Theodore H. White and Journalism As Illusion

Rating:
Summary: Basically good, but some terms need better definition
Review: "Theodore H. White and Journalism as Illusion" is a fascinating in-depth study of the life and times of Theodore H. White. Using the vast resources of the T. H. White archives at Harvard University, Joyce Hoffmann sets up White as the prime example of what she feels was wrong with journalism in the early Cold War era. She alternately uses the phrases "journalism of illusion" and "insider journalism" to describe White's writings. "Journalism of illusion" refers to the writings of those who, like White, were American patriots first and journalists second.

The best examples Hoffmann has of White as a "journalist of illusion" come from the early part of White's career when he was in China, writing about Chiang Kai-shek for Time magazine. White would routinely downplay his observations of Chiang's corruption and brutality, believing it was more important to portray Chiang as a hero, lest America's support for China should wane and China would fall to the Japanese or the communists. It was only after repeated exposure to the Chiang regime's brutality that White's illusions about Chiang began to change. By that time, however, the heroic image he and other journalists had created had already taken hold in America, and White found himself under extreme pressure to follow the line. Editors at Time censored his work, feeling that the change in White's opinion was due to his encounters with the Chinese communists. "Journalism of illusion" meant being an American patriot first, and telling the truth second. It also meant following the teachings of Time's Henry Luce, who believed in "enlightened journalism", and told White to report events not as they were, but as they should be. Hoffmann's critique of White as an "insider journalist" comes from various periods of White's life, but the best examples are from his time in France, and from the Kennedy years. White was a journalist who loved associating with those in power, which Hoffmann associates to White's upbringing in Boston's poor Jewish ghetto. Never surrounded by prosperity as a child, White seemed to gravitate toward the prosperous as an adult. Hoffmann believes that White's admiration for the rich and powerful, and his desire to be one, seriously colored his writings. White repeated engaged in journalistic practices that would be considered inappropriate by today's standards of integrity. In France, for example, White was commissioned to write a profile of diplomat David Bruce. When White was finished, he showed a copy of the write-up to Bruce, presumably for fact-checking purposes, but also to make sure that nothing White wrote would be considered insulting to Bruce or his wife. White would follow the same practice in his write-ups of the Kennedy administration. Most famously, he showed Bobby Kennedy copies of "Making of the President -- 1960" before its publication in order to get Kennedy's feedback. As an insider journalist, White loved having the ear of those in power, and being part of the decision-making process. He was careful that none of his writings insulted those he admired.

Hoffmann's book is a valuable resource for what it unveils about White's life. The examples of correspondence with administration figures, such as Robert F. Kennedy, illustrate how deeply White was allowed into the corridors of power. Several flaws, however, mar this book. One, for example, is that the reader is never quite sure why White was chosen to be the exemplar of "journalism of illusion" and "insider journalism." Hoffmann provides examples of many journalists of the time who engaged in myth making about the Kennedys. Walter Lippmann, for example, comes across as a virtual spokesman for the administration. Hoffmann also describes journalists who knew about the U-2 flights, or the activity in Vietnam, and decided to help the government cover-up these stories because of patriotism. Any number of them could have been chosen as examples of "journalism of illusion" or "insider journalism." Also, in China, why White was chosen to represent journalists making myths for Chiang is never elaborated. This is questionable, because White eventually repudiated Chiang while other journalists were still writing favorable pieces.

I must echo the reviewer in the journal "Reviews in American History" who was troubled by Hoffmann's seeming lack of definitions for journalistic "truth" and "integrity." Hoffmann was obviously troubled by the style of journalism exemplified by White, but she never gives her own impressions of what journalism is or should be. If her contention is that modern journalism has finally latched on to the absolute truth, then I must disagree with the entire premise of this book. Certainly "insider journalists" and "journalists of illusion" exist today as they did back then. That is probably not her contention. We, however, are left to speculate on Hoffmann's views of the "truth" and modern journalism, because they are simply not there. This is highly unfortunate.

Hoffmann's faults, however large, cannot totally discredit this book. It is an interesting look at one of America's most influential journalists. Her use of the White archives is exemplary. Her devotion to journalistic fact and fiction, or rather "truth" and "illusion," is unfortunately dubious. Camelot cannot be read as totally "truth" or "illusion." It had elements of both. Theodore H. White, consequently, may be forgiven of some of the charges Hoffmann levels against him. His work, while not completely true, is not the total mythical illusion that Hoffmann believes it to be.

Rating:
Summary: Basically good, but some terms need better definition
Review: "Theodore H. White and Journalism as Illusion" is a fascinating in-depth study of the life and times of Theodore H. White. Using the vast resources of the T. H. White archives at Harvard University, Joyce Hoffmann sets up White as the prime example of what she feels was wrong with journalism in the early Cold War era. She alternately uses the phrases "journalism of illusion" and "insider journalism" to describe White's writings. "Journalism of illusion" refers to the writings of those who, like White, were American patriots first and journalists second.

The best examples Hoffmann has of White as a "journalist of illusion" come from the early part of White's career when he was in China, writing about Chiang Kai-shek for Time magazine. White would routinely downplay his observations of Chiang's corruption and brutality, believing it was more important to portray Chiang as a hero, lest America's support for China should wane and China would fall to the Japanese or the communists. It was only after repeated exposure to the Chiang regime's brutality that White's illusions about Chiang began to change. By that time, however, the heroic image he and other journalists had created had already taken hold in America, and White found himself under extreme pressure to follow the line. Editors at Time censored his work, feeling that the change in White's opinion was due to his encounters with the Chinese communists. "Journalism of illusion" meant being an American patriot first, and telling the truth second. It also meant following the teachings of Time's Henry Luce, who believed in "enlightened journalism", and told White to report events not as they were, but as they should be. Hoffmann's critique of White as an "insider journalist" comes from various periods of White's life, but the best examples are from his time in France, and from the Kennedy years. White was a journalist who loved associating with those in power, which Hoffmann associates to White's upbringing in Boston's poor Jewish ghetto. Never surrounded by prosperity as a child, White seemed to gravitate toward the prosperous as an adult. Hoffmann believes that White's admiration for the rich and powerful, and his desire to be one, seriously colored his writings. White repeated engaged in journalistic practices that would be considered inappropriate by today's standards of integrity. In France, for example, White was commissioned to write a profile of diplomat David Bruce. When White was finished, he showed a copy of the write-up to Bruce, presumably for fact-checking purposes, but also to make sure that nothing White wrote would be considered insulting to Bruce or his wife. White would follow the same practice in his write-ups of the Kennedy administration. Most famously, he showed Bobby Kennedy copies of "Making of the President -- 1960" before its publication in order to get Kennedy's feedback. As an insider journalist, White loved having the ear of those in power, and being part of the decision-making process. He was careful that none of his writings insulted those he admired.

Hoffmann's book is a valuable resource for what it unveils about White's life. The examples of correspondence with administration figures, such as Robert F. Kennedy, illustrate how deeply White was allowed into the corridors of power. Several flaws, however, mar this book. One, for example, is that the reader is never quite sure why White was chosen to be the exemplar of "journalism of illusion" and "insider journalism." Hoffmann provides examples of many journalists of the time who engaged in myth making about the Kennedys. Walter Lippmann, for example, comes across as a virtual spokesman for the administration. Hoffmann also describes journalists who knew about the U-2 flights, or the activity in Vietnam, and decided to help the government cover-up these stories because of patriotism. Any number of them could have been chosen as examples of "journalism of illusion" or "insider journalism." Also, in China, why White was chosen to represent journalists making myths for Chiang is never elaborated. This is questionable, because White eventually repudiated Chiang while other journalists were still writing favorable pieces.

I must echo the reviewer in the journal "Reviews in American History" who was troubled by Hoffmann's seeming lack of definitions for journalistic "truth" and "integrity." Hoffmann was obviously troubled by the style of journalism exemplified by White, but she never gives her own impressions of what journalism is or should be. If her contention is that modern journalism has finally latched on to the absolute truth, then I must disagree with the entire premise of this book. Certainly "insider journalists" and "journalists of illusion" exist today as they did back then. That is probably not her contention. We, however, are left to speculate on Hoffmann's views of the "truth" and modern journalism, because they are simply not there. This is highly unfortunate.

Hoffmann's faults, however large, cannot totally discredit this book. It is an interesting look at one of America's most influential journalists. Her use of the White archives is exemplary. Her devotion to journalistic fact and fiction, or rather "truth" and "illusion," is unfortunately dubious. Camelot cannot be read as totally "truth" or "illusion." It had elements of both. Theodore H. White, consequently, may be forgiven of some of the charges Hoffmann levels against him. His work, while not completely true, is not the total mythical illusion that Hoffmann believes it to be.