This has become over the years an all purpose media anecdote. Useful when describing any number of media sins and shortcomings. Including the scourge of fake news. So what are we talking about here . What are media smiths . These are prompt innoceinent stt are often retold, but which under spjute acrutiny show it by exaggerated media myths. In a way theyre cousins to fake news. They are cases of fake news that ma ma disguised for many years. Theyre like the junk food of journalism. Delicious, alluring, but not wholesome or healthy. The junk food of journalism. Some of the features of media myths, these invariably are pithy tales, short and to the point, almost always simplistic. And of course they are mediacentric. They involve around media, media actors, journalists. Theyre easily remembered, easily retold they are almost too good not to be true. These are some of the defining features. They almost always place journalists at the center of the action. At the center of important events, and do so in a decisive way for good or evil. For good or for evil. And this an ecdote that were discussing today, this smith that were deconstructing, is often cite d as evidence that this reporter brought about the spanishamerican war. What are examples of other media smiths, the furnish the war anecdote is hardly the only media smith out there. One of the most tenacious and popular is the notion that woodward and bernstein through their reporteding brought down the corrupt presidency of Richard Nixon in 1974. Another is that Walter Cronkite in an onair assessment of the war in vietnam, declared the United States mill tire be mired in stalemate. An assess many that supposedly swung Public Opinion in the United States against the war. Another example revolved around the famous forecast of the napalm girl. It was taken by an Associated Press photographer. It showed the effects on civilians, particularly young children, of a napalm bombing of their village in south vietnam. The forecast was so powerful and so vivid that it helped to ra hasten an end. And now, the vow to furnish the war with spain. Now is an important anecdote. This is an Important Media myth to address and debunk because if this tale is true. If this is accurate, it suggests and points to powerful effects by the news media. So powerful they could bring about a war that the country otherwise would not have fought nap is the implication here here this vow to furnish the war. The war with spain did take place. It was a brief and decisive conflict, it confirmed the United States as an international power. They defeated spanish forces in the philippines and in the caribbean. The effect of the war was to oust spain, and to leave the United States a colonial power, ruling far away lands like the philippines. The United States became a colonial power after the spanish american war. This was a decisive conflict for the country. This an ek dont about furnish the war with spain intoes up off. Just earlier this month, fox news said William Randolph hearst once famously said you furnish the pictures, ill furnish the war. Cnn recently invoked this tale. And over the years the washington post, politico, and other public cases have used this as if it was true. Famous authors, among though that have also invoked this anecdo anecdote. So before we get into the deconstruction of this media myth, it is important toe understand who is whom here. Who are the actors . Who are the principal players . Who are the individuals who really mattered in this making of a media myth. And well start with William Randolph hearst. He was a newspaper publisher. He came after a successful stint in San Francisco where he ran the examiner. Hearst was the son of a wealthy california minor. A guy that struck it reach in the silver mines out west. He was well to do. Privileged we would say today, and came to new york to run to acquire and run the new york journal. Then a more abound newspaper. And under hearst control, the newspaper took off and it became one of the most popular daily newspapers in history. His plan was to begin or expand his empire. Success in new york signaled success elsewhere for hearst. By the 1930s, he is a big time newspaper baron and media baron. As well as radio stations and interests in Film Production companies. Hearsts start into the big time came at the end of the 19th century in new york. While in new york, he developed what came to be called yellow journalism. Often yellow jourminalism is characterized these days with synonymous with sensational stream of the news. It was far more than sensational treatment of the news, it was a genera characterized by distinctive features including large headlines. Sometimes they would stretch across the front page. Imaginative use of graphics was another characteristic feature of yellow journalism as it was practiced in new york and elsewhere in new york and elsewhere for the late 19th century. Imaginative use of illustrations is another feature of this genera. The newspapers were very dull, very boring, their layouts were very gray. Did not make use of big headlines, did not make use of graphic images or, later, photographs. Yellow journalism was characterized by a tireless, self promotion, indicated by the use of the newspapers name prominently in the newspaper, particularly on the front page. This is a copy of the new york journal from october 1897 in which the newspaper is announcing the successful jail break in havana of a 19yearold political prisoner of cisneros. Its been largely lost in american journalism this day but was a big deal back then because hurst and his new york journal helped to organize the jail break of evangelina cesneros and smuggle her aboard a passenger steamer dressed as a boy, and the steamer arrived in new york city where she was received in a tu tumultuous reception organized by hurst and his newspaper. The case of evangelina cesneros was a bigtime example of the activism of William Hurst and his newspapers. Again, this front page characterizes some of the features, some of the defining features of yellow journalism. Big, bold display, photographs, self promotion. Tendency toward activism. In fact, hurst called his journalism activism. Instead of just reporting the news he said journalism had a duty to step in and take an active role to right the wrongs of society, the journalism of action. Also in the lineup of who is whom is frederick wilmington, wellknown artist of the sculptor, sketch artist. Sometimes did newspaper work, illustrations, but didnt think reproduction quality of newspapers at the time in the 18th century was all that good. Was all that good. Also in the lineup of who was whom around this media myth is Richard Harding davis. Richard harding davis. He is a conceited but wellknown playwright who becomes famous. Soldiers of fortune still in print, you can still get it through amazon. Its sort of a romance novel in which he sort of depicted himself as a central character. Richard harding davis. He was the son of a newspaper editor and his mother was a writer, Rebecca Harding davis was her name. Remington and tavs were assigned by hurst to go to cube camera and they were there to cover the rebellion in cuba against colonial spanish rule. That was their assignment. Hurst, as he would want to do, paid generously for the talent. He paid Richard Harding davis 3,000 for one months work. In 1897 money, that was a lot. Today its worth about 90,000. 90,000 for a months work. Hurst pays generously for topline talent. Also in the lineup of who was whom in this myth, the first to mention this anecdote, creelman, the first to report exchange of telegrams, you furnish the pictures and ill furnish the war. His memoir in 1901, here is a passage from the book titled on the great highway. Its an anecdote he doesnt make a big deal about. He mentions it in passing as a way to pay tribute to, as a way to praise, sing the praises of hearsts activist journalism, hearsts yellow journalism. Creelman writes remington was instructed to remain in cuba until the war began, but after a short while, he sent hearst a cable saying everything is quiet. There is no trouble here. There will be no war. I wish to return. In reply, according to creelman, in a telegram he says please remain. You furnish the pictures, ill furnish the war. Creelman offers no notations for this anecdote. His book has no footnotes, no citations. He does not explain then nor after that how he learned about this purported exchange between hearst and remington. This is important because at the time creelman had a reputation of being unreliable journalist. He witnessed a massacre by japanese forces, he said, a situation that was later investigated by the u. S. State department and found to be a gross exaggeration. During the spanishamerican war, toward the end of the war, creelman claimed he led a climatic charge of u. S. Forces, that he was at the head of the charge of u. S. Forces against the spanish position near santiago to cuba, the second largest city in cuba. This was a climactic charge and claimed he led the way, emblematic of his tendency to exaggerate. His embrace of hyperbole. He was pompous, this guy. Heads of state, european royalty, he would interview. Often in these writeups of interviews they were not q and a but a long, lengthy account of the interview in which creelman would talk more about himself than about the subjects of his interview. When this exchange would have taken place, creelman is not with remington. He is not with hearst in new york city. Creelman is in spain, in madrid on assignment for the new york journal. That tells us that he could not have learned about this exchange of telegrams firsthand, that he only knew of it secondhand or he made it up, that he exaggerated this account. And it really is ironic that one of american journalisms bestknown anecdotes, one of journalisms most repeated tales is based on and owes its existence to the unsubstantiated ruminations of an unreliable journalist, james creelman. As i say, at this exchange between hearst and remington took place, it would have taken place in january of 1897, which was the only time that remington was on cuba before the spanishamerican war, which began in april 1898. At the time that remington and Richard Harding davis went to cuba, there was an islandwide rebellion going on against Spanish Colonial rule. This was an arms struggle that had begun in 1895. By the time they got there, it was two years old. It was two years old. This rebellion was the precursor to the spanishamerican war of 1898. A conflict that had had been raging since 1895. And that rebellion, the one that began in 1895 was the latest in a succession of uprise iings by cu cubans against Spanish Colonial rule. Spanish response was vigorous and expensive. Spain sent 200,000 troops to the island to try to quell this rebellion. All telegraphic traffic to and from cuba and it also instituted what turned out to be a very cruel policy, reconcentration. Reconcentration. Reconcentration led to a humanitarian disaster on cuba by 1897 and early 1898. Reconcentration was an attempt by the spanish authorities to deprive the cuban rebels of support from the countryside, of support from the cuban population. Under reconcentration, old men, women and children were herded by the spanish into fortified centers on cuba to deprive them of support, to keep them from supporting the cuban rebels. In these garrison towns, they suffered immensely. Suffered immensely. Starvation, disease ran rampant. Thousands of cuban noncombatants died because of this policy. And by 1898, early 1898 cuba was the scene of a fullblown humanitarian disaster. So it was against this backdrop, war in cuba, that davis and remington together arrive in havana and proceed immediately to try to get the lay of the land. One of their first meetings was with the butcher, the butcher. Who, you may ask, was the butcher . He was general wiler, the spanish commander, military commander on cuba at the time. He was the one who instituted and enforced the policy of reconcentration, of removing cuban noncombatants to garrison towns where they suffered immensely. General wiler was known in the u. S. Media, u. S. Newspapers as the butcher, as the butcher. Butcher wiler. The original plan of davis and remington was to cross spanish lines and to hook up with the cuban insurgents, the cuban rebels. That was the objective, the prime objective of their assignment to cuba, to cross spanish lines, meet up with the cuban insurgents. Its the plan that fell through, a plan that had no hope of going anywhere. So they traveled around a bit in northern cuba from havana and after six days, they split ways. They part ways. Remington is a big guy. He suffers in the tropics. He didnt have a good time there. Davis is a tough guy to work with anyway. He doesnt like working in pairs, as he says. They split ways, they part ways after six days on the island. Davis remains. Remington makes arrangements to return home, go back to the states. Go back to new york on board the passenger steamer the seneca. And upon his return home, the journal begins prominent, prominent publication of remingtons sketches. Remingtons sketches of the cuban conflict. And they praise these sketches and headlines, saying they are the work of a gifted artist, frederick remington. So before debunking, before getting into the details of the debunking of this anecdote, of this media myth, lets recap real quickly. Theres a rebellion going on in cuba. Remington is there just six days. The first account of the exchange between supposed exchange between hearst and remington comes more than four years later in 1901. In creelmans book, which contains no documentation of how he learned about it, the source of this purported exchange. And creelman is the lone person to come up with this originally. This tale, you furnish the pictures and ill furnish the war, lives on despite a nearly complete absence of supporting documentation, as is mentioned in our core text this semester. A nearly complete absence of supporting documentation. So to the debunking. Hearst denied that there was ever such an exchange, that he sent such a message to remington. Remington himself apparently never spoke publicly about this. And the telegrams themselves, the artifacts that are central to this whole story have never turned up. The artifacts have never turned up. But there are other factors. Another factor is that its il logical. This whole tale is il logical on its face because why would hearst send remington and davis why would he have sent a telegram to remington vowing to furnish the war if war, the rebellion of cuba, was the very reason he sent them, remington and davis, to cuba in the first place . Its il logical. Given the context of whats going on in cuba at the time, hearsts vow to furnish the war makes no sense. Its il logical. Its illogical. Also this tale does not account for the censors. One of the reactions of spain was to impose rigid censorship. They are controlling all incoming and outgoing telegraphic traffic. Why would spanish censors have let such an incendiary message flow freely between hearst and remington . Theres no logic to this either. The censors certainly would have intercepted this message, had it been sent. They would have intercepted it and called attention to it, as an example of yankee meddling in spanishcuban affairs. They certainly would have done this. They certainly would have not allowed this message from hearst to remington to flow frely as creelmans account implies. Nor does this tale account for William Randolph hearst and his likely reaction. Hes a young, wealthy newspaper publisher. According to creelman, hearsts message to remington was please remain. You furnish the pictures and ill furnish the war. But remington does not remain in cuba. He returns after six days and hearsts newspaper gives remingtons sketches bigtime treatment, prominent display. Prominent display in hearsts new york journal. It seems unlikely that hearst would have tolerated this kind of insubordination, that he would have tolerated, that he would have put up with what was a clear disregard of his instructions to remain in cuba. The tale is also contradicted by the writings of davis and remington. In the weeks and months afterwards describe scenes of violence and upheaval on cuba. Dafbs, in one of his letters home, states quite clearly, there is war here. Make no mistake. There is war here. And remember according to creelman, remingtons telegram to hearst said everything is quiet in cuba, but his own c contempora contemporarioco contemporaneous work. He was very close with his mother, kept in touch with his family by mail very often. His letters are kept in an archive at the university of virginia charlottesville. His letters to his family about this time offer no support for creelmans account about why remington left. That everything was quiet. None of davis letters home suggested that remington wanted to leave on the pretext that everything was quiet in cuba. He gave somewhat related versions, three somewhat related versions as to why remington went home. One of those versions was that remington had obtained all the material he needed for his sketches and decided to go. That was contained, that message, the first bullet point, that message was contained in a letter that davis wrote and remington carried with him back to the states. Remington presumably would have had an opportunity to read the letter. Another version, related version that davis wrote was that remington went home at davis request, that he didnt like working in pairs, that remington was holding him up all the time. He describes remington as a big, blundering bear. Asked him to go. Said he was happy that remington did leave. A third and somewhat related version that davis included in his letters to his family was that remington got scared. He became frightened by the prospect of having to cross spanish Military Lines into cubanheld territory and backed out. And backed out. The second and third versions, if you will, were contained in private letters that davis sent to his family. In any case, these letters offer powerful and contemporaneous challenges to creelmans account that everything is quiet and that remington went back home because there would be no war. Of these elements in the debunking, which do you find most persuasive . Most persuasive and why . That hearst denied having sent this message and remington never spoke about it apparently, that the telegrams themselves, the artifacts, have never surfaced . That had they been sent, spanish censors would have intercepted and called attention to this case of clear yankee meddling. The reality that a message claimi claiming a vow to furnish the war would have been illogical that a war was going on. A war is the very reason hearst is sending davis and remington to cuba. Or the element of the debunking that rests in davis letters. Davis letters contradict the reasons creelman gave for remingtons departure. Of those elements, which do you find most persuasive . And why . G go. What you said earlier that hearst would have been upset had remington not listened to him, and i think hearst is known for being kind of a volatile guy and he wouldnt have celebrated his artistry if he had contradicted him and came back. Very good point. What do you think of the argument, though, that hearst kind of swallowed that because he had images from wartime cuba that no other newspaper had . So, therefore, he was going to run it prominently, even if remington had been insubordinate. I think there would have been other ways that we found out that he was angry besides just the pictures. So like he could have posted the pictures and also said something sly about remington. Very good, yeah. Reprimanded him in some other ways but using the photographs or the images, the sketches really from cuba. Good point. Other arguments that you find to be particularly persuasive in this lineup or some of the other points that were mentioned . Go ahead. So i think the letter would probably be the most persuasive just because the rest of those reasons listed, you can kind of mess around with and find a counterargument to. Maybe the telegrams were destroyed, thats why they didnt surface. But these letters are kept and preserved and why would he be writing letters of lies to his family . Right. How would he have known about this anecdote . Because it didnt come sort of popular or hit the Public Domain until 1901. So these are contemporaneous letters or evidence. Good point, alyssa. Of the debunking, of the elements weve discussed here, what other evidence . Emily . Its so interesting. I would agree that thats probably the strongest evidence. Commonplace today and interesting how the roots are background of how these things came from are often, i guess, not even there. Very good. It is intriguing. It really is intriguing how this tale took hold, how this myth became a media myth. And its also intriguing that the anecdote about furnish the war stirred almost no attention, received almost no public attenti attention. A few references to it in newspaper reviews but by and large, it generates no comment. There was a brief flurry of commentary when creelman published a Magazine Article that included this in 1906 and a british publication picked on it saying, geez, in the United States theyre going crazy. And repeated the anecdote then. Thats when hearst denied it, called it frankly false and nonsense. And then the anecdote goes dormant for 30 years. And is resurrected in 1936. What might have happened in 1936 . Any wild guesses . Lizzie . Thats kind of the more power and thats when the beginnings of world war ii starts up, fdr is president so theres a lot of social and political change, economic change going on at the time so just in general a very kind of troubled, turbulent and political social climate. Well said. Troubled, turbulent time. Still in the throes of the great depression, economic downturn had begun six, seven years earlier. Its a president ial Election Year in 1936. Franklin roosevelt is running for reelection, second term. And hearst, a lifelong democrat, as was Franklin Roosevelt in fact, hearst wanted to be president. He was using his platform, his Media Holdings in the early 20th century to become a viable candidate for president. He sought the democratic nomination very openly in 1904, lost. Didnt stand as the democrat standard bearer that year but nonetheless was emblematic of his ambitions to become president. A lifelong democrat. He breaks with Franklin Roosevelt in 1936, over roosevelts new deal policies to restimulate the american economy, to get the country back on its feet after the depression. Hearst breaks with roosevelt, supports a republican named alf landon, the governor of kansas, for the presidency, and this was an ugly break, an ugly break. Hearsts newspapers, in effect, call roosevelt an agent of moscow because of his policies, because of his new deal. Roosevelts supporters punish hearst. Loosely based on the times and life of William Randolph hearst. Anecdote was sealed by a movie. That film, any guesses . Kobe . Citizen kane. Citizen kane. That movie, starred and directed by a 26yearold prodigy names orson wells who played the hearstlike character, Charles Foster kane. Charles faster kane. Clearly was a hearstian character. This movie was no documentary. It wasnt intended to be, but is recognized as among the best Motion Pictures ever made. The American Film Institute occasionally has polls or surveys that place citizen kane at or near the top of the best Motion Pictures of all time. And kane, citizen kane included an early scene in which Charles Foster kane mimics this exchange of telegrams. Its clearly its clearly based on you furnish the pictures and ill furnish the war. And if technology doesnt fail us, lets take a look at that cli clip. Is that clearly your idea of how to run a newspaper . I dont know how to run a newspaper. I just trying of i think of. You know perfectly, theres no slightest proof of this. Hello, mr. Bernstein. Excuse me. This just in. I would like you to meet mr. Thatcher. Ill just mr. Thatcher, my exguardian. We have no secrets from our readers, mr. Bernstein. Mr. Thatcher is one of our most devoted readers. Read the cable. Girls delightful in cuba. Stop. Could send you pros pose about scenery but dont feel like spending your money. Stop. There is no war in cuba. Stop. You provide the prose pose. Ill provide the war. This scene clearly inspired by you furnish the pictures and ill furnish the war. What are we to conclude about this tale, this anecdote, this purported vow to furnish issuth war . It is entirely without documentation. This is an anecdote that lives on, but it deserves relegation to the fake news museum of historical inaccuracy. Under scrutiny, this tale of hubris and immediate power dissolves, which is the fate of most media myths when theyre scrutinized, when theyre looked at in detail and in context with other sources of information examined. And as this tale of furnish the war dissolves, with it goes evidence that yellow journalism brought about the war with spain, that yellow journalism fomented the spanishamerican war. That war was not caused by newspapers. It was not caused by William Randolph hearst. It was not brought about by yellow journalism. This conflict was the result, as conflicts tend to be, of an impasse between the United States and spain, about spains harsh colonial rule of cuba 90 miles from the u. S. Mainland. And in particular, spains inability to put down this insurrection, this rebellion that had given rise to spanish policies that had created humanitarian disaster in cuba. The humanitarian disaster that resulted from spains reconcentration policy. The yellow press of William Randolph hearst did not cause those policy differences between United States and spain. The new york journal did not create the humanitarian crisis of reconcentration. Spain did. So why does this matter . Why does it matter now, 120plus years later, to debunk this media myth . Why not just let it live on, as an amusing tale of hubris . Why does it matter . Thoughts . Comments . Observations as to why it matters to debunk this tale . Well, if the quote you furnish the pictures and ill furnish the war is true, it would seem to be emblematic of news media in general and the fact that it sort of took place while the American News media was still forming an identity seems pretty important, i guess. So, we need to debunk it. Good point. I would agree. I would take your point a little further and say that this demonstrates, this anecdote embraces a sense of ominous power by the news media, that under the right conditions, they can bring about a war the country would otherwise not engage in, that they can act so disreputably to whip up sentiment to plunge the country into a war as hearst supposedly did with the spanishamerican war in 1898. That is the reason why it is important to debunk this tale. It is used in exhibit a in the lineup of evidence, thin evidence that hearst brought about the war with spain. I would argue that the notion that the media have this kind of power to plunge the country into war is nonsense, is nonsense. Ill leave you with three straightforward reasons why it also matters. Understanding media power and media influence, that matters. Debunking this tale gives us a better understanding of how media operate or how they do not operate. Secondly, setting straight the historical record matters. If we are to have a coherent understanding of ourselves and our past, that record, the historical record, ought to be accurate, ought to be truthful, ought not to be plagued by media myths. And for that reason i would argue media myths and the debunking thereof matter quite a lot. Folks, thats it for now. I look forward to seeing you again soon when we take up and debunk additional media journal myths. Thank you very much. Were featuring American History programs this week as a preview of whats available every weekend on cspan 3. Tonight from our lectures in history series well do an academic tour of texas. Our Lone Star State night starts with gene allen smith, history professor teaching about George Washingtons character. He examines how the first president interacted with his contemporaries. American history tv tonight starting at 8 00 eastern on cspan 3. American history tv on cspan 3 looks back at the influenza pandemics of 1918 and 1957. Stoneybrook University Professor nancy toms compares the 1918 influenza pandemic to whats happening today. When they tell us not to shake hands or to, you know, sneeze into your elbow, thats a social distancing method. Exactly the same stuff they were telling americans to do at the turn of the last century. Why is this important . Because even though we have made astounding improvements in the health sciences, we still cannot cure a virus. And sunday at 4 00 on real america, the 1957 film the silent invader, about a new influenza virus that emerged from asia. Metropolitan pittsburgh with approximately 1 million people, if we had this flu strike here, you would have approximately 200,000 people who would become ill in a four to sixweek period. This weekend on American History tv on cspan3. American history tv products are now available at the new cspan online store. Go to cspanstore. Org to see whats new for American History tv and check out all of the cspan products. And now a lecture from American University about malcolm xs views on africa. He argues that in the 1960s, africa had been associated with a lack of civilization. And that malcolm x advocated for africanamericans to have a more positive view of africa in order to combat racism and develop better selfesteem