors, delayed this infor-

mation until the fifth paragraph.

 

2Appleton Post-Crescent, November 9, 195A, p. 8.

 

3Wisconsin State Journal, November 9, 195A, p. l.

 

A9

While David Lawrence commented in the State Journal

 

on the "shoddy job" the Watkins committee had done in
studying the censure charges, the Sentinel editors leveled
their second blast in three days against the special

senate session. "During the session," the newspaper com-
mented editorially, "the Watkins committee will press
several charges against McCarthy. But the main objection

to McCarthy is that he asked: 'Who promoted Peress?'"

As long as McCarthy was investigating "little guys" he was

a hero among Republicans and some Democrats. But the minute
he came upon the Peress promotion, said the editors, "he

hit the stuffed shirts, the heavy-laden army officers who
are too lazy to read the papers that pass over their desks,
the permanent bureaucrats who rubber stamp documents be-
tween coffee breaks, who promote without looking, who sign
without reading, who give titles and honors without screen-
ing." The editorial concluded with the hope that the senate
would have the courage to ask, "Who promoted Peress?" and

to require the Army to answer.

The debate on the resolution began in earnest Wednes—
day morning, as Senator Watkins explained to the senate the
select committee's reasons for recommending censure. After—
noon papers played up the heated exchange that took place
that morning between Senators Watkins and McCarthy. The

Journal and the Post—Crescent mentioned McCarthy's prepared

 

 

“Milwaukee Sentinel, November 10, 195A, p. 18.

50

speech early in their stories. The Capital Times saved

 

revelation of this fact until the end of its three column
story. The Journal, however, was the only one of the five
papers studied that printed the entire text of the speech.
The Milwaukee Journal also printed in Wednesday's
editions, a front page cartoon depicting a man labeled
"senate leadership" driving a carriage labeled "senate
dignity." The horses drawing the coach were called
"censure proceeding," and the cartoon itself was captioned,

"5

"Keep a tight Rein, Driver. The Post—Crescent carried

 

on its editorial page a syndicated column by Joseph and
Stewart Alsop speculating on the future of the GOP as a
result of the proceedings; and this was accompanied by
David Lawrence's daily criticism of the precedents set by
the Watkins committee.

The sun set in the Capital Wednesday and McCarthy
did not deliver the speech he had released to the press.
Claiming at the close of the day's session that time did
not permit, he nevertheless had the speech inserted in the

Congressional Record. Of the five newspapers examined in

 

this study, the Milwaukee Journal was the only one to call
this fact to the attention of its readers.

For Thursday morning's editions, Sentinel editors
pulled a parliamentary question by Senator Case, South

Dakota Republican, from the bottom of an Associated Press

 

5Milwaukee Journal, November 10, 195A, p. 1.

51

dispatch and made it the opening sentence of a banner
story. "Two-thirds Vote Issue Raised in Censure Fight,"

cried the Sentinel's eight-column wide banner headline.

 

"A question was raised in the senate Wednesday whether a
two-thirds vote would be required to censure Senator
McCarthy for alleged contempt of an elections subcommittee
in the 82nd Congress," the story began.6 The story then
revealed that Senator Case had merely asked the senate
parliamentarian, who took the question under advisement,
if a two-thirds vote would be necessary to discipline a
member for his actions in an earlier Congress. The question
was left hanging, for the Sentinel, in subsequent issues,
never informed its readers that the parliamentarian ad—
vised the senate Thursday that a two-thirds vote would not
be necessary.

The State Journal carried the usual David Lawrence

 

column attacking the select committee, and a Westbrook
Pegler column entitled, "Let's 'Git Fer Home' or We Face

A Pasting." The column generally followed the mood of its
lead sentence, which declared, "Whoever says Joe McCarthy's
fight against treason in the national government of these
American states has hampered the efforts of that government
to unite Europe against communism is a liar."7

All three afternoon papers carried, in addition to

accounts of the morning's debate, a story which noted that

 

6Milwaukee Sentinel, November 11, 195A, p. 1.

7Wisconsin State Journal, November 11, 195A, p. 8.

 

52

McCarthy's senior Republican colleague from Wisconsin,
Senator Alexander Wiley, was in an uncomfortable political
position because of the censure resolution. The Milwaukee
Journal printed a James Reston news analysis surmising
that McCarthy would "fight against censure by the senate
with every weapon at his command and he is going to keep
it up as long as he can." On the same day, the Pppp—
Crescent carried another David Lawrence commentary on its
editorial page.

The Sentinel reported Friday morning in a page one
banner story from International News Service, that "Senator
Case said Thursday the senate could shelve its censure
action against Senator McCarthy if he would 'retract' his
alleged insults of colleagues." A second front page story,
as long as its banner story, was headlined, "Throng of 500
McCarthy Supporters 'Go Wild' at Sight of Him." McCarthy,
it appeared, had been spotted by some feminine admirers as
he passed them on his way to the senate chambers. "A gray
haired woman in a pink hat kissed Senator McCarthy Thursday
and hundreds who were lined up with her waiting to get into
the senate galleries 'went wild.'" On an inside page the
Sentinel reported a rally held Thursday night in Washington
at Constitution Hall in McCarthy's honor. The Spapp
Journal also covered Case's compromise offer and the

Washington rally, but did not mention the Capitol incident.

53

The Milwaukee Journal reported Friday that Senator
Everitt Dirksen, Republican from Illinois, had revealed
he was shaping a substitute resolution "in an effort to
compromise the bitter fight over the Wisconsin Republican's
conduct." The two other afternoon papers in the study be-
gan their stories with coverage of a speech by Mississippi's
Senator John Stennis, who "told the senate Senator McCarthy
has followed a pattern of throwing 'slush and slime' at all
senators who criticize him." Both papers mentioned well
into their stories that, "among Republican senators, there
is increasing talk of compromise" but neither mentioned
Senator Dirksen by name. Each of the three afternoon papers
gave inside page coverage to the Constitution Hall rally.

The Sentinel, on Saturday, November 13, reviewing
Friday's debate, played its eight column banner story with
the statement from International News Service, that "Senator
McCarthy was brought under bitter attack Friday by two mem-
bers of the bi-partisan committee which has asked his cen-
sure, but the Wisconsin Red—hunter stuck to his charge
that his critics were 'unwitting handmaidens' of the Com—
munists." While McCarthy was being "bitterly attacked,"
the story said, "Senators Goldwater and Bricker spoke out
in vigorous defense of McCarthy." Part of the Arizona
senator's "vigorous defense" included the accusation that
"all the discredited and embittered figures of the Hiss-
Yalta period of American dishonor have crawled out from

under their logs to join the efforts to get even."

5A

The Associated Press lead, carried by the Wisconsin

State Journal and the Milwaukee Journal, on Saturday, was

 

a bit more even keeled than that carried by the Inter-
national News Service: "Senator Joseph R. McCarthy was
assailed as a spreader of 'slush and slime,‘ and defended
as a victim of spiteful slanders, in the week's final
session of the senate debate on the question of censuring
him."

The Capital Times and Post—Crescent headlined their

 

 

day's identical Associated Press stories in manners which
relfected their differing editorial views on the censure
resolution. "Deal on Joe Out After Monday," read the

Capital Times headline. "GOP Chief May Try To Soften Cen-

 

sure Action," proclaimed the Post-Crescent. Both papers

 

followed with identical stories that began, "Republican
leaders reportedly set a Monday target date for efforts to
soften a censure resolution against Senator McCarthy."
After Friday's senate debate, McCarthy flew to
Milwaukee to attend a Saturday night birthday anniversary
dinner in his honor at the Hotel Pfister. The Sentinel
on Sunday allotted most of page one to the event. A
front page banner headline screamed,_"Censure Denounced
As Gag at Huge Rally Here For Joe." Two related stories
were placed under the banner. The first detailed the
address delivered by the main speaker, Senator Goldwater.
The story emphasized the enthusiastic support which was

displayed for McCarthy at the dinner: "The throng, which

55

jammed the hotel's seventh floor Fern Room and adjoining
halls as they have never been jammed before, greeted
Senator McCarthy himself with one of the greatest ovations
of his career and went wild thereafter at every mention of
his name."

The second story covered McCarthy's speech at the
dinner and explained, in folksy fashion, the welcome he
received from the crowd: "With radio broadcast time coming
up at 8:30, Toastmaster Taylor invited the crowd to put on
a real demonstration for the benefit of the radio audience.
When the time came, the diners really raised the roof while
the senator and his wife stood up there happily, waving with
clasped hands to the cheering throng."

On the second page, the Sentinel reported a press
conference that McCarthy had held at the Pfister before the
dinner. He referred to a statement made by Senator Watkins
earlier in the week that he would no longer submit to
directing questioning by McCarthy on the senate floor. "It
is the most unusual, the most cowardly thing I've heard of,"
McCarthy said. "I expected he would be afraid to answer
questions, but I didn't think he would be stupid enough to
make a public statement."

The State Journal accented the press conference in

 

a front page story reported by the United Press. The story's
headline was reminiscent of a high school popularity con-

test: "McCarthy Calls Watkins' Rule 'Most Cowardly.'"

56

The story detailed both the statement at the press con-
ference and the activities at the birthday dinner.

The Milwaukee Journal in its Sunday editions, re-
ported the dinner in a front page story, detailing the
Goldwater and McCarthy speeches and describing the atmos-
phere at the Hotel Pfister. With tongue in cheek, a
Journal reporter quoted a McCarthy backer at the dinner:
"'I actually touched him,‘ said one matron in a mink coat.
'That certainly was worth $5.'"

The Sentinel and State Journal on Monday morning,

 

November 15, reported in identical Associated Press stories
that "efforts to compromise a censure resolution against
Senator McCarthy appeared to be verging on collapse Sunday
in the face of McCarthy's refusal to retract his attacks

on colleagues." The State Journal, in another front page

 

story, this one reported by the United Press, said that a
nationwide drive was launched Sunday "to collect the signa-
tures of ten million Americans in ten days on petitions
urging the United States senate to reject 'Red-inspired'
censure charges against Senator Joseph R. McCarthy." The
same story was carried that afternoon by the Milwaukee

Journal. Finally, the State Journal, on its editorial page,

 

printed a David Lawrence column charging Senator Flanders
with splitting the Republican party with his censure

resolution.

57

In Washington that Monday morning, Senator Watkins
appeared before McCarthy's subcommittee on investigations,
ostensibly to testify to any knowledge he had concerning
the promotion and honorable discharge from the Army of
the "accused Communist," Major Irving Peress. The two
senators' inevitable clash was the lead story in the three
afternoon papers in the study. In a related front page
story, the Journal reported the morning's censure debate.
After the story jumped to an inside page, the paper revealed
that Senator Case of the select committee "formally with—
drew support for one of the two counts on which the com-
mittee recommended censure of McCarthy." Case, the story
reported, said he had changed his mind when he saw a letter
that Secretary of the Army Stevens had showed him Saturday.
The story reported that the letter was not made public.

The Capital Times and Post-Crescent, evidently receiving

 

 

the news too late for detailed coverage, inserted the in-
formation in a one-paragraph box within the lead Associ-
ated Press story reporting the Watkins-McCarthy clash.

Monday's Capital Times reprinted on its editorial

 

page a New York Times editorial that scathingly attacked

 

McCarthy and "McCarthyism." Post—Crescent editorials in—

 

cluded opinions on the state's conservation commission,
the disenfranchisement of Washington, D. C. citizens,
and the evils of "junk mail," but the editors maintained
their silence on the proposed censure of their home town

senator.

58

Senator Case's reversal of opinion was front page
news Tuesday in the two morning papers in the study.
Beneath an eight column banner headline topping an Inter-
national News Service story, the Sentinel reported that
"Senator Case Monday broke with fellow members of the
senate censure committee and said that because of 'new
evidence' he will vote against any rebuke of Senator
McCarthy on a charge he 'abused' Brig. Gen. Ralph W.
Zwicker." Meanwhile, the Sentinel reported, Senator Ervin
of the select committee spoke out strongly for censure.
The Sentinel delayed until the end of its one—and—a-half
column story to detail Case's reasons for withdrawing his
support on the Zwicker charge.

The State Journal, in a story from United Press, also

 

reported in detail Case's change of mind, stating in addi-
tion that "the other five members of the committee remained
firm in support of the Zwicker count." On its editorial
page, the newspaper printed a background story by staff
writer Sanford Goltz, who traced the development of censure
proceedings in the history of the senate. But the editors

of the State Journal, like those of the Post-Crescent, kept

 

 

their opinions of the present censure resolution to them-
selves. Editorials on Tuesday, November 16, were written
about highway safety, peaceful co-existence, long—winded

speakers, and the University of Wisconsin football team.

59

The Milwaukee Journal reported Tuesday afternoon
in a front page story from Associated Press, that GOP
leaders were still seeking to modify the censure resolution.
Two senators, identified as Knowland and Bridges, "said
Tuesday that efforts were underway to compromise or modify
the resolution to censure Senator McCarthy. They talked
of a possible test vote late this week or early next week."
Further into its story, the Journal revealed Case's
rationale for withdrawing his support of the Zwicker
charge.

The Capital Times and Post—Crescent carried identical

 

 

Associated Press stories, but played them differently.

"Why Didn't Joe Face Fund Quiz?" asked the Capital Times

 

headline. "Senator Watkins, noting Senator McCarthy has
accused him of being 'cowardly' asked today why McCarthy
didn't go before a senate elections subcommittee which
looked into his financial affairs in 1951-52."8 The Ppsp:
Crescent headlined the same story, "Compromise Move Due

on McCarthy Censure." In the eighth paragraph of the story

a possible compromise by the senate committee was mentioned.

The Capital Times in its Tuesday editions moved

 

syndicataicolumnist Drew Pearson from the editorial page
to page one. Pearson claimed that a rabbi and anti-
semites had joined forces in support of Senator McCarthy.

On an inside page columnists Joseph and Stewart Alsop

 

8Madison Capital Times, November 16, 195A, p. 1.

 

60

speculated on how the senate would "line up" on the cen-
sure resolution. In an editorial, "The Defendant Is Try-
ing and Accusing Plaintiff," the paper said it appeared
that McCarthy was trying the senate rather than the senate
trying McCarthy. "By his demagogic double—talk, his mis-
representations and his constant repetitions he is making
a test of the honor and dignity of the senate appear to
be a test of who is in the Communist conspiracy." But if
McCarthy was a demogogue, his opponents were "spineless
politicians," unwilling to maintain the dignity of the
senate:
He knows he is dealing with a craven lot of poli-
ticians who, if they had the guts to stand by the
traditions of the senate, would long ago have
stopped him dead in his tracks.

It is said that McCarthy is deliberately in-
viting censure. He probably reasons--and Justifi-
ably--that it is an honor to be censured by such a
crowd of craven, crawling politicians.9
While the three evening papers in the study were

rolling their presses on Tuesday, in Washington Senator
Watkins was concluding a stinging denunciation that had
been interrupted by the noon recess. He ended by chal—
lenging his colleagues to censure McCarthy for his abusive
treatment of the select committee:
Lastly, in our own presence, here in the senate, we
have seen another example of the Senator's hit—and—
run attack. Senators have seen what I have called

to their attention, an attack on their representa-
tive, their agent. They have seen an attack made

 

 

61

on that agent's courage and intelligence. They

have heard the junior senator from Wisconsin say

that I am both stupid and a coward. I am asking

all my colleagues in the senate . . . what are

you going to do about it?10

Watkins' junior colleague from Utah, Senator Bennett,
also a Republican, answered that pointed question near the
close of the day's session. He announced that he would,
at the appropriate time, propose an amendment to the
resolution that would suggest "that the junior senator
from Wisconsin has shown contempt for the senate by his
personal attack on the chairman of the select committee and
on the committee itself."ll

Four of the five newspapers on Wednesday published

as the top page one story the new censure charge on the

censure debate. The exception was the Post-Crescent, whose

 

editors apparently believed that a speech by Senator Welker
made Wednesday morning and reported by the Associated Press
was of more importance: "Senator Welker, contending that
Senator McCarthy has been the target of words just as

harsh as he has thrown, held the senate floor today for a
defense of the Wisconsin Republican against censure charges."
Mention of Bennett's proposed censure was buried deep in

the page one story.

 

10U. S. Congressional Record, 83d Cong., 2n Sess.,
195A, vol. C, Part 12, p. 16059.

 

Ibid., p. 16071.

 

62

The State Journal on Wednesday, November 17, pub-
lished on its editorial page a David Lawrence column
claiming that the senate had prejudged the censure report
of the Watkins committee. The Milwaukee Journal, on the
other hand, editorially urged the adoption of new rules
governing senate investigative committees regardless of
the outcome of the McCarthy censure. "The abuse of General
Zwicker and the slandering of Senator Hendrickson by
McCarthy are only two incidents in a long list of name
calling and maligning in which the Wisconsin junior senator
has engaged from his 'foxhole of immunity' in the senate."

McCarthy was not seen in the senate chambers Wednes-
day, when his senior colleague from Wisconsin, Senator
Wiley, announced he was leaving for Brazil that day to
attend a conference in Rio de Janeiro and would not be
present to vote on the censure resolution. But, said
Wiley, he wished to make it clear that, even if present,
he would not vote. He believed he should follow proper
judicial procedure and disqualify himself from cases in
which he had a personal interest. Since both he and Senator
McCarthy represented the same constituency, he said, he
had a personal interest in the resolution and could not
properly vote one way or the other.

The cause of Senator McCarthy's absence was made
clear the next morning. With an eight column banner head—

line, the Sentinel proclaimed, "McCarthy In Hospital;

63

Debate Censure Recess." According to the International
News Service dispatch, McCarthy had injured his right
elbow at the birthday dinner in Milwaukee the previous
Saturday. An over-zealous admirer had apparently shaken
his hand too vigorously, causing McCarthy's elbow to
crash into the edge of a glass-topped table. In another
front page story, the Sentinel reported that Senator
Wiley would not vote on the censure resolution.

In an editorial entitled, "Case's Switch," the
Sentinel returned to an often heard refrain:

The real issue before the senate becomes clearer

as the walla-walla of speeches continues. It is

brought into focus by the announcement of Senator

Case that he has changed his position on the

Zwicker point of the Watkins committee report.

So the issue again is, simply, 'Who promoted

Peress'?12

Thursday, November 19, was the first day the censure

proceedings appeared as the principal page one story in

the State Journal. The news reported by the Associated

 

Press, was that McCarthy was hospitalized and that debate
would, in all probability, be suspended. The story also
reported, as did the Sentinel, that Senator Dirksen was
preparing a substitute resolution that would soften the
censure proposal. Wiley's decision not to participate in
the vote on censure, reported by the Associated Press, was

carried on page<Nkeof the State Journal in a separate story.

 

 

2 .
l M1lwaukee Sentinel, November 18, 195A, p. 22.

6A

The Milwaukee Journal gave greater importance than
the two morning papers to Senator Wiley's announcement.
Two stories appeared under the page one headline, "Wiley
Will Avoid Vote on McCarthy Issue." The first story,
written by Laurence Eklund of the Journal Washington
bureau, reported that "Senator Wiley is ducking a vote
on the McCarthy censure issue, which has put him on the
hottest spot of his fifteen year career as a senator."

The second story, from Associated Press, disclosed another
development in the censure controversy: "Senator Edwin
Johnson asked Thursday that the senate add to the McCarthy
censure resolution a new section condemning the Communist
Party in this country and urging continued investigation
of it." McCarthy's hospitalization was not mentioned
until the third paragraph of the story.l3'

The Journal editor did not delay in commenting
editorially on Wiley's decision. A lead editorial on
Thursday said that "Senator Wiley has an ingenious, if
unconvincing excuse for not voting on the censure of our
junior senator." The editors argued that Wiley had an
obligation to vote one way or the other: "If Senator
McCarthy has brought disrepute on the senate, that dis—
repute affects Senator Wiley just the same as any other
senator. And he has just as much responsibility to have

his vote recorded as has any other senator."lu

 

13Milwaukee Journal, November 18, 195A, p. l.

lulbid., p. 2A.

*-

65

Both the Capital Times and Post-Crescent carried,

 

 

with minor revisions, an Associated Press story reporting
a proposal from Colorado's Senator Johnson that the cen-
sure resolution be amended to include a condemnation of
the Communist party in the United States. The Capital
Timgs included a full text of the amendment and inserted
the news of Wiley's decision in the Johnson story. The
paper also printed an editorial from a Munich, Germany

paper, Sud-Deutsche Zeitung, which commented that McCarthy

 

had lost the attention of the American people, and that
no one was paying much attention to him any more.

Both morning newspapers examined in this study re-
ported the next day that the censure debate had been sus-
pended until November 29, when it was believed McCarthy
would be sufficiently recovered to attend the sessions.
Both papers also commented on Senator Wiley's announcement
that he would not vote on the censure resolution. In an
editorial, "Memo to Senator Wiley," the Sentinel informed
the senior senator that the "average man" deplored his
"decision to run out on [his] plain obligation to vote for
or against the motion to censure Senator McCarthy." The
editorial concluded with a plea to the senator to recon—
sider his decision. "None of us agrees completely on all
issues, but all of us want to continue our pride in the

courage and integrity of both of our Wisconsin senators!"

66

Editors of the Wisconsin State Journal, who thus

 

far had declined to endorse or criticize the censure

resolution for its Madison readerships, denounced Senator

Wiley for taking a similar position: "If Alex Wiley

thinks he solved any personal political problem by announc-

ing he would not vote on the censure changes . . . he

guessed wrong." The editors argued that he had a duty to m\

vote and noted "by refusing to take a stand on the issue, “a

Senator Wiley satisfies neither side." A
The three afternoon newspapers published an Associ— j

ated Press dispatch reporting that Alex Wiley's stand had

 

angered Senator McCarthy's supporters and enemies alike.
Both Republican and Democratic leaders in Wisconsin voiced
bitter disappointment in his decision.

On Friday, November 20, the Capital Times and Post-

 

Crescent carried the same Associated Press account of the
censure developments, but the headline over the story in
each newspaper gave readers decidedly different impres—
sions. The story began, "Senators marking time in an
eleven day recess while Senator McCarthy is treated for

an elbow injury disagreed sharply today on whether they
ever will reach a showdown on censuring him." The Capital
Timgs headlined the story, "Fear Recess May End Chance

of Vote on Censure." The Post-Crescent headlined the

 

same story, "Senators Expect Vote on Censure by December

2A." Neither headline was technically wrong, but both

67

were misleading and neither indicated the story's true
contents.

That afternoon the Capital Times recorded its

 

bitterest attack to date on McCarthy and the entire senate.
In a lead editorial, "The Cowardly Stampede in the U. S.
Senate," the newspaper charged senators with both cowardice
and ambition:
Knowland, Nixon, Bridges, and the other compro-
misers will remain silent pubicly because they put
ambition above honor. . . . For the most part, the
senators loathe McCarthy. . . . But for the most
part, too, they are cowards. They are afraid to
say what they think.15
The editors called on the senate to expel McCarthy and
return him to the Wisconsin electorate. "We say to the
senate: send him back to Wisconsin and force him into an
election and the people of this state will see to it that
he never again makes the senate of the United States reek
16

with his moral squalor."

In its second editorial, the Capital Times castigated

 

Senator Wiley for refusing to take a stand on the censure.
"It is typical of Wiley's whole political career that he
collapses when the showdown comes," said the editors.
Finally, the editorial warned that Wisconsin's senior
senator would suffer politically for his decision, for
"there is no such a thing as being neutral on an evil

as monstrous as McCarthyism."

 

15Madison Capital Times, November 19, 195A, p. 31.

 

16Ibid.

-——-

68

During the eleven-day senate recess, two notable
articles appeared in the five Wisconsin daily newspapers

studied. First, the Post-Crescent, on Monday, November

 

22, ended its long editorial silence on the censure by
joining the other four papers in denouncing Senator Wiley.
In a commentary entitled, "Senator Wiley Runs For Cover,"
the editors said, "Senator Wiley has increased neither
his stature nor his chances of winning re-election in 1956
by announcing he will abstain from voting on the McCarthy

censure resolution." His excuse, to the Post-Crescent,

 

was a weak one. A vote one way or the other would have
made him political enemies, but would have won him respect.
But his decision to abstain would win the respect to no
on.

During the eleven—day senate recess the Hearst
newspaper in Milwaukee engaged in journalistic irres-
ponsibility in its news columns. In a front page eight
column banner headline, the Sentinel announced on Tuesday,
November 23, in a story from International News Service:
"Operate On Joe's Elbow." The story began: "An operation
to remove glass fragments from the right elbow of Senator
McCarthy was performed Monday morning."

The dispatch from Washington later explained how
the news service accomplished this remarkable scoop.
McCarthy, it seems, allowed no news reporters to inter-

view him during his stay at Bethesda Naval hospital. On

69

Monday, however, he had allowed International News Service
photographer Al Muto to take some pictures of him. The
senator told the photographer that the doctors had oper—
ated on his elbow that morning and had removed some glass
particles. McCarthy said another operation would be per-
formed Tuesday.

International News Service editors either did not
bother to verify the story with McCarthy's doctors, or
worse, they ignored their denials. The Milwaukee Journal
unmasked the frace Tuesday afternoon in a page one story,
headlined, "No Operation On McCarthy." Bethesda doctors
had removed "a small amount of fluid" from Senator
McCarthy's elbow on Monday. The doctors stated, however,
"'This is not considered technically to be an operation.'"
The doctors announced further that no operations were antici—
pated.

In its editions for Wednesday, November 2A, the
Sentinel diverted readers"attention in a banner story,
"Five Die in Storm Crashes." No retraction of the mis-
leading news published Tuesday morning was ever printed.
Sentinel readers were allowed to maintain their understand-
ing that Senator McCarthy had undergone surgery on his
elbow.

Senator McCarthy was released from the hospital
Sunday, November 28, and the senate resumed debate the

next day on its resolution to censure the senator. Four

70

of the five papers emphasized early in their front page
stories of the censure proceedings that McCarthy said he
would oppose any move by his friends to filibuster, and
would ask that a time limit be placed on debate. The
Milwaukee Journal, on the other hand, in a story filed
by its Washington bureau, reported that "Senator McCarthy
told the senate Monday that he would be the last to
deliberately abuse his colleagues but said that he was
not making an apology."

The next day the two morning papers and the Milwaukee
Journal emphasized the news that the senate had consented
to McCarthy's unanimous consent request to and debate
Wednesday. The Sentinel injected a dash of color into its
story, noting that McCarthy was "lustily applauded by the
galleries as he strode into the chamber with his blue
serge jacket draped over the white sling in which he carried
his right arm . . ."

The Capital Times and Post-Crescent accented a side

 

 

exchange that took place Wednesday morning between Senators
Jenner and Flanders, then reported that a time limit had
been formally placed on debate. Four papers, excluding

the Capital Times, reported in separate stories a pro

 

McCarthy rally Monday night in Madison Square Garden.
Special attention to a speech by Senator Mundt who
claimed that "Reds the world over would exploit a vote

to censure the Wisconsin Republican as a 'retreat in the

71

fight against Communist,'" was reported in a page one
story from International News Service in the Sentinel
for December 1.17

After carefully detailing Mundt's address, the
Sentinel gave passing mention to speeches by Senators

Lehman and Fulbright, who urged censure of McCarthy.

The State Journal, on the other hand, began its story in

 

this manner: "The last full day of debate in the McCarthy
censure row ended Tuesday night with impassioned appeals
and counter appeals in an all but empty senate chamber."
First Lehman's, then Mundt's, and finally Fulbright's

speech was reviewed. The State Journal also printed a

 

David Lawrence article, which also had appeared in Monday's

Post—Crescent. Lawrence contended that the censure debate

 

was being conducted on an emotional rather than a logical
basis. If the merits of the resolution were discussed
logically, he said, McCarthy would be exonerated.

A new development in the censure debate in Washington
occurred in the senate chambers Wednesday morning, December
1. Senator McCarthy charged that the subcommittee on
privileges and elections had, during the course of its
1952 investigation, placed an illegal "mail cover" on his
correspondence. All the senators on the subcommittee, on
the floor of the senate December 1, not only denied

knowledge of such a mail cover but also professed ignorance

 

l7Milwaukee Sentinel, December 1, 195A, p. 1.

72

of the meaning of the term. In due course it was estab-
lished that a mail cover meant a check, by postal authori-
ties, on the return addresses of incoming mail. It was
also discovered that such a check was not illegal.18

The Journal and Post-Crescent reported the mail

 

cover indicent in identical stories from the Associated
Press. The article gave the reader the pertinent facts.
It defined "mail cover" and reported Senator Hayden's
statement that a check had been placed on McCarthy's
mail, but without the knowledge of the subcommittee mem-
bers, and that a mail cover was not illegal.

Mail covers did not take up all the senate's time
on Wednesday, however. Thursday, December 2, lead stories

in the Sentinel, the State Journal, and the Milwaukee

 

Journal announced that the senate had censured McCarthy
for his abuse in 1952 of the subcommittee on elections and
privileges. The vote was sixty-seven to twenty.

The Post-Crescent that afternoon reported a new

 

development in the continuing story. "The senate today
tabled the second censure count against Senator McCarthy.
This is the charge that McCarthy 'intemperately abused'

Brig. Gen. Ralph W. Zwicker." But the Capital Times re—

 

ported yet a later occurrence: "The senate today voted to
condemn Senator McCarthy for his attacks on the special

committee that recommended he be censured and for calling

 

18U. S. Congressional Record, 83d Cong., 2d Sess.,
195A, vol. C, Part 12, p. 16268.

 

73

the extraordinary senate session a 'lynch party.’ The
roll call vote was sixty-four to twenty-three."

On the same day, Thursday, December 2, the senate
voted sixty-four to twenty-two to adopt the resolution as
a whole, thus formally censuring Senator Joseph Raymond
McCarthy.19

The Milwaukee Journal called editorially once again
for the adoption of procedural rules governing conduct of
senate investigative committees:

It is not enough for the senate to censure Senator

McCarthy for trampling underfoot standards of

fairness and decency, as well as the dignity of

congress. It is also the duty of the senate to

set up rules to put an end to demagogic methods

and to protect individual rights.20

The State Journal and the Post-Crescent had, as of

 

 

Thursday, December 2, recorded their opinions on the censure
debate only once. Their lone editorials had castigated
Senator Wiley for refusing to cast a vote in the proceed-

ings. At Madison the State Journal published contained

 

editorials on December 2 entitled, "What's Winter Without
Snow" and "Taxes . . . Always Taxes." Other opinions were
voiced on the stability of the economy and the advisability

of one—way streets in Madison. Post-Crescent editorials

 

for December 2 were entitled, "Our Asia Policy," "School
Scholarships for the Needy," and "Haircuts For Crippled

Children."

 

19U. S. Congressional Record, 83d Cong., 2d sess.,
195A, vol. C, Part 12, p. 15922.

20

 

Milwaukee Journal, December 2, 195A, p. 2A.

7A

On Friday, December 3, the Wisconsin State Journal

 

ended its silence. The whole censure proceeding, the
editors said, was an unnecessary waste of time. "Cer-
tainly we must have more important things to do than work
ourselves into a lather about a single member of Congress."
Many senators had obstructed the senate's procedures more
than McCarthy but had not been censured. Nor should he be
censured for "name-calling" for his enemies had freely

used intemperate language in referring to McCarthy. Finally,
the senate had no right to censure a duly elected repre-
senative of the Wisconsin electorate. "He is reSponsible
to the voters of this state and the voters of this state
need no help in making up their minds about him. . . .

Joe McCarthy is our business," the newspaper noted editori-
ally.

The Capital Times also ridiculed the censure to its

 

Madison readers, but for far different reasons. "At best
the censure votes against Senator McCarthy are an expres—
sion of a puny indignation for the colossal assault the
Wisconsin demagogue has made on the dignity and honor of
the senate almost from the time he arrived there in l9A7."
McCarthy openly invited censure to split and to gain con-
trol of the Republican party, the newspaper commented
editorially. Abandonment of the "Zwicker count" was termed
a "cowardly and lowly thing." Indeed, Joe McCarthy was

the business of Wisconsin's voters, and the senate's duty

was clear.

75

The senate must expel McCarthy and send him back
to the people of this state to answer for the
shame he has brought upon us. The senate can rest
assured that if it does, he will never again make
the senate of the United States a temple of moral
squalor.21
The Milwaukee Sentinel, long a champion of Senator
McCarthy, evidently no longer considered the promotion of
Peress the over—riding question. In an editorial on
Saturday, December A, the paper ignored the merits or de-

merits of censure and discussed instead its effects on the

Republican party. "The immediate effect of censure is that
it splits the Republican party. . . . The split can't be
healed by 1956 as it is too fundamental." The editorial

mentioned the implications of censure on the "Communist
conspiracy" but carefully avoided identifying the Sentinel
with those who claimed the senate's action meant a Communist
victory. "So far as Senator Joe McCarthy is concerned, the
effect of the censure is regarded as a Communist victory

and he will undoubtedly go to the country with that story."

The Post—Crescent officially ended its silence on

 

censure on Friday. In a rather non-committal editorial,
the paper observed that only one of the counts against
McCarthy had any genuine merit. That was the charge that
he refused to testify before the 1952 subcommittee. The
senate was wise, however, in rejecting the "Zwicker count"
as it "became obvious that McCarthy had at least some

justification for acting as he did towards Zwicker." The

 

21Madison Capital Times, December 3, 195A, p. 2A.

 

editors noted that "the senate's action was to a certain
extent political in that not one Democratic senator voted
against the resolution." The tragedy, the newspaper told
its readers, was that McCarthy's crusade against Communism
had slowed down and much of the responsibility for that
fact rested with the senator himself. Finally, the editors
voiced concern that the senator was coming under the in-
fluence of extremists. "McCarthy seems to be surrounding
himself more and more with people who whisper to him that
he can do no wrong. He is becoming influenced by extremists."
Of the five Wisconsin daily newspapers considered in
the study, the Milwaukee Journal was the only one that
seemed completely satisfied with the passage of the censure
resolution. On Friday, December 3, the newspaper commented
editorially, "It has taken the senate a long time to re-
vive its waning dignity by censuring McCarthy. It is
incredible that more than twenty senators voted against
censure." The paper then singled out the senators who they
believed deserved special praise for their "courageous fight
for the right." Political affiliation was not mentioned
because the subject of McCarthy was not considered a
partisan issue. "On the issue of McCarthyism they ignored
partisanship and stood as United States Senators and Ameri-
cans insistent that dignity, decency and fair play be re-

stored to American public life."

77

There was some confusion in the senate as to
whether or not McCarthy had actually been censured. After
the resolution had passed Thursday, Senators Bridges and
Jenner pointed out that the text used the word "condemned"
rather than "censured." They asked the vice president,
presiding officer of the senate, if Senator McCarthy had
indeed been censured. Nixon answered that they could
attach any meaning they wished to the resolution. Later,
reporters cornered McCarthy and asked him whether the
senate's action amounted to "censure." He replied, "I

wouldn't say it was a vote of confidence."22

 

22Milwaukee Journal, December 3, 195A, p. l.

CHAPTER IV

CONCLUSIONS

On the whole, the five Wisconsin daily newspapers
examined in the study did an adequate job in reporting
the day-to-day developments of the censure debate of
Senator McCarthy. Reactions of state political leaders
were reported and all five papers informed their readers
of Senator Wiley's dilemma and ultimate decision not to
vote on the censure resolution.

But if the papers adequately reported the breaking
news, they failed to put it into a meaningful context.

Only the Milwaukee Journal and the Wisconsin State Journal

 

printed background pieces detailing the history of censure
resolutions in the senate. None of the papers sketched
McCarthy's political career prior to the censure resolution.
Although all five papers recorded the roll call vote on the
resolution, only the Milwaukee Journal printed the text of
the resolution as passed by the senate.

Senator Herman Welker, Idaho Republican, was fre-
quently referred to as the "unofficial floor manager" of
the forces who opposed censure. He spoke more frequently

during the debate than any three senators combined. But

78

79

who was Herman Welker? What was his background? What was
his relationship with McCarthy? About the only information
newspaper readers were told was that he was from Idaho and
that he was an unofficial floor manager, a term that neither
the reporters nor the editors defined.

Since all five papers relied primarily on wire ser-
vices for news on censure developments, day-to-day coverage
was, for the most part, uniform. Contradictory headlines
were occasionally placed, however, on identical stories,
carried by different newspapers. The papers were generally
conscientous about reporting the facts of the debate as the
reporters saw the facts. But again, there were exceptions.
Only the Milwaukee Journal mentioned that McCarthy's "hand—
maiden" speech was never delivered on the senate floor.

The Milwaukee Sentinel reported that doctors had operated
on McCarthy's elbow, and after it was obvious that no sur-

gery had been performed, the paper did not retract the story.

 

The Wisconsin State Journal and the Appleton Post-
Crescent treated their readers to a steady barrage of
syndicated columnist David Lawrence, who was biased in his

writing toward McCarthy. The Madison Capital Times countered

 

with syndicated columnist Drew Pearson, who was biased
against the senator. Editors of the five papers also in-
cluded in their editorial pages a splattering of other
columnists such as the Alsop brothers, James Reston, George

Sokolsky, and Westbrook Pegler. Their opinions rarely

8O

differed from the editors'. The Post-Crescent, the

 

Wisconsin State Journal, and the Milwaukee Sentinel never

 

printed columns-to balance the David Lawrence slant, and

the Qgpital Times never published syndicated columns

 

opposing the Drew Pearson bias. In short, readers were
denied a diversity of opinion in any one newspaper, al-
though the five papers themselves differed drastically
from one another.

Three of the papers editorialized extensively during

the debate. The Capital Times printed eight opinions, al-

 

though two of them were editorials reprinted from the New

York Times and the Deutsche Zeitung. The Milwaukee Sentinel

 

 

commented on the censure seven times; the Milwaukee Journal
six times. The three papers left no doubt in the minds of
their readers as to where they stood on the censure charges.
At times the opposing opinions and charges voiced by the

Capital Times and the Sentinel seemed shrill and strongly

 

partisan.

The State Journal and the Post-Crescent each editori-

 

 

alized only twice; once to criticize Senator Wiley for
keeping his views to himself, and once to comment on the
passage of the resolution. or the two, only the S3333
Journal voiced a definite opinion on the senate's action.

The Post-Crescent editorial of Friday, December 3, may

 

have satisfied all of its readers or none of its readers.

The editors said that only one of the counts against

81

McCarthy was justified. It was a shame, they said, that
McCarthy's crusade against Communist was slowed, but it
was really his own fault. Finally, the whole problem of
McCarthy might be attributed to the fact that he was com-
ing under the influence of "extremists." The reader was
left puzzling over what the editors communicated since
they tossed in a dash for everyone.

While the senate considered the fate of Joseph
McCarthy the proceedings dominated the headlines of page
one in the five Wisconsin daily newspapers. He was
formally censured on Thursday, December 2 and the story
carried through the following Monday. But within a few
weeks' time, McCarthy's name vanished from the frong pages.

An era seemingly had ended.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Articles and Periodicals

 

"After the McCarthy Condemnation," Christian Century,
December 15, 195A, 1507.

 

"Calm After Exposure," Time, October 11, 195A, 30-1

"Can the Senate Be Intimidated"? Nation, November 20,
195A. A33.

"Censure of Senator McCarthy," Commonweal, December 31,
195“, 355-58.

 

"Censure Session," United States News and World'Report,
December 31,7195A, 37.

"Concerning the McCarthy Censure Report," Christian Century,
October 29, 195A, 1227.

 

"Daily Newspapers of the United States," Editor and Pub-
lisher Year Book--l955, Thirty-fifth Annual Inter-
national Year Bbok, New York: Editor and Publisher
Co., 1955, 163-6A.

 

Johnson, G. W. "Superficial Aspects: Flanders Resolution
on McCarthy," New Republic, August 30, 195A, 16.

 

 

Rovere, R. H. "Letter from Washington: Investigation of
Senator McCarthy," New Yorker, September 18, 195A,
68.

Smith, B. "Job No Senator Wanted: Select Committee to
Study Censure," Saturday Evening Post, November 13,
195", 26-7 0

Books

Associated Press Managing Editors Association. Blue Book.
New York: Associated Press, 1953.

 

82

83
Associated Press Managing Editors Association. Red Book.
New York: Associated Press, 1953.

Earth, Alan. Government by Investigation. New York:
Viking Press, 1955.

Buckley, William, Jr. and Bozell, Brent L. McCarthy and
His Enemies. Chicago: Henry Regnery Press, 195A.

 

 

Davis, Elmer. But We Were Born Free. Indianapolis: Bobbs-
Merril Co., Inc., 195A.

Gore, Leroy. Joe Must Go. New York: Julian Messner, 195A.

MacDougall, Curtis. Interpretative Reporting. Ath ed.
New York: MacMillan Co., 1963.

. Newsroom Problems and Policies. New York:
Dover Publications, Inc., 1963.

 

Markmann, Charles Lam. The Noblest Cry: A History of the
American Civil Liberties Union. New York: St.
Martin's Press, 1965.

 

McCarthy, Joseph. McCarthyism: The Fight for America. New
York: Devin-Adair Co., 1952.

Potter, Charles E. Da 3 of Shame. New York: Coward-
McCann, Inc., 965.

Rorty, James. McCarthy and the Communists. Boston: Beacon
Press, 1959.

Rovere, Richard H. Senator Joe McCarthy. New York: Har-
court, Brace & Co., 1959.

Siebert, Fred 8., Peterson, Theodore.and Schramm, Wilbur.
Four Theories of the Press. Urbana: University of
Illinois Press, 1956:

 

Straight, Michael. Trial by Television. Boston: Beacon
Press, 195”.

The Commission on Freedom of the Press. A Free‘and
Responsible Press. Chicago: University o?_Chicago
Press, 19A7.

 

Wiggins, James Russell. Freedom or Secrecy. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1956}

8A

Newspapers

Appleton Post-Crescent. November 8-December 5, 195A.

 

Madison Capital Times. November 8-December 5, 195A.

 

Milwaukee Journal. November 8—December 5, 195A.
Milwaukee Sentinel. November 8-December 5, 195A.

New York Times. November 11, 195A, May 3, 1957.

 

Wisconsin State Journal. November 8-December 5, 195A.

Public Documents

U. S. Congressional Record. 82d Cong., lst Sess., 1951,
XVIIIC, Part 5,

83d Cong., 2d Sess., 195A, C, Part 10.
. 83d Cong., 2d Sess., 195A, C, Part 11.
83d Cong., 2d Sess., 195A, C, Part 12.

U. 8. Senate, Hearings Before a Select Committee to Study
Censure Charges. 83d Cong., 2d Sess., 195A.

Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Investigations
of the Senate Committee on Government Operations.
83d Cong., 2d Sess., 195A.

. Report of the Select Committee to Study Censure
Charges. 83d Cong., 2d Sess., 195A.
Unpublished Material
Peterson, Arthur LaVerne. "McCarthyism: Its Ideology and

Foundations." Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Uni-
versity of Minnesota, 1962.

"I1'1111111111111 '5